Fine tuning, a new approach

[lesliedellow]

Right, whether or not someone is there to observe it.

So what were you getting at with "The Laws of Physics are products of the mind"?

The laws of physics operate just fine regardless of whether we know about them or not.

He probably means that the things we describe as laws of nature are rules which we have devised for making predictions about the physical world. That the physical world is predictable obviously implies underlying regularities in nature, but the nature of those underlying regularities is strictly unknowable, and the rules which we devise for doing calculations, being nothing more than products of our minds, are at best an approximation to them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then why did you claim they were for two different things? Were you not being straightforward then or now?

They are how fine tuning is determined.

 

[KCfromNC]

Which is simply inaccurate. There is no need for something bigger than a Supreme Being

Of course. I did mention the IPU as the obvious source of your god's fine tuning, after all.

 

[KCfromNC]

They are how fine tuning is determined.

Which is great and all, but I never asked how fine tuning was determined. So we're back to you having no answer at all for what I was actually asking about.

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't know what you are getting at. Gravity is part of the Laws of Physics. It is how something behaves in the universe.

I'm sensing some confusion between how things behave and how we describe their behavior.

 

[KCfromNC]

God wasn't created at all.

If you had a way to demonstrate this, you wouldn't need the fine tuning argument to prove that it exists in the first place.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which is great and all, but I never asked how fine tuning was determined. So we're back to you having no answer at all for what I was actually asking about.

Yes you did.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you had a way to demonstrate this, you wouldn't need the fine tuning argument to prove that it exists in the first place.

The point is that this is evidence that supports an Intelligent Designer.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm sensing some confusion between how things behave and how we describe their behavior.

You are? What confusion are you sensing?

 

[[serious]]

Yes, exactly. They exist whether we are here or not, but being here we discover them with our minds. We can't "see" gravity. We observe what gravity does, we can't "see" the speed of light but can discover it not by sight but by the mind.

So is a point relevant to the op coming up?

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes you did.

Great that you agree that the question I was asking was different from the one you answered when you responded to my question. Are you going to try and fix that mistake or are you OK appearing evasive?

 

[KCfromNC]

The point is that this is evidence that supports an Intelligent Designer.

Woah - back up. When did you establish that this fine tuner had to be intelligent. We all know the IPU created the fine tuner to be an unintelligent natural process.

 

[KCfromNC]

You are? What confusion are you sensing?

The one I mentioned in the post you responded to. Do you need me to repeat it?