The fine tuning of the universe.

[KCfromNC]

What?

Which part don't you understand:

- What an order of magnitude is?
- What a consensus is?
- Why having numbers that differ by 100 orders of magnitude doesn't give much evidence that there is a consensus?

 

[KCfromNC]

1. The book was not linked
2. The math was not presented in your post or the link

But someone wrote a number in a paper and it agrees with my preconceptions. Obviously it is correct, even though it is wildly different than another number from a video which also agrees with my preconceptions and is therefore correct.

3. Does he do the one universe at a time thing with quantum fluctuations producing a new big bang on very large timescales, or is he one of the black holes are new universes ones? Either way, if you have infinite universes, any odds, no matter how small, are assured to occur.

From the paper linked above :

The fourth explanation is Smolin’s own. He suggests that when a black hole shrinks towards a singularity it becomes like the supposed singularity out of which the Big Bang grew, so that every time a black hole forms a new Big Bang universe is born, in a space-time distinct from our own.

The paper references Smolin, Lee, The Life of the Cosmos, p.45, Oxford University Press, 1997 as the source of this claim.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Correlation must also include causation. What is the causation and evidence for supporting it?

The causation is God and the evidence is fine tuning.

 

[RickG]

The causation is God and the evidence is fine tuning.

Claiming causation does not surfice. One must demonstrate the causation with data.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As I said: that´s the question you would have to answer in order for your argument to even have a leg to stand on. If you don´t have reliable and workable criteria for the distinction "designed by God" vs "not designed by God" you, well, can´t make that distinction.

Lets look at the fine tuning aspect in regard to design. The fine tuning of the universe when studied looks as if there were a great multitude of possibilities to where certain values could be set. The values are "set" precisely to where they need to be for intelligent life to exist and for our universe itself to exist. So we have something that has many competing possibilities and out of those the ones required for life as we know it were the ones that were "set". Now if these were highly probable to occur due to some physical law it could have happened due to this law. Physicists now agree that this is not looking hopeful. It could be possible but then we would have to move the fine tuning to the physical law itself. Chance has been ruled out as a possibility due to the relatively low probability of all the values necessary for the universe and life to exist. We see the fine tuning as being "set" in a precise way which then permits complex life to exist; in design we observe that choice between competing possibilities which are unlikely to occur by chance and are sufficiently complex as to assure a certain purpose or outcome. That is how we observe human design and what we look for when determining whether artifacts are intelligently designed or products of chance or environmental pressures. So choice and complexity and purpose/outcome and a low probability of occurring can be used to detect design and that design is more likely to be designed than to have happened by chance or law.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Claiming causation does not surfice. One must demonstrate the causation with data.

What causes gravity?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which part don't you understand:

- What an order of magnitude is?
- What a consensus is?
- Why having numbers that differ by 100 orders of magnitude doesn't give much evidence that there is a consensus?

You are not stating what numbers are differing by 100 order of magnitude and what consensus you are referring to.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Did you read this book?

Yes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

1. The book was not linked
2. The math was not presented in your post or the link
3. Does he do the one universe at a time thing with quantum fluctuations producing a new big bang on very large timescales, or is he one of the black holes are new universes ones? Either way, if you have infinite universes, any odds, no matter how small, are assured to occur.

1. The Book was cited. The Life of the Cosmos by Lee Smolin
2. No, it is in the index of the book if you wish to have it. It was written in 1997 I believe so if the math was incorrect it would have been shown to be by peer review.
3. He believes in summery a evolving cosmos.

 

[RickG]

What causes gravity?

There is a direct relationship to mass.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There is a direct relationship to mass.

Ok what causes it?

 

[RickG]

Ok what causes it?

An uneven distribution of mass/energy, as described as described by Einstein's general theory of relativity.

 

[quatona]

Lets look at the fine tuning aspect in regard to design. The fine tuning of the universe when studied looks as if there were a great multitude of possibilities to where certain values could be set. The values are "set" precisely to where they need to be for intelligent life to exist and for our universe itself to exist. So we have something that has many competing possibilities and out of those the ones required for life as we know it were the ones that were "set".

Your misconception about looking at an occurence with a low probability and being able to conclude design and/or intention has sufficiently been dealt with. We needn´t go round and round in circles.
Unless you presuppose the result to be intended, there´s nothing about a low chance result pointing to intention. Countless examples have been given.

Also, it has been pointed out that the mere fact that we can imagine different values doesn´t mean they actually were possible.

 

[quatona]

Ok what causes it?

God - do I win a steak knife set?

 

[RickG]

God - do I win a steak knife set?

Yes, and a will also receive a second set absolutely free. Just pay separate shipping and handling.

 

[Oncedeceived]

An uneven distribution of mass/energy, as described as described by Einstein's general theory of relativity.

That is not the "cause" of gravity. What is the cause?

 

[Oncedeceived]

God - do I win a steak knife set?

Well that's fun but of course it is only fun and does nothing to explain the cause of gravity.

 

[RickG]

Well that's fun but of course it is only fun and does nothing to explain the cause of gravity.

Enough obfuscation, you are meandering down the wrong path. What is the causation to your claim? Correlation must have causation? You must demonstrate that the two are connected through physical evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Enough obfuscation, you are meandering down the wrong path. What is the causation to your claim? Correlation must have causation? You must demonstrate that the two are connected through physical evidence.

What causation do we correlate with gravity?

 

[RickG]

What causation do we correlate with gravity?

Post #2232, not stop obfuscating. What physical causation do you have to show correlating with your claim?