A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

RichardParker said:

Really?
Fascinating! They allow for life... wherever possible...
You're right, this can only point to a fine-tuner! Without a fine-tuner, we couldn't possibly end up with a universe, where life could form anywhere and whenever possible!

Because without a fine-tuner, we would end up with a universe, where life would form, wherever it is NOT possible... or where it wouldn't form even if it was possible, right?

Look, you are literally talking about a fine-tuner, who had to set-up a huge system, with billions of stars, and steps, and destruction, a system where literally everything but a tiny percentage is empty space... to eventually end up with a small rock, on which surface life can grow. This is inneficiant! That's not an opinion, that's pretty much the defnition of that word!

ESPECIALLY if you are talking about the guy who has created the entire system! He had NO restrictions to beginn with, and yet he ended up with a "factory" that is...
I really can't describe how completly bad this design is!
Look, even IF there is a designer or tuner behind the universe, the idea that the universe is tuned for us or for life makes no sense! At BEST you can say that the universe is "fine tuned" to be the way that it is... which includes life... among many, many, many other things!
And as I've said: That's not spectacular. That's extremly, extremly ordinary! Especially when you consider that we don't even know if the universe COULD even be any other way or not.

Click to expand...

Has anyone told you lately that you are greatly appreciated?

As I explained the "fine tuning" that allows for not only atomic stability but life everywhere in the universe, is not limited to this rock. The environment that allows for the plasmic condensation of DNA structure from stellar dust as shone here: Copacetic Funky Plasma Crystal Study | Anacephalaeosis is not found "on this rock". Is found where ever plasma is present apart from planetary and stellar gravitational wells. Which is 99.9999999etc% of space.

And I have shone previously, the cosmological constant, the penultimate example of fine tuning, is a result of pure geometry resulting from the quantization of a real substantial Infinite. The universes arise as a specific, supra-symmetric wave from of a real infinite; a borderless ocean of quark matter.

Whether we think it is the result of a conscious act of this infinitely super-conductive unified state (God) or a naturally occurring wave from expression of a self existent infinite particle (mechanistic random breaking of symmetry is moot. Either way results in the same structure.

The reason why is because the creation of the universe is not a male, externally produced, big banged, thought up and forced into being by super smart scientist Man/God with his giant sausage fingers production. It is a female, internally produced, contracted, biologically generated and gestated, holographic gestation of an infinite (borderless) living Being.

The finite universe is contained by the Infinite Original Substance. The Infinite is both the patterner (Father aspect) and material container (Mother aspect) of the wave-form void space universe, which exists like a womb full of seed.

The entire "big bang" externally produced universe an incorrect perspective. Take the common example of cosmic inflation: The Balloon. The big bang assumes the increase of pressure from the inside, the great contraction works on the reduction of pressure on the outside. Either way results in the same inflationary motion of the balloon surface. How would observers bound to the surface tell the difference? Perhaps by the model that is more simple, elegant and comprehensive in predicting universal structure and phenomenon?

Aside from that, what else do you have other than an emotional attachment to and inertia of belief in previously held concepts?

davidbilby said:

Uh...ok. Firstly, I've been called many things but few would call me a non-scientist unless your definition of scientist is bizarre.

There's a complicated answer and a non-complicated answer here, but if you didn't get what that paper says then you don't have the mechanisms to understand the physics involved...no offense intended...but the non-complicated answer is this...

Fine-tuning is a statistical property, that of a very low statistical likelihood or a high statistical likelihood of other options by virtue of their being a great number of other options, or by virtue of weighting towards other options. Your claim (well, it's not your claim, really, you're just borrowing it) of fine-tuning as regards the cosmological constant, rests solely on the validity of the probability calculation used, which is highly debatable - to say the least - and makes some very big assumptions.

Not to mention, using it as an argument for an intelligent deity is pretty silly, because it's abundantly clear that a slightly negative value, as opposed to a slightly positive non-zero value for the constant, would have been considerably more advantageous to life, and for that you can read Don Page's excellent and very entertaining paper which summarizes it better than anybody else has...

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.2444v2.pdf

Click to expand...

Excellent article! Found these interesting remarks:

"The second idea, unique determination by simple principles of physics, could in principle attain strong evidence for it if such principles were found and were convincingly shown to lead to the observed constants of physics."

"However, if a simple theory were developed that gives good statistical

explanations for what we do observe and that also predicts a multiverse that we cannot directly observe, such a theory could become highly convincing (analogous to the prediction by general relativity of very high curvature in black-hole interior regions that cannot be directly observed)."


I would say my multiverse solve for the cosmological constant fits the bill.


....
"Here I am also making the very strong assumption that the cosmological constant can indeed be varied entirely independently of all the other constants of physics that may be responsible for all microphysics, including inflation, flatness, density fluctuations, baryosynthesis, nucleosynthesis, relative particle numbers, particle masses, coupling constants, stellar evolution, chemistry, geophysics, biology, Darwinian evolution by natural selection, life, complex life, intelligence,​

observers, observation, consciousness, etc."

Really? That's an enormous assumption and illogical approach. Like thinking you can independently adjust a single color in a prismatic spread without treating the entire spectrum as a whole. "Fine tuning" makes zero sense considering any single constant alone. They work in concert.

"In conclusion, the fact that the observed cosmological constant is positive may be taken to be a very preliminary inconclusive hint of evidence against a biophilic optimal fine tuning of it to maximize the fraction of baryons that develop into living organisms, since to maximize that fraction, the simplest (but highly uncertain) assumption would be that the fraction of baryons condensing into galaxies would need to be maximized, and for that the cosmological constant would instead need to be slightly negative."

Interesting, so this entire premise that the universe could be more fine tuned for life if the cosmological constant was slightly negative is that there would be more atoms available to make the stellar habitats and bodies of living beings. So if there are more "Legos", there's more chance of them randomly composing conscious living being capable of reproduction.

Basically because it can be shone that in tweaking a single constant, there would be more monkeys on typewriters with greater possibility to compose the works of Shakespeare, therefor fewer monkeys is less optimal.

He did sat it was a strong assumption and a preliminary inconclusive hint.
​

Lord Emsworth said:

Then I am sorry to say, the misunderstanding is solely yours.




Isn't that nice!

Click to expand...

It's even nicer when you can account for a great deal of fine tuning by the pure geometry of quantizing an Infinite aka "God" from particulate existence to waveform expression.

From solid (Fermi liquid) space filling matter to void bubble image.

It's even nicer when it doesn't matter whether the Infinite is Conscious (God) and issued the waveform as an act of reproduction or it simply arose as a result of quantum destabilization. The wave front takes on the exact same shape properties.

Eudaimonist said:

Where omnipotence is involved, this is what strikes me as a fine-tuned universe:

eudaimonia,

Mark

Click to expand...

So you've had a peek outside our local bend of space-time (what astronomers think is the whole physical universe) and witnessed structural fine tuning first hand?

Eudaimonist said:

Shhhhh! It's our little secret.

My point is that to an omnipotent being it should be a trivial matter to create a universe fit for life without all of the waste of our current universe. The view that the ancients had of a flat Earth covered by a sky dome is much more in that line of thinking.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Click to expand...

What is "all of the waste of our current universe"?

RichardParker said:

What emotional attachment?
I have no emotional attachment to any of this.
I just want people to justify their claims... otherwise I don't feel that we have to take them seriously. That's all.

And you still don't make any sense.
All you've shown so far (IF I accepted EVERYTHING you've said... which I don't) is, for the universe to exist the way it does, it has to have the property it currently does.
I mean, that's nice, I guess... tautologies always are... but I don't know what that gets you.

Click to expand...

Then you missed the model proof of the DE constant as a result of the universe being in the middle of a maximum density sphere stack and composed internally of 6 nested super-stings. Which lines up with modern string theory and the standard model of particle physics.

Just by geometric division of space-times I am .3% off the modern revised cosmological constant estimates, arrived at by completely different and much simpler means. If that doesn't make you sit up and take notice, nothing will.

JimFit said:

Arguing with Multiverse is like arguing with unicorns!

Click to expand...

A multiverse of infinite and repeatedly created universes is the natural wave-from expression of a real substantial Infinite (A god that actually exists). It also fully solves for the rapid inflation period then slow plateau of space-time expansion.

Or else you are in the very precarious position of needing the exact amount of mass in one singularity that inflates for some reason and just so happens to almost balance the DE constant with the exactly right amount of mass.


A contractile metaversal solution needs none of these extremely contrived beginning conditions.