The fine tuning of the universe.

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So the furlong is fine tuned? A quart of milk is fine tuned? When Lincoln said 4 score and 20 years ago, that measure was fine tuned?

By that measure, "fine tuning" loses all meaning because it's so broadly applied.
I suppose so. Getting back to Smolin, if you can find a few physicists that criticize Smolin's use of the Planck Mass in calculations I will consider your argument valid.
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟72,846.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I suppose so. Getting back to Smolin, if you can find a few physicists that criticize Smolin's use of the Planck Mass in calculations I will consider your argument valid.
Soo... your plan is to just ignore the specific criticism of those methods rather than trying to defend them. Gotcha.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,643
15,977
✟486,822.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So the furlong is fine tuned? A quart of milk is fine tuned? When Lincoln said 4 score and 20 years ago, that measure was fine tuned?

By that measure, "fine tuning" loses all meaning because it's so broadly applied.

Same problem with intelligent design. If you think that god designed everything, then design means nothing. That random pile of garbage over there - designed and/or fine tuned somehow. Some dust on the counter - designed and/or fine tuned somehow. A clock - designed and/or fine tuned, but by a designer we actually know exists.

That latter example actually means something, but like you say claiming that everything is fine tuned is pointless. It becomes a synonym for exist. When people need to start redefining everyday words to make their pet ideas work it is a sign that they really aren't as solid as the confident assertions might have us believe.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,643
15,977
✟486,822.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Soo... your plan is to just ignore the specific criticism of those methods rather than trying to defend them. Gotcha.
Didn't you hear? If you can't find an expert scientist who has wasted their time debunking religious apologetics, those apologetics become science be default.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Didn't you hear? If you can't find an expert scientist who has wasted their time debunking religious apologetics, those apologetics become science be default.
We are talking specifically about Lee Smolin's calculations, he is a top scientist.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Same problem with intelligent design. If you think that god designed everything, then design means nothing. That random pile of garbage over there - designed and/or fine tuned somehow. Some dust on the counter - designed and/or fine tuned somehow. A clock - designed and/or fine tuned, but by a designer we actually know exists.

That latter example actually means something, but like you say claiming that everything is fine tuned is pointless. It becomes a synonym for exist. When people need to start redefining everyday words to make their pet ideas work it is a sign that they really aren't as solid as the confident assertions might have us believe.
That is why we have a criteria for what we view as designed.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,643
15,977
✟486,822.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
We are talking specifically about Lee Smolin's calculations, he is a top scientist.
That makes him just as qualified as the people you've quoted who came up with contradictory numbers. Maybe there's a reason he didn't put those calculations in a peer reviewed paper after all.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,643
15,977
✟486,822.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I would like to see actual physicists/astrophysicists that share your view.
If we can find a physicist who thinks that multiple universes explains fine tuning would you change your mind about it pointing to your god? If not, then it seems like your request is pretty hypocritical.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,643
15,977
✟486,822.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
That is why we have a criteria for what we view as designed.
We do? What are they, specifically? How designed is, say, a snow flake compared to a border collie puppy compared to a grain of interstellar dust. Let's see how this criteria works.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That makes him just as qualified as the people you've quoted who came up with contradictory numbers. Maybe there's a reason he didn't put those calculations in a peer reviewed paper after all.
There are no contradictory numbers KC!!!!!!!!! They are numbers that are concerning two different fine tuning constants in regard to your question.

Here is a list of his peer reviewed papers:

http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/au:+Smolin_Lee/0/1/0/all/0/1?per_page=100
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If we can find a physicist who thinks that multiple universes explains fine tuning would you change your mind about it pointing to your god? If not, then it seems like your request is pretty hypocritical.
There is a difference, of course I understand how anything that points to God must be wrong but multiverse does not do away with fine tuning as you seem to assume.
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟72,846.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I would like to see actual physicists/astrophysicists that share your view.
Well then by all means invite them to the thread. I've presented criticisms of the methodology which you have thus far ignored because you are unable or unwilling to address them.

No reason for including planck mass has been given. No reason for assuming the random probability distribution was given.

But even if we were to assume that quotes of criticisms gain some magical validity that one on one debate lacks, you've not presented any "actual physicists" that have said the planck mass is relevant and the assumed distribution is reasonable. You've made vague claims about it, but haven't actually shown us anything.

In short, not only is your demand a transparent attempt to dodge the issue, but you are unable to even meet such demands yourself.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,643
15,977
✟486,822.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
There are no contradictory numbers KC!!!!!!!!! They are numbers that are concerning two different fine tuning constants in regard to your question.

I'm still not sure why you'd think it was a good idea to post bunch of contradictory answers to a single question, but it certainly isn't doing much to convince me that your sources are as certain as you claim.


Do any of them provide calculations showing how unlikely out universe is? And are any of the results of those widely accepted by other scientists?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,643
15,977
✟486,822.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
There is a difference, of course I understand how anything that points to God must be wrong but multiverse does not do away with fine tuning as you seem to assume.

I thought the goal was to explain the apparent fine tuning all your sources were talking about, not do away with it.

Seems like you're implying that your god does away with fine tuning, which is strange given how much time you've spent trying to convince us that the appearance of fine tuning is actually real.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,123
51,509
Guam
✟4,909,532.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It passes the message across to anyone who sees it.
I like the ones that say:

I BELIEVE IN THE BIG BANG: GOD SPOKE AND BANG, IT WAS DONE!

SCIENTISTS MAKE MONKEYS OUT OF THEMSELVES

I'M THE CHRISTIAN THE DEVIL WARNED YOU ABOUT

WHEN SATAN REMINDS YOU OF YOUR PAST, REMIND HIM OF HIS FUTURE
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟72,846.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I like the ones that say:

I BELIEVE IN THE BIG BANG: GOD SPOKE AND BANG, IT WAS DONE!

SCIENTISTS MAKE MONKEYS OUT OF THEMSELVES

I'M THE CHRISTIAN THE DEVIL WARNED YOU ABOUT

WHEN SATAN REMINDS YOU OF YOUR PAST, REMIND HIM OF HIS FUTURE
I didn't know chick tracts came as bumper stickers
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟72,846.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I have been the only one providing support for my claims. You have supplied nothing but assertion, speculation and anti-religious rhetoric.
I supplied specific, clear criticisms of the book you cited (even though you apparently read it years ago and don't recognize the actual quote of the author's methodology).

You then refused to address the issue unless I can paste it as a quote from someone else.

Unfortunately for you, I happen to be in touch with some of my old professors. Dr Belandi says, "Yeah, those issues that [my actual name] brought up need to be addressed."

So, please defend the inclusion of planck units in his system and the assumption of a random distribution between 1 and this arbitrary unit.
 
Upvote 0