Universe: fine-tuned or not?

AV1611VET · Jul 11, 2026

2PhiloVoid said:
What was it the heavens and the firmament were specifically saying about God's Handiwork in physics in and around 1000 B.C.(E.) ????

See ... this is what I meant, when I said they would laugh David to scorn.

First they'd interrogate him; then laugh him to scorn.

Stopped_lurking · Jul 11, 2026

Is any other specific set of values of the constants more likely than the values we have?

If they could have any set of random values. Why would the actual set of values need to be explained more than any other?

2PhiloVoid · Jul 11, 2026

AV1611VET said:
See ... this is what I meant, when I said they would laugh David to scorn.

First they'd interrogate him; then laugh him to scorn.

I'm not laughing. I asked YOU a question. Can you answer that question in a meaningful way that provides an explanation?

AV1611VET · Jul 11, 2026

essentialsaltes said:
And a flat earther to boot!

Flat, round, square -- it doesn't matter.

The moon would be the best place to test it though.

2PhiloVoid · Jul 11, 2026

Stopped_lurking said:
Is any other specific set of values of the constants more likely than the values we have?

If they could have any set of random values. Why would the actual set of values need to be explained more than any other?

Because according to folks like the late Steven Weinberg, that's the point of citing 'fine-tuning.'----- if these constants were even a little different in various directions, none of us would likely be here.

AV1611VET · Jul 11, 2026

2PhiloVoid said:
I'm not laughing. I asked YOU a question. Can you answer that question in a meaningful way that provides an explanation?

You wouldn't understand.

You have a mental block that needs removed.

I'll prove it by answering your question.

(Don't go to sleep on me now!)

Answer: I believe we have a "sixth sense" that God uses to communicate to us through His creation.

A sense of awareness we get, when we view the cosmos.

That "sixth sense" is our spirit.

AV1611VET · Jul 11, 2026

2PhiloVoid said:
Because according to folks like the late Steven Weinberg, that's the point of citing 'fine-tuning.'----- if these constants were even a little different in various directions, none of us would likely be here.

But according to what you said in Post 69, the Anthropic Principle can take a hike ... right?

truthuprootsevil · Jul 11, 2026

NxNW said:
On one hand, we have Christians claiming that the universe is fine-tuned, which (somehow) implies the God did it.

On the other hand, when scientists point out that the speed of light implies an old universe, and radiometric dating implies an old earth, we have Christians claiming that the universal constants such as the speed of light and the rate of radioactive decay are not actually constant, which means the universe cannot be fine-tuned.

Either the constants of the universe are fixed and unchanging, or they vary. Which is it, and what is your evidence?

Science can only supply evidence of what they come to from investigations, calculations, measurements, experimentations, from what already exist _ Christians can't do that - so there is no way Christians can supply evidence, which is well known.

Theology is passed down through the centuries on the age of the Earth in Christianity conflicts with science but there are many Christians who believe that the Earth and universe is billions of years old.

Incorrect translation of the Hebrew word y o m e is the possible reason of the misunderstanding. Instead of being translated a point in time it was translated as a literal day which conflicts with science.

The universe is fine tuned / fixed to operate as it does continuously changing.

This scripture tells us would we see is not made of what do appear (what we think we know we don't). All designed beyond the scope of man. No evidence can be provided.

Hebrews 11:3 KJV - Through faith we understand that the - Bible Gateway Bible Gateway passage: Hebrews 11:3 - King James Version

Quantum physics _ does the universe operate logically?

Can Quantum Mechanics Produce a Universe from Nothing? - Apologetics Press Can Quantum Mechanics Produce a Universe from Nothing? - Apologetics Press

Even time does not exist then God created time on the 4th day for the Earth.
Time Doesn’t Exist Everywhere—and It Might Not Exist Forever https://share.google/fFSvAHgWDJidKT9f1

Time might not exist – and we're starting to understand why | BBC Science Focus Magazine Time might not exist – and we're starting to understand why | BBC Science Focus Magazine

2PhiloVoid · Jul 11, 2026

AV1611VET said:
But according to what you said in Post 69, the Anthropic Principle can take a hike ... right?

Nowhere did I say "the Anthropic Principle can take a hike." No what's happened---as it happens so often from what I've seen of your constant meandering diatribes---is that you've misunderstood and then misconstrued what someone else states............and then you run with it like you just received a hand-off from the quarterback.

The problem is, you're not holding the football..............

AV1611VET · Jul 11, 2026

2PhiloVoid said:
The problem is, you're not holding the football..............

Then stop with the fake hand-offs.

Sometimes I think you say something that is clear as day; then you deny it later, when I use it against you.

You're a hard person to understand.

Stopped_lurking · Jul 11, 2026

2PhiloVoid said:
Because according to folks like the late Steven Weinberg, that's the point of citing 'fine-tuning.'----- if these constants were even a little different in various directions, none of us would likely be here.

I get that (I think), but they must have some values. If the actual values are as likely as any other, any other set would be just as unlikely, regardless if we could sit here and discuss them or not.

If I draw a random sequence from the first billion integers using all the numbers, the probability of any specific sequence is infinitesimal (almost) but nobody would argue with me when I show it.

On a related note, after the fact probabilities are 1.

essentialsaltes · Jul 11, 2026

QUESTION: There are people who say that the very particularity of the laws of physics means these laws are "fine tuned" to allow for the possibility of life evolving. They interpret this in a religious sense as meaning that the universe was in some sense designed to produce life.

MR. WEINBERG: I don't see any clear evidence that the laws of nature or the constants of nature as we know them are fine tuned to allow life. I mean, certainly the laws of nature do allow life. But I don't see anything clearly in them that looks like a spectacular coincidence. I'm not convinced by any of those arguments.

There are some things that are quite mysterious in our understanding of nature as we know it now. There is a constant called the "cosmological constant", which if I didn't know anything I would make an estimate of what its magnitude would be just on the basis of guess work from what I know about the laws of nature. The correct value is less than that estimated value by something like 120 orders of magnitude. That looks like some kind of fine tuning. And we don't know. It may be that that number is simply zero, and it's zero for some fundamental reason that we will discover. And so it isn't fine tuned. It's also possible that the universe is bigger and more complicated than we had thought, and that what we call the universe, is just part of the universe, and that what we call the laws of nature differ from one part to another, and that we are living in a part of the universe where what we call the laws of nature, including the value of this constant, allow life to appear. In that case we wouldn't imagine that any supernatural agency fine tuned the laws and constants to make us possible, any more that we imagine that a supernatural agency arranged that the Earth had a temperature which allows life. Out there, there are doubtless millions of planets in the galaxy, and we live on one that allows life. That doesn't imply to me that it has been specially arranged to allow life.

Hans Blaster · Jul 11, 2026

2PhiloVoid said:
My apologies for speaking too generically for your taste.

Not generically, you used the wrong word. (As you did here.)

In physics we have error bars, not exegetes. We are not talking about mind states, but physical measurements. (Lest you think I am being a physics supremacist, mind states can be measured by various means as well, but physics is not psychology. Phi, not psi.)

2PhiloVoid said:
Exactly. That's what I was implying. Were you thinking I was saying something different?

Hard to tell. You had to jargon it up with jargon from a different field about which I do not care.

2PhiloVoid said:
It's all in accordance with my education, my dear Watson. My "viewing habits" are not any more accidental than are my choices of scholarly books to read, even those pertaining to Physics and Cosmology.

They wouldn't be habits if you weren't stuck in them.

2PhiloVoid said:
..... moreover, I've been watching odds and ends of Robert Lawrence Kuhn's Closer To Truth show for years now. It's nothing new for me.

I've seen some clips before. Can't say I care for his attempts to mush-brain science.

Hans Blaster · Jul 11, 2026

Stopped_lurking said:
Is any other specific set of values of the constants more likely than the values we have?

If they could have any set of random values. Why would the actual set of values need to be explained more than any other?

There is no physics that can predict our current physics, so the "probabilities" are literally impossible to calculate. It is like rolling "snake eyes" (two "1"s) on a pair of dice, but not knowing how many sides there are, or how many sides have "1" printed on them.

There was some hope that string theories or other unified theories might provide a mechanism to do that, but they are not even close to that complete.

Hans Blaster · Jul 11, 2026

truthuprootsevil said:
Science can only supply evidence of what they come to from investigations, calculations, measurements, experimentations, from what already exist _ Christians can't do that - so there is no way Christians can supply evidence, which is well known.

Theology is passed down through the centuries on the age of the Earth in Christianity conflicts with science but there are many Christians who believe that the Earth and universe is billions of years old.

Incorrect translation of the Hebrew word y o m e is the possible reason of the misunderstanding. Instead of being translated a point in time it was translated as a literal day which conflicts with science.

The universe is fine tuned / fixed to operate as it does continuously changing.

This scripture tells us would we see is not made of what do appear (what we think we know we don't). All designed beyond the scope of man. No evidence can be provided.

Hebrews 11:3 KJV - Through faith we understand that the - Bible Gateway Bible Gateway passage: Hebrews 11:3 - King James Version

Quantum physics _ does the universe operate logically?

That's not what that video is about. It is about leptogenesis. Or why there is more matter than anti-matter. That has nothing to do with how logic works.

truthuprootsevil said:
Can Quantum Mechanics Produce a Universe from Nothing? - Apologetics Press Can Quantum Mechanics Produce a Universe from Nothing? - Apologetics Press

Apologetics from a creationist engineer? How cliche. Pass.

truthuprootsevil said:

Just because the reality you perceive is not the actual one does not mean that it is entanglement that is the problem.

truthuprootsevil said:
Even time does not exist then God created time on the 4th day for the Earth.
Time Doesn’t Exist Everywhere—and It Might Not Exist Forever Time May Not Exist Everywhere in the Universe

Time might not exist – and we're starting to understand why | BBC Science Focus Magazine Time might not exist – and we're starting to understand why | BBC Science Focus Magazine

We are so far from the topic it is silly.

2PhiloVoid · Jul 11, 2026

AV1611VET said:
Then stop with the fake hand-offs.

Sometimes I think you say something that is clear as day; then you deny it later, when I use it against you.

You're a hard person to understand.

Do you know the difference between various forms/levels of the Anthropic Principle and their respective histories of development in theoretical thought and how they contribute to and feed into the Fine Tuning Argument(s)?

2PhiloVoid · Jul 11, 2026

Hans Blaster said:
Not generically, you used the wrong word. (As you did here.)

So when you run experiments or do general data gathering, do you literally put a blind-fold on in order take measurements and collate results?

Perception of the world precedes measurement. That's all I meant. It's a basic truism and no one should have to even say it let alone explain and qualify it to those who, like yourself, live in and among the superior intelligentsia.

Hans Blaster said:
In physics we have error bars, not exegetes. We are not talking about mind states, but physical measurements. (Lest you think I am being a physics supremacist, mind states can be measured by various means as well, but physics is not psychology. Phi, not psi.)

No, you have exegetes too. You just don't realize it. You and AV have that in common.

Hans Blaster said:
Hard to tell. You had to jargon it up with jargon from a different field about which I do not care.

And I will continue to jargon it up the more you push me. I'm not stepping out of the way just because you showed up.

Hans Blaster said:
They wouldn't be habits if you weren't stuck in them.

That make no sense. If you don't like the fact that I value the procedures that go into the most basic university level 'Lit Review,' that's too bad!

Those are my "habits." And they will stay as my habits, whether other people around me value them or not. I refuse to become a myopic anti-intellectual for the sake of either science or religion..............or politics.

Hans Blaster said:
I've seen some clips before. Can't say I care for his attempts to mush-brain science.

And I don't care that you don't care.

2PhiloVoid · Jul 11, 2026

essentialsaltes said:
QUESTION: There are people who say that the very particularity of the laws of physics means these laws are "fine tuned" to allow for the possibility of life evolving. They interpret this in a religious sense as meaning that the universe was in some sense designed to produce life.

MR. WEINBERG: I don't see any clear evidence that the laws of nature or the constants of nature as we know them are fine tuned to allow life. I mean, certainly the laws of nature do allow life. But I don't see anything clearly in them that looks like a spectacular coincidence. I'm not convinced by any of those arguments.

There are some things that are quite mysterious in our understanding of nature as we know it now. There is a constant called the "cosmological constant", which if I didn't know anything I would make an estimate of what its magnitude would be just on the basis of guess work from what I know about the laws of nature. The correct value is less than that estimated value by something like 120 orders of magnitude. That looks like some kind of fine tuning. And we don't know. It may be that that number is simply zero, and it's zero for some fundamental reason that we will discover. And so it isn't fine tuned. It's also possible that the universe is bigger and more complicated than we had thought, and that what we call the universe, is just part of the universe, and that what we call the laws of nature differ from one part to another, and that we are living in a part of the universe where what we call the laws of nature, including the value of this constant, allow life to appear. In that case we wouldn't imagine that any supernatural agency fine tuned the laws and constants to make us possible, any more that we imagine that a supernatural agency arranged that the Earth had a temperature which allows life. Out there, there are doubtless millions of planets in the galaxy, and we live on one that allows life. That doesn't imply to me that it has been specially arranged to allow life.

Yep!

2PhiloVoid · Jul 11, 2026

Stopped_lurking said:
I get that (I think), but they must have some values. If the actual values are as likely as any other, any other set would be just as unlikely, regardless if we could sit here and discuss them or not.

If I draw a random sequence from the first billion integers using all the numbers, the probability of any specific sequence is infinitesimal (almost) but nobody would argue with me when I show it.

On a related note, after the fact probabilities are 1.

Uh...........it appears we're talking about two different things.

2PhiloVoid · Jul 11, 2026

Hans Blaster said:
There is no physics that can predict our current physics, so the "probabilities" are literally impossible to calculate. It is like rolling "snake eyes" (two "1"s) on a pair of dice, but not knowing how many sides there are, or how many sides have "1" printed on them.

There was some hope that string theories or other unified theories might provide a mechanism to do that, but they are not even close to that complete.

Ah. Something I can generally agree with, but we don't have to allow agreement to stop any potential conflict of interest.

Universe: fine-tuned or not?

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Mama said to knock you OUT !!!

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Mama said to knock you OUT !!!

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Mama said to knock you OUT !!!

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Your turn, Atlanta!

Your turn, Atlanta!

Your turn, Atlanta!

Mama said to knock you OUT !!!

Mama said to knock you OUT !!!

Mama said to knock you OUT !!!

Mama said to knock you OUT !!!

Mama said to knock you OUT !!!

Similar threads