A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[JimFit]

specific interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct

Please show me the peer reviewed paper of such claim.

 

[RichardParker]

Please show me the peer reviewed paper of such claim.

I can't, because I don't read papers on quantum physics. I don't understand them, so it would constitute a waste of time.

But if you look up the video "Multiverse == Prime mover", where Lawrence Krauss explains it, you'll see that he says pretty much the same thing as I did here. And he is an actual cosmologist, so just to show that it's not me who makes this claim, but actual cosmologists.

Also, if you look up multiverse on wikipedia and go to the many-worlds-interpretation (which is not synonimous to the multiverse, but it's one version of it, as far as I can tell), you'll find this:

"The many-worlds interpretation is an interpratation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wave function and denies the actuality of wavefunction collaps"

I could also give you some abstracts from papers that at least seem to say the same things, but you get the geste of it.
So, the generel sources I can give you seem to say the same as I did.
But I'm sure, as a quantum physisit yourself, you can correct me and explain why my sources are unreliable.

 

[JimFit]

I can't, because I don't read papers on quantum physics. I don't understand them, so it would constitute a waste of time.

But if you look up the video "Multiverse == Prime mover", where Lawrence Krauss explains it, you'll see that he says pretty much the same thing as I did here. And he is an actual cosmologist, so just to show that it's not me who makes this claim, but actual cosmologists.

Also, if you look up multiverse on wikipedia and go to the many-worlds-interpretation (which is not synonimous to the multiverse, but it's one version of it, as far as I can tell), you'll find this:

"The many-worlds interpretation is an interpratation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wave function and denies the actuality of wavefunction collaps"

I could also give you some abstracts from papers that at least seem to say the same things, but you get the geste of it.
So, the generel sources I can give you seem to say the same as I did.
But I'm sure, as a quantum physisit yourself, you can correct me and explain why my sources are unreliable.

Krauss to answer the question uses Hatrle’s Hawking good old ‘No boundary proposal’ and Vilenkin’s tunneling wave function which by the way don’t agree with each other. These proposals however are 30 years old and not much have been found since. In fact spontaneous creation of a Universe from nothing (no space-time) is poorly understood and these proposals are semiclassical approximations. Of course we have learned some things, for example that eternal inflation can’t be past eternal and thus a beginning is needed even in a eternally inflating Universe. LQC guys have found that their models predict a bounce instead of a singularity for FRW metrics at least but they don’t have a clue on what triggered the Universe at the very beginning. String theory on the other hand has little to say about cosmological singularities.
Lacking a theory of Quantum Gravity physicists can’t brag that they have answers (or even hints) for these profound questions.

 

[davidbilby]

Krauss to answer the question uses Hatrle’s Hawking good old ‘No boundary proposal’ and Vilenkin’s tunneling wave function which by the way don’t agree with each other. These proposals however are 30 years old and not much have been found since. In fact spontaneous creation of a Universe from nothing (no space-time) is poorly understood and these proposals are semiclassical approximations. Of course we have learned some things, for example that eternal inflation can’t be past eternal and thus a beginning is needed even in a eternally inflating Universe. LQC guys have found that their models predict a bounce instead of a singularity for FRW metrics at least but they don’t have a clue on what triggered the Universe at the very beginning. String theory on the other hand has little to say about cosmological singularities.
Lacking a theory of Quantum Gravity physicists can’t brag that they have answers (or even hints) for these profound questions.

I was reading that post and thinking...hmm, that's a little more coherent...that's odd. That's really odd. Bear in mind I have had students in the past on fairly advanced topics and you get really, really, good at spotting plagiarism.

I suppose I'd be a little more impressed if I thought anything you were posting was even your own words. I saw your mention here of LQC...and got puzzled, because that's very, very specific...you'd have to have some serious knowledge of physics to know about that as an answer to that point. And then I googled "lqc guys", which was just a bit too "physics bro speak" to be you...

You copied pasted your entire post from here:

Nothingness Smackdown | Not Even Wrong

Contemptible. You clearly know nothing about this subject. What does your Bible have to say about whitewashed sepulchres?

 

[davidbilby]

I can't, because I don't read papers on quantum physics. I don't understand them, so it would constitute a waste of time.

Well, I do, and he's wrong at best and just all over the shop at worst. Plus, he's just copy pasting from websites, so you might as well discuss the subject with google, it'd be much the same as discussing it with him...

 

[RichardParker]

Well, I do, and he's wrong at best and just all over the shop at worst. Plus, he's just copy pasting from websites, so you might as well discuss the subject with google, it'd be much the same as discussing it with him...

Well, I know that he has legit credentials, I don't know if you have.
After all, many people with no understanding about quantum physics (like f.e. William Lane Craig) think for some reason they know more about quantum physics than the actual professionals, so your word that you know better than Krauss when I don't even know if you have any science background is not really that convincing to me.

Mind you, I'm not saying that you are not a legit cosmologist who understands the papers you read, I just know that I have no way of knowing.

 

[RichardParker]

@JimFit
Just to clarify my position:
I did NOT say that these models were correct, I did NOT say that there are models that conflict with each other. I'm not even contesting that there is a lot of speculation and no real proof for any of this (actually: The "sources" I've proposed admit that too at various points).
I'm saying that there are certain models which, if it turned out that they were true, would predict that they are multiverses. That's ALL I've said.
Somehow I get the impression that people here have now started talking about the question if these models are actually correct, which never was part of my argument at all.

 

[Kylie]

I still don't see any argument that can't be explained by the fact that we evolved to fit the conditions that were already present. I see no reason to believe that some being created the universe with conditions to fit the pre-determined characteristics of Humans before they were even around.

 

[davidbilby]

Well, I know that he has legit credentials, I don't know if you have.
After all, many people with no understanding about quantum physics (like f.e. William Lane Craig) think for some reason they know more about quantum physics than the actual professionals, so your word that you know better than Krauss when I don't even know if you have any science background is not really that convincing to me.

Mind you, I'm not saying that you are not a legit cosmologist who understands the papers you read, I just know that I have no way of knowing.

Let's clarify a couple of things. One, "JimFit" may have legit credentials (as what, exactly?) but HE replied to YOUR post with a post about Lawrence Krauss. That post was simply copy-pasted from another website. In most forums of public discourse, copying someone else's words unattributed is frowned upon. In most forums of public discourse pretending to understand something that you don't by copying someone else's work is also frowned upon.

Two, I'm not a cosmologist; I'm a particle physicist with an interest in cosmology and a very solid grounding in General Relativity. You'll find most particle physicists are interested in that, because it's this wonderful place where quantum mechanics doesn't work and vice-versa, and so there are enormous potential insights for the very very very small things in our universe from the very very very big things in our universe.

Three, William Lane Craig et al (and let's include deepak chopra and many others here) know little to nothing about quantum physics, true, save for what they can read and borrow from other sources, which they do frequently and badly. Part of the challenge of debating these people over the cosmological and philosophical implications of science is that they just make the science up, or misquote, and you spend half your time correcting that....but because their message is simpler and easy to digest, people often are fooled.

Four, I don't know "better" than Krauss - there are places that I think he is right and places I think he is wrong in some of his latest work, but JimFit's reply to you, for example said:

"Krauss to answer the question uses Hatrle’s Hawking good old ‘No boundary proposal’ and Vilenkin’s tunneling wave function which by the way don’t agree with each other."

Krauss would be perfectly aware, as am I, that these don't agree with each other - they cannot agree - and he wouldn't use the two together in any manner as this poster implied. Krauss would certainly be aware of and have read this paper, for example:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9608009.pdf

So even though JimFit's words were not his own, which should bother you, let me tell you as a physicist - they're not even that correct in context. Krauss wouldn't make that mistake, because it'd be a stupid one. Nonsensical.

Krauss has been wrong in the past, though - we all have been wrong at some point, especially in THIS field, which is about as complex as it is possible to be. He thought a lot of Peter Higg's work wasn't correct, when it was, for example...

 

[RichardParker]

@davidbilby

Ok, thanks for that :-D
As I've said, I really don't understand the subject, so I had no idea how accurate the response to my poste was. So, your contribution here is much apprisiated?

I also don't say that Krauss is correct here, as I've said, I have no way of assessing if he is or not.
My point, and my entire point from the beginning of this exchange, was to point out that the idea of a multiverse isn't just something cosmologists have made up because it sounds cool, but it's rather something they consider, because certain interpretations of quantum physics would lead to that conclusion.

Did I understand that correctly, or am I wrong about that?

 

[JimFit]

I was reading that post and thinking...hmm, that's a little more coherent...that's odd. That's really odd. Bear in mind I have had students in the past on fairly advanced topics and you get really, really, good at spotting plagiarism.

I suppose I'd be a little more impressed if I thought anything you were posting was even your own words. I saw your mention here of LQC...and got puzzled, because that's very, very specific...you'd have to have some serious knowledge of physics to know about that as an answer to that point. And then I googled "lqc guys", which was just a bit too "physics bro speak" to be you...

You copied pasted your entire post from here:

Nothingness Smackdown | Not Even Wrong

Contemptible. You clearly know nothing about this subject. What does your Bible have to say about whitewashed sepulchres?

Krauss like you haven't offered a counter argument for Fine Tuning, you are attacking the Bible, a book that you didn't understand and that talks about a Cosmic beginning something that Atheists like you didn't accept.

Let's clarify a couple of things. One, "JimFit" may have legit credentials (as what, exactly?) but HE replied to YOUR post with a post about Lawrence Krauss. That post was simply copy-pasted from another website. In most forums of public discourse, copying someone else's words unattributed is frowned upon. In most forums of public discourse pretending to understand something that you don't by copying someone else's work is also frowned upon.

How do you know that it wasn't me that i wrote the post with a different nickname?

Two, I'm not a cosmologist; I'm a particle physicist with an interest in cosmology and a very solid grounding in General Relativity. You'll find most particle physicists are interested in that, because it's this wonderful place where quantum mechanics doesn't work and vice-versa, and so there are enormous potential insights for the very very very small things in our universe from the very very very big things in our universe.

Long story short you know about Cosmology as much as i do.

Three, William Lane Craig et al (and let's include deepak chopra and many others here) know little to nothing about quantum physics, true, save for what they can read and borrow from other sources, which they do frequently and badly. Part of the challenge of debating these people over the cosmological and philosophical implications of science is that they just make the science up, or misquote, and you spend half your time correcting that....but because their message is simpler and easy to digest, people often are fooled.

WLC uses valid arguments from Scientists and most of them are atheists, its funny that you claim that WLC is wrong when he destroyed Sean Caroll of their debate, Sean Caroll couldn't even came with a beginingless model
of the Universe. Ah the hypocrisy of Militant Atheists...

Four, I don't know "better" than Krauss - there are places that I think he is right and places I think he is wrong in some of his latest work, but JimFit's reply to you, for example said:

"Krauss to answer the question uses Hatrle’s Hawking good old ‘No boundary proposal’ and Vilenkin’s tunneling wave function which by the way don’t agree with each other."

Krauss would be perfectly aware, as am I, that these don't agree with each other - they cannot agree - and he wouldn't use the two together in any manner as this poster implied. Krauss would certainly be aware of and have read this paper, for example:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9608009.pdf

If he is aware that they don't agree with each other why his book says otherwise?

http://kickass.to/lawrence-krauss-a-universe-from-nothing-pdf-epub-mobi-eng-t7176872.html

So even though JimFit's words were not his own, which should bother you, let me tell you as a physicist - they're not even that correct in context. Krauss wouldn't make that mistake, because it'd be a stupid one. Nonsensical.

You don't know if the reply is mine or not.

Krauss has been wrong in the past, though - we all have been wrong at some point, especially in THIS field, which is about as complex as it is possible to be. He thought a lot of Peter Higg's work wasn't correct, when it was, for example...

Krauss tricked his audience when he said a Universe can come from Nothing when it was not from nothing but from something.

Please where does William Lane Craig is wrong in this video about the Fine Tuning of the Universe? How does atheism claim to have an answer when atheism says that CHANCE DID IT. If there were no Constants why do we observe far away galaxies with the same structure as ours?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3jvfvho3CE

 

[JimFit]

@davidbilby

Ok, thanks for that :-D
As I've said, I really don't understand the subject, so I had no idea how accurate the response to my poste was. So, your contribution here is much apprisiated?

I also don't say that Krauss is correct here, as I've said, I have no way of assessing if he is or not.
My point, and my entire point from the beginning of this exchange, was to point out that the idea of a multiverse isn't just something cosmologists have made up because it sounds cool, but it's rather something they consider, because certain interpretations of quantum physics would lead to that conclusion.

Did I understand that correctly, or am I wrong about that?

I suggest you to read this blog about the Multiverse.

Multiverse | Search Results | Not Even Wrong

Multiverse is a fairy tale, it can't be observed therefor its not science. Its a pseudoscientific argument that atheists use to bring back the Eternal Universe. They know that as long as the Physical Universe has a beggining they can't argue with Theists.

davidbilby also used a paper from the Evangelical Christian Physisist Don Page to argue (without evidence for chance) that an intelligent creator doesn't exist when the scientist that wrote the paper believes that there is a creator! hahahaha that's what i called divine punishment!

Don Page (physicist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"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

LOL

 

[bhsmte]

I suggest you to read this blog about the Multiverse.

Multiverse | Search Results | Not Even Wrong

Multiverse is a fairy tale, it can't be observed therefor its not science. Its a pseudoscientific argument that atheists use to bring back the Eternal Universe. They know that as long as the Physical Universe has a beggining they can't argue with Theists.

davidbilby also used a paper from the Evangelical Christian Physisist Don Page to argue (without evidence for chance) that an intelligent creator doesn't exist when the scientist that wrote the paper believes that there is a creator! hahahaha that's what i called divine punishment!

Don Page (physicist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"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

LOL

I am no expert on this stuff, but am curious whether you agree with the statement below, or disagree and why?

Nothing in the current body of scientific knowledge prohibits a multiverse, and inflationary theory supports a number of principles that make it possible. At the same time, there is also no hard evidence that a multiverse does, or must, exist.

Multiverse or Universe? Physicists Debate | Inflation Theory of Cosmology

 

[JimFit]

I still don't see any argument that can't be explained by the fact that we evolved to fit the conditions that were already present. I see no reason to believe that some being created the universe with conditions to fit the pre-determined characteristics of Humans before they were even around.

The Tuner sets the conditions for life to exist, not chance because the Universe is Finite and so are the constants and the laws, what we observe is intention and not chance and the Fine Tuning for of the constants for intelligent life couldn't have happened by chance because we don't have ANY proof for chance, chance is a philosophical argument made by Atheists to persuade you that you are a Cosmic mistake. You have a Mind so why it is so difficult for you to accept that there is a Omniscience Mind that created the Universe when God gave you the option to reach it? Science happens and progresses because we have minds that work with Determinism (cause and effect) the opposite would set an end to Science because Science cannot observe Randomness! If you think about it Scientists try to turn a reversed sock back and understand how the sock was unfolded, the quote from the Bible that talks about us as the images of God couldn't be more right, Cosmology tries to reverse the Universe (theoretically) and find out how it happened!

Atheists will tell you that this is the "God did it argument" because God cannot be observed and He is placed before the Universe to hide Himself and cannot be falsified. Its not that argument.
First of all Atheists imply that there is a past eternal causation to delete God from the Creation, so they don't care about knowledge, they admit that we won't conquer the absolute Knowledge of the Material Universe because the Universe is Eternal, there is no way to have an answer if you have an infinite chain of cause and effect so their argument is not from science but for personal wishful thinking that goes against science and against optimism, an optimist thinks more clear than a pessimist.
A Theist knows that the Universe has a beginning, he was right, science has proven that the Universe began, but now what? Can we study the "before" of the Universe? OF COURSE WE CAN, with studying the same tool that brought us all these scientific discoveries, our minds, if we know ourselfs as Socrates said we will know the Mind that created the Universe and therefor the "before", the Mind of God, studying yourself will answer to the million dollar question, Why we even exist?

 

[JimFit]

I am no expert on this stuff, but am curious whether you agree with the statement below, or disagree and why?

Nothing in the current body of scientific knowledge prohibits a multiverse, and inflationary theory supports a number of principles that make it possible. At the same time, there is also no hard evidence that a multiverse does, or must, exist.

Multiverse or Universe? Physicists Debate | Inflation Theory of Cosmology

The BVG Theorem doesn't agree with Eternal Inflation. The Planck Telescope didn't find any proof of Inflation and the results from BICEP 2 were proven wrong

BBC News - Cosmic inflation: BICEP 'underestimated' dust problem

http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang-blunder-bursts-the-multiverse-bubble-1.15346

 

[bhsmte]

The BVG Theorem doesn't agree with Eternal Inflation. The Planck Telescope didn't find any proof of Inflation and the results from BICEP 2 were proven wrong

BBC News - Cosmic inflation: BICEP 'underestimated' dust problem

http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang-blunder-bursts-the-multiverse-bubble-1.15346

That would be a "disagree" with it then, correct?

 

[Smidlee]

I still don't see any argument that can't be explained by the fact that we evolved to fit the conditions that were already present. I see no reason to believe that some being created the universe with conditions to fit the pre-determined characteristics of Humans before they were even around.

This is something I don't get from someone like Francis Collins. In Language Of God he believed the fine-tuned universe as evidence of God yet believed our DNA was full of junk because of his faith in evolution. It's like the example atheist once gave it's like a water puddle thinking the pothole was made for it. Collins would used the fact the water puddle was a perfect fit for the hole was evidence of God while I would say the fact the water puddle was thinking would be the greater evidence.
It's not fine-tuned universe itself is the evidence of God but it's the thinking water puddles debating online about the fine-tuned universe is the evidence. Yet Collins thinks his thoughts are the results of an unknown blind unguided natural force acting on a stupid mythological ape-like creature.

 

[RichardParker]

Multiverse is a fairy tale, it can't be observed therefor its not science.

Hmm...
Are you going to be consistend with that? We can't observe it, therefore it's farytale?
Ok, good. Nice to see that you acknowledge the non-existence of any gods.
But of course, for that you needed to be internally consistend with your argument, which I don't expect you to be.
As I've explained: It's not as much a question if the multiverse actually exists or not, it's a question about if it works, if there are models that would make it concievable and if these models hold up.
You say that whenever the multiverse comes up, you don't have to consider it anymore, because it can't be demonstrated... and that seems to be your reason for actually making an additional step, to say that it actually doesn't exist.
And I'm glad that this also settles the entire debate about god and a fine-tuning, because I hate to break it to you, even if your assesment of the multiverse were absolutly correct, it would also apply to any fine-tuner or any fine-tuning of the universe...
Which closes this argument with you.
Thanks for playing

 

[RichardParker]

Yet Collins thinks his thoughts are the results of an unknown blind unguided natural force acting on a stupid mythological ape-like creature.

I doubt that Collins thinks that.
But it's always nice to see how far oponents of somebody or something have to distord the actual thing they attack. It gives you a good idea about how absurd their position, because you usually only have to misrepresent an oposing position, if your own can't hold up on its own.

 

[davidbilby]

Krauss like you haven't offered a counter argument for Fine Tuning

Uh...ok. Let's say this real slowly...

It is only fine tuned if it IS fine tuned and gauging that depends on how you formulate the calculation for how probably or otherwise it is. The method used that you brought up is shaky at best, and there are numerous other ways to think about the problem, wherein the fine tuning problem doesn't exist.

IS that simple enough for you to understand?

you are attacking the Bible

Why would I need to do that? I don't give two hoots about it. If the bible is somehow feeling "impinged" upon by modern physics, well, sorry, tough.

a book that you didn't understand

We'll come back to this point.

and that talks about a Cosmic beginning something that Atheists like you didn't accept.

Because it's at odds with reality, just like every other creation mythology created by man.

How do you know that it wasn't me that i wrote the post with a different nickname?

Well, I don't. But here's the thing...you know if that's true or not. If it's not true, then you have to internally ask yourself this question:

"Why do I believe the Bible must be believed unfailingly when it concerns cosmology and the creation of the entire universe as detailed in Genesis 1 onwards...when I seem to believe Exodus 20:15 is optional?"

As I said, that's kind of an internal question for you to ponder. Unless you moonlit by the name Giotis in 2012 and have considerably more physics knowledge than any of your other posts would imply....

Long story short you know about Cosmology as much as i do.

You sure know how to flatter yourself.