Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It actively moves around from one food source to another looking for the 'right' foods in the 'right' balance. You've certainly haven't shown that it *lacks* awareness.
Can you please tell me how Multiverses destroy the Fine Tuning?
Again your reply is pure ignorance.
You said
"We don't know how many universes there are"
How do you know that there are other Universes?
This is ad populum fallacy, many people think Penrose is wrong therefor Penrose is wrong.
The Cosmological Constant and the other 11 Constants are not shaking
if you don't accept something (because it destroys your belief that you are a cosmic mistake without purpose or free will that nothingness spewed)
The Constants are well defined and accepted from the whole Scientific community, Stenger was a heretic but i hope God will rest his soul.
God is one because He is Eternal
you can't use 2 infinities (2 Gods)
, it doesn't make sense, it is like using 2 nothings.
In the question which God is Him?
Well here Theology comes in
if God was bad why did He even create us?
So God is Good, if God was arrogant and unfair that created us to show off his power why we can understand the Creation he made?
So God is fair
and so on and so forth...it takes lots of studies to learn about the true nature of God.
If you change the Planck Constant there is no Universe at all!
Incorrect. The fallacy only applies in a logical argument. I was not inferring he was wrong because people don't believe he is right, I was simply saying that not many people think he is, from my professional experience in the field of advanced physics, which is reasonably large, certainly compared to what I presume is your experience in said field. Even if I had been making a logical argument, the opposite does not apply, since pointing out an ad populum doesn't mean the statement is necessarily wrong either.
Oh the irony.The supposed "fine tuning" of those constants depends solely on certain chosen statistical functions, and the basis used to assert the "fine tuning" (not the constancy, the fine tuning) of those constants is at best, unproven in any manner whatosever, and at worst, simply wrong.
Thus, to use that as a bedrock for claiming the existence of a deity is unproven at best and simply wrong at worst, also.
So will you follow your own advice with respect to your Tensor mode tilt fiasco, or will you go right back to boastfully and arrogantly peddling the same falsified nonsense?There are numerous constants that are, indeed, constant...but to further claim they are fine-tuned is simply not tenable. Certainly not yet tenable, at the very best case scenario, and if that's the foundation you choose to build your religious beliefs on, then you'd better be prepared to abandon them if the foundation shakes...
Yet you claim that the existence of inflation and dark energy and exotic matter are somehow representative of 'truth' and you personally attack anyone who dares to question your faith in supernatural constructs. Pot meet kettle.Please leave the rest of us out of your collective argument from ignorance on behalf of the human race. It's a funny thing religion - claiming to know the truth, but then claiming that God is a mystery, so actually we can't know the truth, but we all have to bow down and hand over our money to those claiming this is the supreme truth. Erm....no, sorry.
You still haven't shown the mechanisms that amoeba use for awareness. If your definition for awareness is so broad as to include the lac operon from E. coli, then I would say that your definition is a bit too broad.
What we lack is common ground as it relates to awareness. I think it would really help if you could discuss the lac operon as it relates to awareness so that we can be on the same page.
So Penrose might be right, both about Orch-OR, and about your ridiculous inflation claims.
Oh the irony.
So will you follow your own advice with respect to your Tensor mode tilt fiasco, or will you go right back to boastfully and arrogantly peddling the same falsified nonsense?
How do they make decisions? Is it like the process seen with E. coli and lactose?
The argument is that the universe has to be fine tuned because the odds of getting our universe in a single trial is very improbable. The problem is the assumption that there has only been a single trial. You have never demonstrated this to be a fact.
We really don't have to invoke a multiverse or evidence it. What is required is for YOU to evidence that this is the only universe in existence since the fine tuning argument hinges on this assumption.
There are additional problems. First, if a universe is not capable of producing intelligent life, who is there to notice? That is a serious detection bias. Secondly, you have never shown that intelligent life was what the universe was fine tuned for. Third, you have not demonstrated that the constants can be anything else.
Right. Your argument depends on there being only one universe, or very few. Therefore, your argument is not supported until you can tell us exactly how many universes there are.
How do you know there aren't?
Let me use this analogy. I have a giant sack of little tiles. You stick your hand in the sack and pull out a tile with the number 549 on it. From that information alone, what are the odds that you would pull out a tile with that number on it? Show your math.
Well, Penrose doesn't think what you think about Orch-OR and little of his idea means what you pretended you think it means (eg...."soul") so, yes,
I'm not absolutely certain about the other author's take on their Orch-OR theory, but in terms of Hammeroff's opinions, we don't sound so far apart from where I sit.But what exactly is consciousness, where does it come from and can it be scientifically proven? Dr. Stuart Hameroff, MD, is Professor Emeritus at the Departments of Anesthesiology and Psychology and the Director of the Center of Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona and much of his research over the past few decades has been in the field of quantum mechanics, dedicated to studying consciousness.
According to Dr. Hameroff, in a near-death experience, when the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing, and the microtubules lose their quantum state, the quantum information in the microtubules isn't destroyed. It's distributed to the universe at large, and if the patient is revived, the quantum information can go back to the microtubules. In this event, the patient says they had something like a near-death experience, i.e. they saw white light or a tunnel or floated out of their body. In the event that the patient is not revived, "it's possible that the quantum information can can exist outside the body, perhaps indefinitely, as a soul," he said.
In Penrose/Hammeroff's case that's possible because it's something that we can presumably examine in a lab right here on Earth. In the case of inflation however, it's an act of faith that 'space' does magical expansion tricks somewhere *other than* Earth in the first place, not to mention your multiple leaps of faith in inflation and dark energy and exotic forms of matter being related to such a process.Hence why we try and have other groups replicate work.
I don't have any problem with cyclical theories, in fact Alfven's ideas were quiet similar in that respect.If Penrose is right about his cosmology, you're wrong also, since he tends to cyclical theories..."tends" being perhaps too loose a term. "leaps on" might be better.
Well, you're definitely wrong with respect to Penrose and me both being ok with cyclical processes in spacetime and you're definitely wrong about me and Hammeroff with respect Orch-OR theory and soul. I'm not sure where Penrose stands on the Orch-OR thing actually.Let's point out that the number of ways you and Penrose agree on the subject. That would be none.
You just can't resist that personal 'shot' stuff, can you? It's not in your nature to stick to *topics* apparently.Of course mention of you in the same sentence is an errant comparison, since he's a (reasonably) respected physicist, and you're not. Yeah, deal with it. Suck it up.
Eh? I don't even get where you come up with your strawmen sometimes.Only to those who think that mathematics is inherently deistic, which is about as ridiculous an assertion as it gets.
Why? I haven't looked at them and you've never cited them. This wouldn't be your way of getting out of your responsibility for finding the flaw(s) in Parkinson's work would it? At least I provided you with a reference that included a link to his paper. When did you even cite Cheng?Since you've now upgraded it to "fiasco" level on the scale of "michael-ness", please enlighten me as to why Cheng Cheng's numbers are wrong from the paper earlier this year
Well, for starters, *I* can't find any mistake in his work. You haven't found any mistake in his work either. I therefore have no logical reason to doubt his work. Do you?and why the paper published the other day is correct,
You don't grok the whole "in the lab" concept, do you? *Theoretical" physics isn't a "fix" for your problems, it's the *whole cause* of your problems. Your entire house of cards is built upon one hypothetical "fix" after another, after another, after another. Adding *more* of them to "fix" your problems is like adding gasoline to a fire that's already burning out of supernatural control.or a specific physical reason why a sterile neutrino hypothesis to reconcile the tilt issue would be de facto disallowed.
Why would I even bother? You're only asking me with the intent of simply diverting the conversation away from the topic and onto the *individual* again. Same trick, different day.Be specific, please. Otherwise why don't you move back to topics you actually know a little about? Can you even explain what the tilt being discussed is, in your own words?
Multiverses had to be also fine tuned, they exist inside a bubble that needs fine tuning also!
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due
Let's stop there.
Your "argument" has already failed at this point. The fine-tuning of the universe is not proven. It is an assumption and a weak one at that, depending on the statistical methodology used to calculate the probability that a certain outcome would have happened. You cannot prove the universe is fine-tuned, thus you cannot prove that there had to be a fine tuner. Even if you could prove that there was fine tuning that would not prove there was a fine-tuner. Even if you could prove there was a fine-tuner that would not prove it to be the Judeo-Christian God.
Thus you've managed to get nowhere. Congratulations.
But somehow you have a "sure winner" on your hands in spite of the fact your inflation entity is "fine tuned" to the tune of 10 to the 100th power!
This is like talking to a parrot.
Read this again:
The fine-tuning of the universe is not proven. It is an assumption and a weak one at that, depending on the statistical methodology used to calculate the probability that a certain outcome would have happened.
Like?Penrose's statistical methodology makes untenable assumptions about the pre-inflationary state.
And? You do realize that we haven't even talked about or computed any odds on the likelihood that 'space' does expansion tricks, or that "inflation" has anything to do with that process, or that 'dark energy' somehow 'speeds up" that process, or that exotic forms of matter must exist. You're so far out on thin ice in terms of the supernatural odds that it's not even funny.All estimates of this kind depend on the model, they are absolutely dependent on the parameter space.
Gee, how funny that something which is 'inevitable' only ever happens once in 13.8+ billion years anywhere that we might observe it happen.And of course, the model (typical of Penrose) he used didn't - couldn't in fact - deal with quantum effects. Once you start factoring those in, say as in LQC, instead of being unlikely...inflation is essentially inevitable.
So which tilt does "slow roll" inflation predict, and does it (fail the Bicep2 tensor tilt data) like the rest of them?[0912.4093] Loop quantum cosmology and slow roll inflation
So once again, you don't know what you're talking about.
Just because the universe is complex and in equilibrium doesn't prove God. That argument never made sense to me.
Incorrect. The fallacy only applies in a logical argument. I was not inferring he was wrong because people don't believe he is right, I was simply saying that not many people think he is, from my professional experience in the field of advanced physics, which is reasonably large, certainly compared to what I presume is your experience in said field. Even if I had been making a logical argument, the opposite does not apply, since pointing out an ad populum doesn't mean the statement is necessarily wrong either.
There are many more constants and hypothesised constants (the cosmological constant being one hypothesis, albeit one with good support) than 11, by the way, but your point remains irrelevant. The supposed "fine tuning" of those constants depends solely on certain chosen statistical functions, and the basis used to assert the "fine tuning" (not the constancy, the fine tuning) of those constants is at best, unproven in any manner whatosever, and at worst, simply wrong.
Thus, to use that as a bedrock for claiming the existence of a deity is unproven at best and simply wrong at worst, also.
I could say that your belief that your belief that you are the pinnacle of creation, the most important thing in the universe with a delusion bordering on solipsism is your problem, but that would be an equally arrogant position based on a straw man. There are so many mischaracterizations in your sentence it is hard to know where to start. "Mistake" implies an unused capacity for intention on the behalf of a supreme creator - I don't believe that to be the case. Religions don't have a monopoly on the concept of "purpose" although they routinely claim such a thing (usually monotheistically). "Nothingness" is an impossible to define concept that doesn't tally at all with our present concepts of the inflationary epoch, or really any other theory.
How very condescending of you. Nonetheless, once again, you display your ignorance. the "Constants"...well, actually, no, they're not very well defined, if by defined you mean measured, which is what you do mean, I think...not all of them.
Secondly, whether or not they are constant has NO bearing on their statistical likelihood at any given time, which is where the idea of fine tuning comes from. Simply saying they are constant and thinking that anybody who argues against fine tuning is actually arguing against their constancy is where you are going repeatedly wrong.
There are numerous constants that are, indeed, constant...but to further claim they are fine-tuned is simply not tenable. Certainly not yet tenable, at the very best case scenario, and if that's the foundation you choose to build your religious beliefs on, then you'd better be prepared to abandon them if the foundation shakes...
Meaningless woo. So is the flying spaghetti monster, so is Allah, so is Zeus...and so on. Once again, even if you could prove fine tuning it doesn't help prove the divinity of YOUR specific deity - at all.
Every polytheist that ever existed disagrees...
In the sense that they are equal glimpses of the untrue perhaps...but none of what you're saying makes sense.
Yeah, that's a biggie. Why your God and not Allah? Why not Apollo?
How very scientific.
Who said anything about him being bad? Go ask a Muslim if they think Allah is bad, I dare you
We don't understand "creation". We don't even begin to understand a fraction of it.
Only religion claims we somehow do, which is its great downfall, every time a new scientific discovery comes along, religion either has to go "yeah, we predicted that!" or make some muttering apology. If the Bible contained a little bit more about DNA and the structure of the genome, and a little less slavery, murder, rape, pillage, and descriptions of who begat who and the value of human life in terms of money, I do believe we might be a bit more impressed by it.
Few could read the whole of the Old Testament and think that the Judeo-Christian god is "fair". This is your basis for morality? If you are in an car accident that is in no way your fault that severs your genitalia, you know you don't go to heaven - automatically (deuteronomy 23:1)?
This is your "fair" God?
Please leave the rest of us out of your collective argument from ignorance on behalf of the human race. It's a funny thing religion - claiming to know the truth, but then claiming that God is a mystery, so actually we can't know the truth, but we all have to bow down and hand over our money to those claiming this is the supreme truth. Erm....no, sorry.
Let's stop there.
Your "argument" has already failed at this point. The fine-tuning of the universe is not proven. It is an assumption and a weak one at that, depending on the statistical methodology used to calculate the probability that a certain outcome would have happened. You cannot prove the universe is fine-tuned, thus you cannot prove that there had to be a fine tuner. Even if you could prove that there was fine tuning that would not prove there was a fine-tuner. Even if you could prove there was a fine-tuner that would not prove it to be the Judeo-Christian God.
Thus you've managed to get nowhere. Congratulations.
The constant depends entirely on the unit system chosen (in this case usually m, kg and s), so actually, no, that's not true, and if you change the Planck constant, you can still have a universe; it's simply that another constant would need to change.
There are numerous potential parameter spaces. The arbitrary fixing of all other constants and alteration of just one is a ridiculous notion, and just that....arbitrary. It proves nothing. Worse still, it doesn't prove the existence of a deity, let alone a specific deity, let alone provide any evidence whatsoever of the divinity of some guy walking around in the desert a couple of thousand years ago.
Also you should consider this - the assumption that the universe is fine-tuned for life specifically, would still not be shown by showing fine tuning. Ascribing a supposed purpose simply isn't scientifically tenable.
10 to the 100'th power doesn't sound "a little weak" to me, it sounds borderline *impossible*.
You claim it's not 'tuned' as well?
Like?
And?
You do realize that we haven't even talked about or computed any odds on the likelihood that 'space' does expansion tricks
or that "inflation" has anything to do with that process
, or that 'dark energy' somehow 'speeds up" that process
, or that exotic forms of matter must exist. You're so far out on thin ice in terms of the supernatural odds that it's not even funny.
Gee, how funny that something which is 'inevitable' only ever happens once in 13.8+ billion years anywhere that we might observe it happen.
So which tilt does "slow roll" inflation predict, and does it have Bicep2 Parkinson's disease like the rest of them?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?