A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

Loudmouth · Oct 15, 2014

JimFit said:
If the Constants are not constants etc the gravitational constant why we can observe galaxies far away from us? What about the Hubble Constant?

If they can't be any different, then the fine tuning argument is refuted.

Do you seriously ask me to prove a negative??

You are the one who made the argument that rests on a negative.

Loudmouth · Oct 15, 2014

JimFit said:
Back up what? I don't support that there is a machine like this.

Back up what you claim in this paragraph.

"So there is a machine that makes Universes, okay, why does this machine stopped to produce new Universes and where does these Universes floating? Even if there was a machine like that it would still take an extremely cut edge Fine Tuning to produce Universes and strictly Universes and not etc floating brains, a machine like that needs a fine tuned constant to create Universes."

1. Why would this machine have stopped.

2. That it would take "extremely cut edge Fine Tuning". Lottery machines don't need fine tuning to get a jackpot winner at 1 to 150 million odds.

3. That such a machine would need a fine tuned constant.

4. That a machine like this would even be needed.

What do you mean by that?

What do you mean by the "extremes of fine tuning"?

Loudmouth · Oct 15, 2014

Usus Vox Tractus said:
If the universe is one in a sphere stack of infinite equal sized universes then the universe is finely tuned by its border conditions and each universe is tuned exactly the same.

It appears that people using the fine tuning argument don't even understand what it is.

Loudmouth · Oct 15, 2014

JimFit said:
What arguments i didn't addressed? Please show me..

Let's start with the most basic question.

What is the probability for a universe capable of supporting life springing into existence. Please show your math.

Usus Vox Tractus · Oct 15, 2014

Eudaimonist said:
The word universe has no relation to the English word "verse". It doesn't refer to words.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Thanks for the task!

Online Etymology Dictionary

universe (n.)

1580s, "the whole world, cosmos, the totality of existing things," from Old French univers (12c.), from Latin universum "all things, everybody, all people, the whole world," noun use of neuter of adjective universus "all together, all in one, whole, entire, relating to all," literally "turned into one," from unus "one" (see one) + versus, past participle of vertere "to turn" (see versus).

Universe = One turn.

Interesting that the definition is basic holotropism - turned towards wholeness.

Usus Vox Tractus · Oct 15, 2014

Loudmouth said:
It appears that people using the fine tuning argument don't even understand what it is.

Or you simply aren't understanding what I am talking about.

Infinite equal sized spheres in a sphere stacking impose a very specific border condition on each universe. Their expansive limit of space is about 74%, 26% is between the spheres.

This fixes the "dark energy" expansive constant at a max of 74%. This is the first value modern science reached after a great deal of math and estimation of mass vs motion in the universe.

The 74% is further lessened by membranes of space-time within a universe. We are in 1 of 6 space time bends. 74% - 1/6 of itself = 61.666%. Production of matter equalizes the difference between the two for a mean dark energy value of about 67.8%

What is Dark Energy?
Calculating the energy needed to overcome gravity, scientists determined that dark energy makes up roughly 68 percent of the universe. Dark matter makes up another 27 percent, leaving the "normal" matter that we are familiar with to make up less than 5 percent of the cosmos around us.

Loudmouth · Oct 15, 2014

Usus Vox Tractus said:
Or you simply aren't understanding what I am talking about.

Aliens?

Infinite equal sized spheres in a sphere stacking impose a very specific border condition on each universe. Their expansive limit of space is about 74%, 26% is between the spheres.

Do you write material for Monty Python?

Michael · Oct 15, 2014

Loudmouth said:
None of my arguments requires the absence of God. If they did, then I would have to disprove God.

As I understand your argument, you're *counting on* the existence of multiple universes as the basis of your argument, and there simply isn't any evidence to support that assertion.

Where is the evidence that we have observed all existing universes?

Where's the evidence that we haven't?

Loudmouth · Oct 15, 2014

Michael said:
As I understand your argument, you're *counting on* the existence of multiple universes as the basis of your argument, and there simply isn't any evidence to support that assertion.

No, I'm not. I am saying that the probabilities that the fine tuners throw around necessarily need to include the number of trials. Until they can verify the number of trials, then it is impossible to say that our universe is improbable.

Where's the evidence that we haven't?

As explained above, the claim that our universe is improbable necessarily assumes a single or low number of trials.

Michael · Oct 15, 2014

Loudmouth said:
No, I'm not. I am saying that the probabilities that the fine tuners throw around necessarily need to include the number of trials. Until they can verify the number of trials, then it is impossible to say that our universe is improbable.

Trials? Why would that be required in the first place? It's simply a statistical argument. As Penrose pointed out, even the likelihood that inflation would lead to a 'flat' universe is 10 to the 100th power *less* likely than without it. That's pretty "fine tuned" if you ask me.

Of course I don't for a moment buy your cosmology theories in the first place, so I doubt the validity of the statistics to begin with, and therefore I don't think it's a strong argument.

Loudmouth · Oct 15, 2014

Michael said:
Trials? Why would that be required in the first place? It's simply a statistical argument.

And what does the n stand for in statistics?

As Penrose pointed out, even the likelihood that inflation would lead to a 'flat' universe is 10 to the 100th power *less* likely than without it.

And his evidence for this? Is it backed by any statistical survey of universes?

Of course I don't for a moment buy your cosmology theories in the first place, so I doubt the validity of the statistics to begin with, and therefore I don't think it's a strong argument.

I am not mistaking your discussion of inflationary theories as an acceptance of those theories, don't worry.

Usus Vox Tractus · Oct 15, 2014

Loudmouth said:
Aliens?

Do you write material for Monty Python?

No. Buckminster Fuller. Look up "vector equilibrium" and "Kepler's conjecture" if you are interested in actual mathematics.

Loudmouth · Oct 15, 2014

Usus Vox Tractus said:
No. Buckminster Fuller. Look up "vector equilibrium" and "Kepler's conjecture" if you are interested in actual mathematics.

You first. When you start taking 74% of infinity, you have moved into crackpot land.

Usus Vox Tractus · Oct 15, 2014

Loudmouth said:
You first. When you start taking 74% of infinity, you have moved into crackpot land.

You must have missed the part that specifically stated 74% of space is taken up by spheres in a sphere stack (FCC) and 26% is in the space between the spheres. Do try and keep up with the conversation before insulting people.

Doesn't matter if the sphere stack is infinite, or if the spheres are one micro in diameter or a googleplex of gigaparsecs in diameter, the spatial ratio of internal space vs external space is exactly the same at any scale.

Loudmouth · Oct 15, 2014

Usus Vox Tractus said:
You must have missed the part that specifically stated 74% of space is taken up by spheres in a sphere stack (FCC)

How can you take up 74% of infinity?
"Infinite equal sized spheres in a sphere stacking impose a very specific border condition on each universe. Their expansive limit of space is about 74%, 26% is between the spheres."

How do you measure the size of an infinite sphere? How can there be multiple infinite spheres when each requires infinite volume?

What are you smoking, and where do I get some?

Usus Vox Tractus · Oct 15, 2014

Loudmouth said:
How can you take up 74% of infinity?
"Infinite equal sized spheres in a sphere stacking impose a very specific border condition on each universe. Their expansive limit of space is about 74%, 26% is between the spheres."

How do you measure the size of an infinite sphere? How can there be multiple infinite spheres when each requires infinite volume?

What are you smoking, and where do I get some?

That should have read "Infinite (number), equal sized spheres..."

Not one infinite sphere. You cannot have a sphere STACK of one sphere.

The space they are stacked within is infinite.

You can pick up some Drum rolling tobacco at your local convenience store.

Loudmouth · Oct 15, 2014

JimFit said:
The Only argument that you have against the Fine Tuning is that you don't accept it and you HOPE that it is due to chance or necessity, i answered for BOTH.

The problem is that you have no evidence that anything was fine tuned by a designer. There is nothing for us to reject. The only statement you really have is that life exists in a universe capable of producing life, which is nothing more than a tautology.

Michael · Oct 16, 2014

Loudmouth said:
And what does the n stand for in statistics?

In the case of Penrose, it represents the likelihood of achieving a "flat" universe with inflation, vs. without inflation.

And his evidence for this?

You'd have to read his work, but essentially it's based on the basic attributes of inflation theory and a statistical average.

Is it backed by any statistical survey of universes?

No, because it has nothing to do with whether or not *other* universes might exist, just the properties of inflation.

You're missing the point IMO. The "odds" that Penrose calculates in relationship to inflation are *not* based on any need for *more* universes, they are based on the various properties of inflation. Admittedly one can "tinker" with those properties and change the numbers, but the figure that he came up with (10 to the 100th power) has nothing to do with any need for a multiverse scenario. Your argument is therefore a moot point.

Loudmouth · Oct 16, 2014

Michael said:
In the case of Penrose, it represents the likelihood of achieving a "flat" universe with inflation, vs. without inflation.

Let's use the lottery as our analogy again.

The likelihood of a specific single ticket winning the Powerball lottery is 1 in 150 million. That is one set of statistics. The other set of statistics is the likelihood that someone will win the Powerball lottery for any given drawing. Obviously, it doesn't take 150 million drawings for someone to win. People win the Powerball lottery all of the time. Those are the two sets of considerations that we are looking at.

The fine tuning argument says that since the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 150 million, then someone winning the lottery would be incredibly improbable so it shouldn't happen. See the problem?

You'd have to read his work, but essentially it's based on the basic attributes of inflation theory and a statistical average.

Those averages require a lot of assumptions.

No, because it has nothing to do with whether or not *other* universes might exist, just the properties of inflation.

In our lottery example above, you would be arguing that we shouldn't see any lottery winners because the odds are too high.

Michael · Oct 16, 2014

Loudmouth said:
Let's use the lottery as our analogy again.

If we use your analogy, only *one* lottery ticket is ever purchased by anyone, and it just so happens to be the "winning' one.

In this case the odds aren't one in few million however, they are 1 in 10 to the 100th power that our *one specific* ticket happened to be the winner.

Pretty staggering odds.

A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency