A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[Pachomius]

Even if I were making a science gap argument (which I'm not), that wouldn't save the fine-tuning argument for God, because it would suffer from a similar problem. Both arguments of that sort would go spiraling down in flames. You can't hold onto your argument without allowing for "science gap" arguments to hold as well.

Fine-tuning arguments aren't falsifiable. The physical constants may be known, but not the conclusion that God must be the cause if scientists can't offer some alternative explanation.



Familiar in a layman's sense, sure. I'm not too sure what you mean by "basic musical relationships" though.

And I'm not convinced by what I know of string theory, incidentally. I find loop quantum gravity more convincing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

"Fine-tuning arguments aren't falsifiable." [ Moan. ]

Because they are not science theories formulated by fallible humans who know but dare not come to consciousness on it, that they don't know even just .00000000000001% of the 4% they vainly claim to know of the 100% universe that exists.

 

[Pachomius]

What would your model be based on? Models are only as good as the data plugged into them. Another way of saying this is: "garbage in... garbage out."

Yes, of course, if you put garbage where it should not be, what can you expect but that garbage will be your reward.

That is why you see garbage where poets and philosophers of clear vision see beauty, fine tuning, what we call miracles everywhere, all the time.

 

[Pachomius]

I remember "dad", but I don't remember that particular argument.

I'm not making an argument from ignorance. That sort of argument declares a proposition true because it has not yet been proven false. That's not what I'm saying.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Okay, as you claim to know what is an argument, tell me, pray, what argument do you have that the nose in your face is a product of chaos everywhere all the time.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Okay, as you claim to know what is an argument, tell me, pray, what argument do you have that the nose in your face is a product of chaos everywhere all the time.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

I recommend that you watch the youtube video I had posted on the previous page to understand what emergent complexity is. I was talking about that.

And please take your meds. Your posts are becoming increasingly manic.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Pachomius]

Dad often says "We don't know if the laws of physics and the way the universe operates were the same in the past or out in space, and you can't know that for sure, that means everything in the Bible is literally true, it just happened back when those things were possible."

You're saying "We don't know if the laws of physics and the way the universe operates were the same in the past or out in space, and we can't know for sure, so you can't say the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of human life."

The arguments are very similar.

If you insist that your digestive tract is not fine tuned for the input of food and the whole process of nutrition for your body, then you should try a glorious diet of garbage every day every meal you eat, then you will appreciate the worth of orderly safe and healthy diet to preserve the finely tuned digestive system God creator of the universe has gifted you with.

 

[Pachomius]

No, they aren't. I'm not making a positive claim as dad did. I'm making an argument about what cannot be concluded to be true. It is a very different style of argument. It isn't an argument from ignorance, which only has to do with positive claims.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Well, then give a name to your argument, and explain it in 100 words or less, that everything in the universe is chaotic, start with the nose in your face.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well, then give a name to your argument, and explain it in 100 words or less, that everything in the universe is chaotic, start with the nose in your face.

You are putting words in my mouth. Please stop that. I am not making that claim.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Pachomius]

So why couldn't the consistent production of universes be due to comparable natural processes? Why introduce a deity?

There you go again, into the realm of pure fictions, good only for idle minds to keep themselves occupied with vacuous things, when there are so much of finely tuned marvels all around us to keep us in contemplation of beauty.

Go to Tyson, astronomer, who bemoans how foolish is that record box office breaking movie, Cosmos.


Starring Clooney and Bullock.

 

[Pachomius]

That's merely a technicality. You could rephrase dad's argument as "we don't know things were always the same, so you can't claim that evidence gathered today applied to the past", then it wouldn't be a positive claim.

Pray, for the nth time, give your argument on how everything in the universe is all chaos everywhere and all the time, starting with the nose in your face.

 

[Pachomius]

No, it's an important logical distinction.



No, that wouldn't be rephrasing his argument. You are altering the argument significantly.

In any case, I would simply point out that for the past thirteen or so billion years, in that region of the universe that we can see, it looks reasonable to conclude that the universe worked pretty much like it does now. I would agree with dad that we can't know if it worked precisely the same prior to that time or in some other context. I would not conclude anything about those other times or contexts, since we simply haven't had a chance to form that knowledge yet. Speculation is fine as long as you know that you are only speculating.


eudaimonia,

Mark

"In any case, I would simply point out that for the past thirteen or so billion years, in that region of the universe that we can see, it looks reasonable to conclude that the universe worked pretty much like it does now." Wrong!


According to the most-est number of scientists today, the universe started 13.8 billion years ago, with a thingy point of intense concentration of energy, from which the universe expanded fast, quick, and quicker and quicker and is still expanding more and more quicker.

So, the universe did not behave in the past as it is behaving now today; God the creator has a schedule for it, and it is following the schedule faithfully.

But our finely tuned humanity will be the same by God's ordinance until we fill up our quota of earthly existence.

 

[Pachomius]

I don't argue in that way. I simply insist that we have to use inductive logic on what we can observe. We have to be cautious in making statements about what we haven't observed. It sounds like he is arguing from some sort of epistemological nihilism, which I do not.



None that won't lead to the "science gap" refrain. I could point out that there are interesting speculations, such as:

Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe? : Nature News & Comment

A four dimensional black hole is beyond our direct experience, and it would make for a very different sort of existence than what we are familiar with. I'm not saying that I believe this speculation. The reason that it exists at all is that there is math based at least to some extent on what is known that backs up the speculation. Hopefully, testable predictions will follow.


eudaimonia,

Mark

No need at all to speculate on four dimensional black holes which are so distant from our immediate access.

I invite physicists to apply their math to figure out the fine tuning in their nose, this is the topic of the thread.

I mean the fine tuning in the universe witnessing to the work of God the creator of the universe; anyway, the nose is a part of the universe -- you deny that?

Okay, tell me then, what sub-atomic particles, fields, forces, etc., laws of physics, etc., are not found in the existence and operation of the nose in our face, which are found in the existence and operation in the universe when scientists delve into the sub-atomic spheres of the universe?

 

[Pachomius]

Both you and I are ignorant about certain issues.



I'm not interested in your posturing.



I did not say that. The issue that I had raised is emergent order (aka spontaneous order and emergent complexity), which is order that arises from simplicity and without any top-down central planning. This video is worth watching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEaZHWXmbRw​

eudaimonia,

Mark

​

​

​

"emergent order"


That is what I call a highfalutin* term for saying it comes to pass.


No, not impressive at all about your argumentative arsenal to argue that in effect there is only chaos in the universe.

Highfalu·tin : seeming or trying to seem great or important

Full Definition of HIGHFALUTIN

1 : pretentious, fancy

2 : expressed in or marked by the use of high-flown bombastic language : pompous

Examples of HIGHFALUTIN

a highfalutin way of talking

"his highfalutin paean to the working class failed to win over a crowd that wanted to hear down-to-earth proposals for economic relief"


Origin of HIGHFALUTIN

perhaps from high + alteration of fluting, present participle of flute


First Known Use: 1839

Related to HIGHFALUTIN


Synonyms
aureate, florid, grandiloquent, flowery (also hifalutin), high-flown, high-sounding, magnific, ornate, purple, rhetorical (also rhetoric)


Antonyms
humble, lowly, modest, unarrogant, unpretentious

[+]more

 

[Pachomius]

Please don't put words in my mouth.

I recommend that you watch the youtube video I had posted on the previous page to understand what emergent complexity is. I was talking about that.

And please take your meds. Your posts are becoming increasingly manic.


eudaimonia,

Mark

"And please take your meds. Your posts are becoming increasingly manic."


I see ad hominem now an emergent phenomenon from you.


What I want to do is to tell atheists that you search into the edges of the universe and into the depths of sub-atomic abyss, to not meet God the creator of the universe and the master of fine tuning, when from our body and all its parts, there is fine tuning witnessing to the amazing craftsmanship of God creator of the universe, master craftsman.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is the proof that God is a free agent, He is not an assembly belt.

Then bid good-bye to the fine tuning argument.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I'm not suggesting that the universe doesn't have a nature. Of course inventors bank on the universe having a nature. They don't bank on divine entities, because none are needed in order for something that exists to have properties.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Eudaimonist: Would a metaversal model that produces the same dark energy constant and "fine tuning" in all universe by pure geometry be more preferable to a roll of the dice, "luck us" metaverse?

I'm glad you have a basic understanding of dark energy and matter, these will feature prominently in the Great Contration model of universal development. The DNA anatomical associates are also easy to see.

The major musical relationships I'll be talking about are the 8 whole and 12 total notes to an octave, the doubling and halving of frequency to arrive at octaves, the 2,3,2,3,2...etc arrangement of black keys on a piano, the circle of 4rths and the spiral of 5ths.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I recommend that you watch the youtube video I had posted on the previous page to understand what emergent complexity is. I was talking about that.


eudaimonia,

Is this emergent complexity or an example of a finely tuned universe? Did DNA-Based Life Begin in Nebula & Interstellar Clouds?

Based on results from the European Space Agency's infrared space observatory, the Spitzer and other space telescopes, the chemical synthesis of complex organic molecules occurs rapidly in different stellar environments. A comparative analysis of infrared spectra, indicates that small organic molecules can evolve into complex organic molecules. This includes inducing chiral asymmetry in interstellar organic molecules leading, possibly to an excess of L-amino acids. Amino acids appear to be generated and synthesized in these stellar environments. Sixty amino acids have been detected, including eight of the twenty amino acids necessary for life. In fact, the UV irradiation of interstellar ice analogs is known to lead to the formation and synthesis of organic compounds (Troop and Baily 2009) such as amino acids and what may be nucleobases.

A wide-field and deep near-infrared study of the Orion nebula, revealed a high circular polarization region is patially extended around the massive star-forming region, the BN/KL nebula, and which is being irradiated by polarized radiation inducing a asymmetric photochemistry and thus what appears to be homochirality, i.e. the production of left handed amino acids . Amino acids lead to proteins and DNA.

Interstellar molecular clouds appear to serve as stellar nurseries for building complex molecules, producing sugars, alcohols, ethers and quinons which also absorb UV and other types of radiation which would be destructive to amino acids. However, at the same time, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, sulfur, nitrogen and phosphorus are continually irradiated by ions, and which could generate complex organic molecules, carbon grains, oxides, and even proteins

Within a nebular cloud, complex organic molecules can be provided all the ingredients necessary for building more complex molecular structures, including amino acids and proteins which can be combined to create additional life-related structures, including DNA. Even energy is supplied.

The combination of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, cyanide and several other elements, could possibly create adenine, which is a DNA base, whereas oxygen and phosphorus could ladder DNA base pairs together. Therefore the building blocks for DNA may have also been generated within interstellar clouds.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Eudaimonist: Would a metaversal model that produces the same dark energy constant and "fine tuning" in all universe by pure geometry be more preferable to a roll of the dice, "luck us" metaverse?

Preferable for what purpose? I'd prefer to know with reasonable certainty which one is true.

If you are asking me which would suit my taste better (as if that would matter to the universe), I'd go with some model of the universe that inevitably arrives at those "constants" though geometry or something similar to emergent complexity. I don't personally like randomness even in QM (I'm hoping that some form of pilot wave theory turns out to be true), but I would rather know the truth whatever it may be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC0ygr08tE


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Delphiki]

"The universe is NOT fine tuned for life or our existence."

Hah! You know better who never ever had fine tuned anything to exist and live, how presumptuous.

Which is just as well as anyone else, because nobody else has fine tuned anything to exist and live either, so if that's reason to disqualify my position, then no one else has a position any more valid than mine.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Is this emergent complexity or an example of a finely tuned universe?

Possibly either one or both at some level, but it's just really amazing that something like that happens in our godless, natural universe. Just keep in mind that not everything that is amazing to the human mind must have some intelligent purpose as an explanation. A flock of birds may move in startlingly complex ways, but there is no intelligent designer of flocks.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Preferable for what purpose? I'd prefer to know with reasonable certainty which one is true.

If you are asking me which would suit my taste better (as if that would matter to the universe), I'd go with some model of the universe that inevitably arrives at those "constants" though geometry or something similar to emergent complexity. I don't personally like randomness even in QM (I'm hoping that some form of pilot wave theory turns out to be true), but I would rather know the truth whatever it may be.




eudaimonia,

Mark

Preferable for mathematical workability and predictability rather than random untraceable happenstance.


The geometric Great Contraction model yields a ~74% base dark energy constant for all universes. With a couple adjustments for internal pressure differentials, I come to a dark energy constant in our bend of space time of about 67.5% Does that match with your knowledge?


I did none of this is with 2d math. It is all with 3d super-symmetric divisions of space-time-matter. The equal-opposite reactions of a real 3d substance in real 3d space. By these divided regions in a single universe, there are 5 others that contain heavier matter and antimatter. Just by bulk space time division there should be 5 times more "dark matter" that regular visible matter (VM).

Current estimate for VM are 4-5%, for DM 22-27%.....either way I am only 2% off. Not bad for estimating the entire universe in my head!


Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science
It turns out that roughly 68% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe.




Looks like I nailed the DE constant. If you are interested, I will show you exactly how I arrived at these answers. I'm off to work now but will be back in several hours.