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.
Yeah here is the link to the post Thursday at 11:56 PM#382
Then why does the same science state that if the specific physical parameters that produced life were not the way they are then there would have been no intelligent life. Why do they propose multiverses to counter the fine tuning argument if it was not an issue. It all stems from the same science. Their calculations are the ones that show any slightest variation on our physical constants will have produced a different outcome. It is these calculations that show the big bang was a chance event that could have produced any possible outcome. But it happened to produce just one specific one that produced intelligent life.That's not a naturalistic presupposition, it's a fact. Life happens to exist because the physical constants just happen to be where they are to permit life. Why they happen to be where they are is not a question which science addresses. If you want to attribute it to a particular deity, go right ahead, but you will get no support from science in trying to convince anyone who has a different cause in mind.
Science doesn't say that.Then why does the same science state that if the specific physical parameters that produced life were not the way they are then there would have been no intelligent life.
Multiverses were not proposed to 'counter the fine tuning argument', but they are a potential explanation (if unsatisfying).Why do they propose multiverses to counter the fine tuning argument if it was not an issue.
No, they don't.Their calculations are the ones that show any slightest variation on our physical constants will have produced a different outcome.
No; we can only say that the big bang produced intelligent life; you're making unjustified assumptions on a self-selected sample of one, i.e. the Weak Anthropic Principle is tautologous, it doesn't justify any arguments.It is these calculations that show the big bang was a chance event that could have produced any possible outcome. But it happened to produce just one specific one that produced intelligent life.
Fair enough but I understood what you were asking. The link I was referring to already had the quotes cut out. I though it would save me the hassle of repeating something I had already done.I shall repeat my question:
Can you cut and paste the relevant quotes from the articles?
Not link me to your post, but cut and paste words from the articles that support what you are saying.
Please read what I said carefully and answer the question I am actually asking, not the question you think I am asking.
Who said that natural selection should promote organismal complexity? If you look around you, you'll see a world of vast numbers of relatively simple creatures, with numbers reducing dramatically with increasing complexity....So it seems that the evidence shows that natural selection is actually a hindrance to the evolution of organismal complexity.
I think one of the issues here is one of interpretation and scale.Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
...Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. ...
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
There are many scientists who state this and this is based on the science ieScience doesn't say that.
They are a non-verifiable explanation.Multiverses were not proposed to 'counter the fine tuning argument', but they are a potential explanation (if unsatisfying).
Please refer to the above links where scientists state that any slight variation will produce a different outcome where there is no life ieNo, they don't.
The above links mention many constants that need to be fined tuned. Weinberg states the laws of nature, not a law of nature need to be fined tuned. Hawking states the values and constants of physics and not just one value or constant but many need to be fined tuned ieNo; we can only say that the big bang produced intelligent life; you're making unjustified assumptions on a self-selected sample of one, i.e. the Weak Anthropic Principle is tautologous, it doesn't justify any arguments.
Until such time as anyone demonstrates that the values could be different in reality the whole fine tuning argument is a non-starter.There are many scientists who state this and this is based on the science ie
In a BBC science documentary, “The Anthropic Principle,” some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.
Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:
If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature — like the charge on the electron — then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.
Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:
If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfGCyqN4XAo
Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics acknowledges fine tuning
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
The claim is that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits the evolution of intelligent life is very small. I present here a review of the scientific literature, outlining cases of fine-tuning in the classic works of Carter, Carr and Rees, and Barrow and Tipler, as well as more recent work.
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
Leonard Susskind is a famous mainstream physicist and he writes
"To make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is most certainly no accident."
“Logically, it is possible that the laws of physics conspire to create an almost but not quite perfect cancellation [of the energy involved in the quantum fluctuations]. But then it would be an extraordinary coincidence that that level of cancellation—119 powers of ten, after all—just happened by chance to be what is needed to bring about a universe fit for life. How much chance can we buy in scientific explanation? One measure of what is involved can be given in terms of coin flipping: odds of 10^120 to one is like getting heads no fewer than four hundred times in a row. if the existence of life in the universe is completely independent of the big fix mechanism—if it’s just a coincidence—then those are the odds against our being here. That level of flukiness seems too much to swallow.”
Even Stephen Hawkins acknowledges the fine tuning of life.
Stephen Hawking writes in A Brief History of Time, p. 125:
"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (p. 125)
They are a non-verifiable explanation.
Please refer to the above links where scientists state that any slight variation will produce a different outcome where there is no life ie
Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
The above links mention many constants that need to be fined tuned. Weinberg states the laws of nature, not a law of nature need to be fined tuned. Hawking states the values and constants of physics and not just one value or constant but many need to be fined tuned ie
"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life"
Then why do so many scientists acknowledge the fine tuning of the universe for life. They acknowledge that the physical parameters have to be finely tuned to a narrow point on the dial and any change of the dial will produce something different including no life. So the puddle argument is begging the question and a circular argument. It assumes what it want to prove without giving any argument for why the many physical constants are set at a specific setting on the dial.That's not quite what the puddle argument is saying. The puddle argument is an example of post-hoc reasoning; namely that because the puddle exists, therefore the hole must have been made for its existence.
The fine tuning argument is exactly that: the universe permits intelligent life to exist, therefore the universe must have been designed to support intelligent life.
If the hole didn't exist (indeed if no holes existed), there would be no puddles to wonder about why they fit so nicely in those holes. Likewise if the universe didn't permit the conditions that allow intelligent life to exist, there would be no intelligent life sitting around and contemplating its existence.
It's because the universe permits intelligent life that intelligent life is able to exist. It's not the other way around. The fine tuning argument tries to make it the other way around which is why the fine tuning argument is logically flawed (post hoc reasoning).
They know because they know physics and when those physical conditions are changed it will have an effect. Like gravity what goes up must come down. But change its setting and it will change the effects as we see with zero gravity in space or when they calculate the gravity on other planets as being heavier etc. Change its value and things begin to either fly apart of lump together. It is math and they use this to calculate the gravitational effect for when they launch rockets with their trajectories.Until such time as anyone demonstrates that the values could be different in reality the whole fine tuning argument is a non-starter.
How do you know that the charge of an electron could be different to what it is? You don't.
How do you know that any other value in physics could have been different? You don't.
The fine tuning argument is meaningless without knowledge we do not possess.
Uh huh. You completely missed the point. Here's a challenge for you:They know because they know physics and when those physical conditions are changed it will have an effect. Like gravity what goes up must come down. But change its setting and it will change the effects as we see with zero gravity in space or when they calculate the gravity on other planets as being heavier etc. Change its value and things begin to either fly apart of lump together. It is math and they use this to calculate the gravitational effect for when they launch rockets with their trajectories.
The gravitational constant (also known as the universal gravitational constant, the Newtonian constant of gravitation, or the Cavendish gravitational constant),[a] denoted by the letter G, is an empirical physical constant involved in the calculation of gravitational effects in Sir Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation and in Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity.
Gravitational constant - Wikipedia
It is the same for all the other physical constants. If you want to dispute the math then you are disputing the very science used for many of the verified theories and physical makeup of our world and universe.
This article has many of the physical constants with linked papers showing how they are fine tuned and how any changes will affect them
Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Why bother with all that when the supposed OPINIONS of famous people are easier to find?Until such time as anyone demonstrates that the values could be different in reality the whole fine tuning argument is a non-starter.
How do you know that the charge of an electron could be different to what it is? You don't.
How do you know that any other value in physics could have been different? You don't.
The fine tuning argument is meaningless without knowledge we do not possess.
. So the puddle argument is begging the question and a circular argument. It assumes what it want to prove without giving any argument for why the many physical constants are set at a specific setting on the dial.
There are many scientists who state this and this is based on the science ie
In a BBC science documentary, “The Anthropic Principle,” some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.
Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:
If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature — like the charge on the electron — then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.
Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:
If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfGCyqN4XAo
Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics acknowledges fine tuning
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
The claim is that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits the evolution of intelligent life is very small. I present here a review of the scientific literature, outlining cases of fine-tuning in the classic works of Carter, Carr and Rees, and Barrow and Tipler, as well as more recent work.
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
Leonard Susskind is a famous mainstream physicist and he writes
"To make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is most certainly no accident."
“Logically, it is possible that the laws of physics conspire to create an almost but not quite perfect cancellation [of the energy involved in the quantum fluctuations]. But then it would be an extraordinary coincidence that that level of cancellation—119 powers of ten, after all—just happened by chance to be what is needed to bring about a universe fit for life. How much chance can we buy in scientific explanation? One measure of what is involved can be given in terms of coin flipping: odds of 10^120 to one is like getting heads no fewer than four hundred times in a row. if the existence of life in the universe is completely independent of the big fix mechanism—if it’s just a coincidence—then those are the odds against our being here. That level of flukiness seems too much to swallow.”
Even Stephen Hawkins acknowledges the fine tuning of life.
Stephen Hawking writes in A Brief History of Time, p. 125:
"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (p. 125)
That's why it is unsatisfying.They are a non-verifiable explanation.
There are many scientists who state this and this is based on the science ie
In a BBC science documentary, “The Anthropic Principle,” some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.
Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:
If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature — like the charge on the electron — then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.
Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:
If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfGCyqN4XAo
Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics acknowledges fine tuning
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
The claim is that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits the evolution of intelligent life is very small. I present here a review of the scientific literature, outlining cases of fine-tuning in the classic works of Carter, Carr and Rees, and Barrow and Tipler, as well as more recent work.
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
Leonard Susskind is a famous mainstream physicist and he writes
"To make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is most certainly no accident."
“Logically, it is possible that the laws of physics conspire to create an almost but not quite perfect cancellation [of the energy involved in the quantum fluctuations]. But then it would be an extraordinary coincidence that that level of cancellation—119 powers of ten, after all—just happened by chance to be what is needed to bring about a universe fit for life. How much chance can we buy in scientific explanation? One measure of what is involved can be given in terms of coin flipping: odds of 10^120 to one is like getting heads no fewer than four hundred times in a row. if the existence of life in the universe is completely independent of the big fix mechanism—if it’s just a coincidence—then those are the odds against our being here. That level of flukiness seems too much to swallow.”
Even Stephen Hawkins acknowledges the fine tuning of life.
Stephen Hawking writes in A Brief History of Time, p. 125:
"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (p. 125)
They are a non-verifiable explanation.
The above links mention many constants that need to be fined tuned. Weinberg states the laws of nature, not a law of nature need to be fined tuned. Hawking states the values and constants of physics and not just one value or constant but many need to be fined tuned ie
"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life"
Unlikely does not mean impossible.
Unlikely does not mean impossible.
Argument from incredulity does not make a valid argument.
Unlikely does not mean impossible.
Unlikely does not mean impossible, and argument from incredulity does not make a valid argument.
"Seem."
So is intelligent design, but you don't let that stop you.
How do you go from Hawking saying it SEEMS like it to concluding that it MUST BE?
You cannot apply the puddle example to the fine tuning argument. The flaws in the puddle example are that it is a circular argument. It assumes what it wants to argue and does not explain or give reason why the puddle fits the hole so well. Whereas the fine tuning argument explains how the many constants fall within a narrow range of possibilities through chance. The details of those explanations can be found in what I have posted.That's whole point of the puddle arguments. It demonstrates why the fine tuning argument is flawed.
If you're seeing flaws in the puddle argument, that's a good thing! Now just apply the same to the fine tuning argument and you're set.
You cannot apply the puddle example to the fine tuning argument. The flaws in the puddle example are that it is a circular argument. It assumes what it wants to argue and does not explain or give reason why the puddle fits the hole so well. Whereas the fine tuning argument explains how the many constants fall within a narrow range of possibilities through chance. The details of those explanations can be found in what I have posted.
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?