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 does no such thing. It simply asserts, without any evidence, that there are other possible values, and then claims, without any evidence, that we are lucky we got the values we have.Whereas the fine tuning argument explains how the many constants fall within a narrow range of possibilities through chance.
Whereas the fine tuning argument explains how the many constants fall within a narrow range of possibilities through chance.
Cognitive dissonance. It's been a while since the phrase has has been used in these forums, but the phenomenon is still very apparent.The fine tuning argument doesn't explain anything. The fine tuning argument claims that because the universe allows for the existence of life, therefore it was designed for that purpose. It's post-hoc reasoning.
The fine tuning argument is flawed for the same reason the puddle argument is. I don't see how you can see the flaw with the latter, but not the former even though they are the same fundamental argument.
I don't think we need to show that an alternative universe to provide support for the values of our physical constants and how things can be different if they change so that it will affect the production of life being created. Though I find it ironic that you say my argument would be meaningless when multiverses are taken seriously by mainstream scientists as being a reality.Uh huh. You completely missed the point. Here's a challenge for you:
Demonstrate that any of the values in your fine tuning argument can actually be different to what they are.
I'm not asking for hypotheticals, I want evidence of actual differences.
In short - demonstrate that an alternative universe is possible in reality, not just on paper. If you cannot, your argument is meaningless.
The simple question has to be asked does the puddle example explain anything. An argument should explain something. Therefore the puddle example is not an argument for anything and just an analogy which is a bad one when it comes to the fine tuning argument.The fine tuning argument doesn't explain anything. The fine tuning argument claims that because the universe allows for the existence of life, therefore it was designed for that purpose. It's post-hoc reasoning.
The fine tuning argument is flawed for the same reason the puddle argument is. I don't see how you can see the flaw with the latter, but not the former even though they are the same fundamental argument.
But I have to ask, so what? So if the basic physical constants weren't exactly what they are then life wouldn't exist here. And...?I don't think we need to show that an alternative universe to provide support for the values of our physical constants and how things can be different if they change so that it will affect the production of life being created. Though I find it ironic that you say my argument would be meaningless when multiverses are taken seriously by mainstream scientists as being a reality.
We don't need to demonstrate an alternative universe for the fine tuning argument. IN fact an alternative universe would invalidate fine tuning as it introduces a multiverse. We can measure the current physical constants in our universe and also calculate what slight variations to those variations will produce. This shows how our physical constants need to be fine tuned. The science used for this is the same science we have used for our well known theories the Standard Model. The physical constants for the basis of all our theoretical equations of physics. AS this article states
Accurate evaluation of these constants is essential in order to check the correctness of the theories and to allow useful applications to be made on the basis of those theories.
Physical constant
An example of how we can measure constants with the same science that our fundamental theories are based on and to measure any variation and its effects are found in this article below.
The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life has received a great deal of attention in recent years, both in the philosophical and scientific literature. 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.
We will touch on such issues as the logical necessity of the laws of nature; objectivity, invariance and symmetry; theoretical physics and possible universes; entropy in cosmology; cosmic inflation and initial conditions; galaxy formation; the cosmological constant; stars and their formation; the properties of elementary particles and their effect on chemistry and the macroscopic world; the origin of mass; grand unified theories; and the dimensionality of space and time. I also provide an assessment of the multiverse, noting the significant challenges that it must face. I do not attempt to defend any conclusion based on the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
http://www.publish.csiro.au/AS/pdf/AS12015
Another example of how we can measure the physical constants and how they are tied to ouur current theories is the cosmological constant. Dark energy is now an important part of our understanding of the universe. Yet as Leonard Susskind says
"The great mystery is not why there is dark energy. The great mystery is why there is so little of it [10−122]... The fact that we are just on the knife edge of existence, [that] if dark energy were very much bigger we wouldn’t be here, that's the mystery." A slightly larger quantity of dark energy, or a slightly larger value of the cosmological constant would have caused space to expand rapidly enough that galaxies would not form.
So the same methods used to calculate the amount of dark energy needed to support our galaxies and fundamental theories like relativity is also used to determine the fine tuning of our universe for life.
The astronomer royal addresses the cosmic coincidence that six numbers in physics are just right for the emergence of galaxies, stars, chemistry and people
Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe by Martin Rees – review | Tim Radford | Science Book Club
I don't see that because I see two completely different situations. I understand the idea of a post hoc argument but for something as complex as fine tuning it should not apply as we need to go into some detail about how things work. How things originate.The fine tuning argument doesn't explain anything. The fine tuning argument claims that because the universe allows for the existence of life, therefore it was designed for that purpose. It's post-hoc reasoning.
The fine tuning argument is flawed for the same reason the puddle argument is. I don't see how you can see the flaw with the latter, but not the former even though they are the same fundamental argument.
That's all you've said so far as well.It is not a circular argument like the puddle example which does not explain anything and simply says because we have life the universe must have been perfect for life.
I don't think it is a so what matter and many scientists who do not equate fine tuning with anything religious also think the same. They are impressed with the findings and do not know how this can be explained. At least for now. I think the idea of the fine tuning argument and why so many scientists are impressed is that it points to our existence being something unique and perhaps a very rare event. It is a confounding issue for some which is hard to equate with how science works. But for others they may take this further to say that the fine tuning is no accident and that there is some agency behind things. But your question is a good one as it takes the debate beyond the recycling of the current dispute to another level where we can explore the issue further.But I have to ask, so what? So if the basic physical constants weren't exactly what they are then life wouldn't exist here. And...?
Doubling down does not address the point.I don't think we need to show that an alternative universe to provide support for the values of our physical constants and how things can be different if they change so that it will affect the production of life being created. Though I find it ironic that you say my argument would be meaningless when multiverses are taken seriously by mainstream scientists as being a reality.
We don't need to demonstrate an alternative universe for the fine tuning argument. IN fact an alternative universe would invalidate fine tuning as it introduces a multiverse. We can measure the current physical constants in our universe and also calculate what slight variations to those variations will produce. This shows how our physical constants need to be fine tuned. The science used for this is the same science we have used for our well known theories the Standard Model. The physical constants for the basis of all our theoretical equations of physics. AS this article states
Accurate evaluation of these constants is essential in order to check the correctness of the theories and to allow useful applications to be made on the basis of those theories.
Physical constant
An example of how we can measure constants with the same science that our fundamental theories are based on and to measure any variation and its effects are found in this article below.
The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life has received a great deal of attention in recent years, both in the philosophical and scientific literature. 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.
We will touch on such issues as the logical necessity of the laws of nature; objectivity, invariance and symmetry; theoretical physics and possible universes; entropy in cosmology; cosmic inflation and initial conditions; galaxy formation; the cosmological constant; stars and their formation; the properties of elementary particles and their effect on chemistry and the macroscopic world; the origin of mass; grand unified theories; and the dimensionality of space and time. I also provide an assessment of the multiverse, noting the significant challenges that it must face. I do not attempt to defend any conclusion based on the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
http://www.publish.csiro.au/AS/pdf/AS12015
Another example of how we can measure the physical constants and how they are tied to ouur current theories is the cosmological constant. Dark energy is now an important part of our understanding of the universe. Yet as Leonard Susskind says
"The great mystery is not why there is dark energy. The great mystery is why there is so little of it [10−122]... The fact that we are just on the knife edge of existence, [that] if dark energy were very much bigger we wouldn’t be here, that's the mystery." A slightly larger quantity of dark energy, or a slightly larger value of the cosmological constant would have caused space to expand rapidly enough that galaxies would not form.
So the same methods used to calculate the amount of dark energy needed to support our galaxies and fundamental theories like relativity is also used to determine the fine tuning of our universe for life.
Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe by Martin Rees – review
The astronomer royal addresses the cosmic coincidence that six numbers in physics are just right for the emergence of galaxies, stars, chemistry and people
Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe by Martin Rees – review | Tim Radford | Science Book Club
No I have linked several articles explaining the fine tuning which shows it is not circular argument by showing that life is not just here because the universe is here but life is here because a specific universe is here which could have ended up as any number of universe. That distinguishes the universe and like as something unique and rare unlike the puddle and water.That's all you've said so far as well.
I am not doubling down but honestly believing that I have supported my argument. What you need to show is how current calculation that determine our physical constants cannot also be used to show that if we vary those constants we will get a different outcome. Does not logic tell you that if scientists have developed methods for calculating say the strength of gravity that as part of that calculation they can also calculate what happens when that strength changes. The science that calculates what the strength of gravity is the same science that calculates what it cannot be. I just posted articles showing how they calculate the physical constants and how any changes will produce different outcomes. Explain to me how this logic is wrong as maybe I am seeing things wrong or not understanding your question properly.Doubling down does not address the point.
Can you demonstrate that other values are possible?
I think in all my reading of science with any topic that the words seem and likely are used a lot. So maybe this is just language par for the course and does not mean much. Especially when it comes to the universe.
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?
What does that mean?It is a confounding issue for some which is hard to equate with how science works.
And...? At some point you are going to have to let us in on where you are going with this.But for others they may take this further to say that the fine tuning is no accident and that there is some agency behind things.
I have only found that quote as being presented by others attributing it to Weinberg.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.
It is not a circular argument like the puddle example which does not explain anything and simply says because we have life the universe must have been perfect for life. It does not go into explain how the universe is perfect for life.
That distinguishes the universe and like as something unique and rare unlike the puddle and water.
You have, once again, completely avoided answering my question.I am not doubling down but honestly believing that I have supported my argument. What you need to show is how current calculation that determine our physical constants cannot also be used to show that if we vary those constants we will get a different outcome. Does not logic tell you that if scientists have developed methods for calculating say the strength of gravity that as part of that calculation they can also calculate what happens when that strength changes. The science that calculates what the strength of gravity is the same science that calculates what it cannot be. I just posted articles showing how they calculate the physical constants and how any changes will produce different outcomes. Explain to me how this logic is wrong as maybe I am seeing things wrong or not understanding your question properly.
It is just an observation. It means what it says. Confounding- cause surprise or confusion in (someone), especially by not according with their expectations. Some scientists do not expect such a finding especially if we view things from the naturalistic perspective of chance accidental occurrences. The best example of this is the cosmological constant which is said to be the worst prediction in science and has confounded scientists.What does that mean?
I am aiming for nothing in particular. Probably the main one at the moment is the fine tuning argument and trying to determine its status in science. Overall I have mentioned that the fine tuning may be one support for a creative agent behind things which is one of the options suggested by many articles on the topic.And...? At some point you are going to have to let us in on where you are going with this.
From my understanding are you asking if it has been demonstrated in science if say the The strength of gravity cannot be any other value except the one that we have measured in our universe. What do you determine as demonstrate. Are you asking for support showing an alternative value at work somewhere or for showing the theoretical support through calculations that other values are possible.You have, once again, completely avoided answering my question.
Can you demonstrate that any other physical values are possible?
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?