I did not realize Dawkins was a metaphysical naturalist. So what about the other paper about the big bang being chaotic and stating that if the contractions of the initial expansion were changed there would be a different outcome.A statement from a metaphysical naturalist. And you conclude from it that all scientists are metaphysical naturalists. But all that he is really saying is that you will find no proof of God in nature.
I'm surprised to hear that. He is notorious in creationist circles for being a militant atheist.I did not realize Dawkins was a metaphysical naturalist.
What about it? If things weren't they way they are now they'd be different.So what about the other paper about the big bang being chaotic and stating that if the contractions of the initial expansion were changed there would be a different outcome.
The 'design' version of the Strong Anthropic principle (i.e. the universe is designed to produce & support observers) is based on fine-tuning, so is itself a fine-tuning argument.But isn't the fine tuning argument based on the strong Anthropic principle.
I don't see anyone making a big deal out of things and nobody created the multiverse theory to counter the FTA.Then how do you explain these
Paul Davies
“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal.
Hugh Ross
“What several decades of research has revealed about Earth's location within the vastness of the cosmos can be summed up in this statement: the ideal place for any kind of life as we know it turns out to be a solar system like ours, within a galaxy like the Milky Way, within a supercluster of galaxies like the Virgo supercluster, within a super-supercluster like the Laniakea super-supercluser. In other words we happen to live in the best, perhaps the one and only, neighborhood that allows not only for physical life's existence but also for it's enduring survival.”
― Hugh Ross, Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity's Home
Martin Rees
“These six numbers constitute a ‘recipe’ for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life.”
Leonard Susskind
"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.
QR4.8.2 Our Fine-Tuned Universe – Thinkers Corner
Fred Hoyle
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so over-whelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Lee Smolin
“Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10 to the power of 229.”
Why do many articles say that in the last 40 years scientists have found that our physical constants are just right for permitting life. Then go into detail about the constants and if they vary will not permit life. Why make a big deal out of this.
Scientists have discovered a surprising fact about our universe in the past 40 years: against incredible odds, the numbers in basic physics are exactly as they need to be to accommodate the possibility of life.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/07/stephen-hawking-god-multiverse-cosmology
In the past 40 or so years, a strange fact about our Universe gradually made itself known to scientists: the laws of physics, and the initial conditions of our Universe, are fine-tuned for the possibility of life.
Cosmopsychism explains why the Universe is fine-tuned for life | Aeon Essays
Now here is how scientists use the multiverse to counter the fine tuning.
Stephen Hawking defended a naturalistic explanation of fine-tuning in terms of the multiverse hypothesis. According to the multiverse hypothesis, the universe we live in is just one of an enormous, perhaps infinite, number of universes. If there are enough universes then it becomes not so improbable that at least one will chance upon the right laws for life.
Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God? | Philip Goff
Meissner acknowledges that the research does not answer why the values are what they are. To explain this, some physicists invoke a concept called the "multiverse," in which "parallel" universes with many different possible values of the constants exist, and we, unsurprisingly, find ourselves in one in which complex life can evolve. Meissner says his team's work "gives some credit" to this concept, but does not explain how the many universes would be generated.
A More Finely Tuned Universe
OK I knew he did that but I thought you meant he was some sort of advocate for non-materialism.I'm surprised to hear that. He is notorious in creationist circles for being a militant atheist.
Yes that's the point with fine tuning that there are other possible outcomes for our universe but we happen to have ended up with the right one that produced life. The paper is saying that due to a chaotic big bang it could have turned out different.What about it? If things weren't they way they are now they'd be different.
Yet the paper says nothing about fine tuning. I think you do not understand what chaos theory is.Yes that's the point with fine tuning that there are other possible outcomes for our universe but we happen to have ended up with the right one that produced life. The paper is saying that due to a chaotic big bang it could have turned out different.
I never said they created the multiverse to counter the fine tuning but rather it has become common for scientist to use a multiverse for this reason to counter the fine tuning. The figures of speech I hear or read the scientists saying or being ascribed to for the fine tuning outcome is one of astonishment or surprise. That to me is describing something that is a big deal.I don't see anyone making a big deal out of things and nobody created the multiverse theory to counter the FTA.
I can appreciate the bigger context except some are taking the multiverse very seriously and make claims that it is now fact. A multiverse is supported because it is tied to existed theories. One of the consequences of inflation theory is a multiverse but this has led to people saying we have to abandon inflation as a multiverse invalidates it. Still many want to hold on to the idea. So it seems that despite a multiverse being something that cannot be verified people still want to use it.You're jumping to conclusions and reading what you want to see in every post. Try taking a step back and read things without the blinkers. Scientists see that we live in an environment that allows life, and if some physical values were different we would not be able to exist. That does not mean "they are making a big deal" of it, they are simply pointing out that life would not exist if things were slightly different. Some of them then wonder if it's possible for other physical values to exist, so they came up with multiverse ideas. They are not asserting (unlike you) that those different values must be possible elsewhere, and they didn't develop those ideas because of FTA.
I have studied chaos theory that is not the point. The paper does not have to mention fine tuning to make a case that there could have been other outcomes for our universe. It stands to reason that the big bang/inflation was a chaotic and erratic event from nothing to something and that something could have ended up being many possible outcomes. So we may not be able to verify the values of constants directly but much of our accepted science points to the possibility of other outcomes for our universe in other ways.Yet the paper says nothing about fine tuning. I think you do not understand what chaos theory is.
So therefore the puddle analogy does not apply to the strong Anthropic principle.The 'design' version of the Strong Anthropic principle (i.e. the universe is designed to produce & support observers) is based on fine-tuning, so is itself a fine-tuning argument.
But the difference between that and the Weak Anthropic principle is what the puddle analogy is pointing out.
The puddle analogy is equivalent to a comparison of the Strong (design) and Weak Anthropic principles, pointing out that the design argument looks pretty silly when you strip away the emotional investment and intellectual habituation to it.So therefore the puddle analogy does not apply to the strong Anthropic principle.
Metaphysical materialism is the position that material or natural reality is all that exists. It is for all practical purposes the same thing as atheism. It can be contrasted with the methodological naturalism of science, which is the position that material or natural reality is all that can be studied by science because the supernatural is inaccessible to it. Methodological naturalism takes no position on the existence of God or the supernatural, one way or the other.OK I knew he did that but I thought you meant he was some sort of advocate for non-materialism.
Otherwise we wouldn't be here to wonder about it. Right.Yes that's the point with fine tuning that there are other possible outcomes for our universe but we happen to have ended up with the right one that produced life.
I just wondered if you understood the same thing by "chaotic" as the author of the article meant.The paper is saying that due to a chaotic big bang it could have turned out different.
Once again, how could it be otherwise?... that's the point with fine tuning that there are other possible outcomes for our universe but we happen to have ended up with the right one that produced life.
If you cannot be consistent in your argument then you really have no argument. You stated, specifically, that the multiverse theory was developed to counter FTA. Now you want to say that's not the case. You need to pick a position and stick to it. So, was multiverse theory developed to counter FTA or do you accept that it was developed for other reasons but provides evidence against FTA?I never said they created the multiverse to counter the fine tuning but rather it has become common for scientist to use a multiverse for this reason to counter the fine tuning. The figures of speech I hear or read the scientists saying or being ascribed to for the fine tuning outcome is one of astonishment or surprise. That to me is describing something that is a big deal.
I can appreciate the bigger context except some are taking the multiverse very seriously and make claims that it is now fact. A multiverse is supported because it is tied to existed theories. One of the consequences of inflation theory is a multiverse but this has led to people saying we have to abandon inflation as a multiverse invalidates it. Still many want to hold on to the idea. So it seems that despite a multiverse being something that cannot be verified people still want to use it.
Yet when people talk about fine tuning they say it cannot be verified and dismiss it. Both have indirect support and both can be tied to existing theories yet only a multiverse is accepted. The ironic thing is when it comes to the fine tuning argument a multiverse supports the idea of there being slightly different values for the physical parameters, but just not possible in our universe.
From what I understand some scientists are not just pondering about fine tuning but have accepted it and take it seriously. They just don't attribute God to it and believe that there is some other explanation such as the multiverse. But to deny that there are no scientists who actually accept the fine tuning is wrong IMO as the evidence shows otherwise.
The Fine Tuning of the Universe
the scientific establishment’s most prestigious journals, and its most famous physicists and cosmologists, have all gone on record as recognizing the objective truth of the fine-tuning.
The Fine Tuning of the Universe | Gerald Schroeder
That is simply you reading more into things than is actually there. Like I said, try reading what is actually written, not what you want to see.I have studies chaos theory that is not the point. The paper does not have to mention fine tuning to make a case that there could have been other outcomes for our universe. It stands to reason that the big bang/inflation was a chaotic and erratic event form nothing to something and that something could have ended up being many possible outcomes. So we may not be able to verify the values of constants directly but much of our accepted science points to the possibility of other outcomes for our universe in other ways.
Sorry you will have to show me where I said that as the only reference I can find is in post #512#524 where I saidIf you cannot be consistent in your argument then you really have no argument. You stated, specifically, that the multiverse theory was developed to counter FTA. Now you want to say that's not the case. You need to pick a position and stick to it. So, was multiverse theory developed to counter FTA or do you accept that it was developed for other reasons but provides evidence against FTA?
"Counter" and "need to respond" are used as loaded terms not justified by the scientists themselves, rather like your use of words like "random," "accident" etc. You seem to have great aversion to anything not deterministic.Sorry you will have to show me where I said that as the only reference I can find is in post #512#524 where I said
Then why do non-religious scientists make a big deal out of it. Why do they take it so seriously that they pose a multiverse to explain fine tuning.
and
Why would scientists use a multiverse to counter the fine tuning when it is not verified.
your reply was
They don't do either of those things. Your lack of understanding does nothing to change reality.
As far as I can see there is no reference to me saying they developed a multiverse to deal with the fine tuning. Rather I said they pose a multiverse and use a multiverse to counter fine tuning. Dictionary meaning of pose means to present and use means to utilize an idea. These statements are factually true. In fact I said only 3 posts later that a multiverse stems from inflation theory #527
One of the consequences of inflation theory is a multiverse
If you misunderstood then this was not my intention. I am not the best at grammar.
My position is the same regardless which was that scientists take seriously the fine tuning argument enough to use the multiverse to counter it. Doesn't this show they are treating fine tuning as a relevant issue and therefore have a need to respond in kind.
There are several posters here arguing against FTA, me included. Does that mean we take FTA seriously, or does it simply mean that when somebody throws FTA out there we are able to counter it?My position is the same regardless which was that scientists take seriously the fine tuning argument enough to use the multiverse to counter it. Doesn't this show they are treating fine tuning as a relevant issue and therefore have a need to respond in kind.
Just a heads up. I think your dismissal of it is lightweight and reactionary. The concept is interesting and worth consideration. The affection for the idea expressed by some religious types is an unfortunate distraction. When I have the time I'll start a thread to deconstruct your counter arguments. But for the moment this is only a heads up. i.e. I won't be responding further here.I'll answer for you - we don't take FTA seriously, but we do have arguments to counter it.
Good idea, because the use of it by creationists is the only part of it we are criticizing--and dismissing (in reactionary and lightweight way?)-- here.Just a heads up. I think your dismissal of it is lightweight and reactionary. The concept is interesting and worth consideration. The affection for the idea expressed by some religious types is an unfortunate distraction. When I have the time I'll start a thread to deconstruct your counter arguments. But for the moment this is only a heads up. i.e. I won't be responding further here.
Yes, there is room for confusion here between the Fine-Tuning Argument for God and the argument over the idea of the fine-tuning of the physical constants.Good idea, because the use of it by creationists is the only part of it we are criticizing--and dismissing (in reactionary and lightweight way?)-- here.
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?