A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

[Bungle_Bear]

Whereas the fine tuning argument explains how the many constants fall within a narrow range of possibilities through chance.

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.

I know you are reluctant to deal with this inconvenience, but I'm happy to keep calling you on it.

 

[pitabread]

Whereas the fine tuning argument explains how the many constants fall within a narrow range of possibilities through chance.

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.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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.

Cognitive dissonance. It's been a while since the phrase has has been used in these forums, but the phenomenon is still very apparent.

 

[stevevw]

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.

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

 

[stevevw]

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.

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.

 

[Speedwell]

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

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...?

 

[stevevw]

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 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.

There are plenty of articles that go into the detail of how the physical constants that make up our universe and reality are needed and measured to within very small parameters and how the effects of any small variation to them will change things so that the fundamental elements of our physical makeup are not produced which stops stars, galaxies and intelligent life from being created.

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. It begs the question. To make an argument valid you have to back it with some evidence. Otherwise we could make any comparisons and say they are the same without any support.

Post hoc (a shortened form of post hoc, ergo propter hoc) is a fallacy in which one event is said to be the cause of a later event simply because it occurred earlier. Remember, correlation does not equal causation.
What Is the Logical Fallacy Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc?

So a post hoc fallacy does not explain how the universe is ideal for life it just assumes one event causes the other. As the above article states correlation does not equal causation.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

That's all you've said so far as well.

 

[stevevw]

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 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.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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

Doubling down does not address the point.

Can you demonstrate that other values are possible?

 

[stevevw]

That's all you've said so far as well.

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.

 

[stevevw]

Doubling down does not address the point.

Can you demonstrate that other values are possible?

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.

 

[stevevw]

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?

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.

 

[Speedwell]

It is a confounding issue for some which is hard to equate with how science works.

What does that mean?

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.

And...? At some point you are going to have to let us in on where you are going with this.

 

[SLP]

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.

I have only found that quote as being presented by others attributing it to Weinberg.

I did, however, find this - straight from Weinberg's keyboard:

"To conclude that the constants of nature have been fine-tuned by a benevolent designer is like saying “Isn't it wonderful that God put us here on earth, where there's water and air and the surface gravity and temperature are so comfortable, rather than some horrid place, like Mercury or Pluto.” Where else in the solar system but on earth could we have evolved?"​

 

[pitabread]

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.

The fine tuning argument doesn't explain how the universe is "perfect for life"* either. The fine tuning argument effectively explains nothing.

*(I'd also dispute the idea that the universe is perfect for life since most of the universe is hostile to life).

 

[46AND2]

That distinguishes the universe and like as something unique and rare unlike the puddle and water.

The puddle and hole analogy was written from the perspective of the puddle. As far as the puddle knows, it is "unique and rare. "

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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.

You have, once again, completely avoided answering my question.

Can you demonstrate that any other physical values are possible?

 

[stevevw]

What does that mean?

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.

And...? At some point you are going to have to let us in on where you are going with this.

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.

 

[stevevw]

You have, once again, completely avoided answering my question.

Can you demonstrate that any other physical values are possible?

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.