Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[HitchSlap]

When you make the remarks you do about Fine Tuning I know that you have not "looked" into it very much.

Serious questions and hoping for a genuine response, Once.

Why do you think that 99.9% of cosmo/astrophysists don't believe in a "designer?"

 

[selfinflikted]

Why do you think that 99.9% of cosmo/astrophysists don't believe in a "designer?"

This question makes me into that one kid in class who tosses up his hand, squirms around, makes unintelligible noises.. but the teacher never calls on him.

 

[HitchSlap]

This question makes me into that one kid in class who tosses up his hand, squirms around, makes unintelligible noises.. but the teacher never calls on him.

You can put your hand down now, I want to hear what Once has to say.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Or maybe we would, but we would just be different as well.

This is a response from Luke Barnes of this objection:

In reply, fine-tuning isn’t about what the parameters and laws are in a particular universe. Given some other set of laws, we ask: if a universe were chosen at random from the set of universes with those laws, what is the probability that it would support intelligent life? If that probability is suitably (and robustly) small, then we conclude that that region of possible-physics-space contributes negligibly to the total life-permitting subset. It is easy to find examples of such claims.
* A universe governed by Maxwell’s Laws “all the way down” (i.e. with no quantum regime at small scales) will not have stable atoms | electrons radiate their kinetic energy and spiral rapidly into the nucleus | and hence no chemistry (Barrow & Tipler, 1986, pg. 303). We don’t need to know what the parameters are to know that life in such a universe is plausibly impossible.
* If electrons were bosons, rather than fermions, then they would not obey the Pauli exclusion principle. There would be no chemistry.
* If gravity were repulsive rather than attractive, then matter wouldn’t clump into complex structures. Remember: your density, thank gravity, is 10^30 times greater than the average density of the universe.
* If the strong force were a long rather than short-range force, then there would be no atoms. Any structures that formed would be uniform, spherical, undifferentiated lumps, of arbitrary size and incapable of complexity.
* If, in electromagnetism, like charges attracted and opposites repelled, then there would be no atoms. As above, we would just have undifferentiated lumps of matter.
* The electromagnetic force allows matter to cool into galaxies, stars, and planets. Without such interactions, all matter would be like dark matter, which can only form into large, diffuse, roughly spherical haloes of matter whose only internal structure consists of smaller, diffuse, roughly spherical subhaloes. (p. 18)


http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647v2.pdf

 

[Oncedeceived]

It would be supportive of the theist position if you could show that fine tuning actually happened.

What do you mean by "fine tuning actually happened"?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Serious questions and hoping for a genuine response, Once.

Why do you think that 99.9% of cosmo/astrophysists don't believe in a "designer?"

Well I have to ask for your source that claims that 99.9% of cosmologists and astrophysicists don't believe in a designer?

 

[bhsmte]

It would be supportive of the theist position if you could show that fine tuning actually happened.

Small details.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This question makes me into that one kid in class who tosses up his hand, squirms around, makes unintelligible noises.. but the teacher never calls on him.

All of you are posting to just one maybe two other posters but I am posting to all of you. It takes time and I have other things to do too.

 

[Davian]

It would be supportive of the theist position if you could show that fine tuning actually happened.

Small details.

I gather from Oncedeceived that demonstrating the validity of your claims is highly overrated, in a theistic worldview.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I gather from Oncedeceived that demonstrating the validity of your claims is highly overrated, in a theistic worldview.

I want you to honestly look at this thread, my claims, those who object and just see how much I've backed my claims with Scientific work. Then look at all of you and just see the lack of it. It is evident that I am the only one supporting my position with scientific work.

 

[Davian]

I want you to honestly look at this thread, my claims, those who object and just see how much I've backed my claims with Scientific work. Then look at all of you and just see the lack of it. It is evident that I am the only one supporting my position with scientific work.

Your position is unfalsifiable. You are not doing science.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your position is unfalsifiable. You are not doing science.

My claim is that the universe is fine tuned and that is science and can be falsified.

 

[selfinflikted]

What do you mean by "fine tuning actually happened"?

Well, I mean exactly what I said. Besides that, the word "tuning" itself has several implications. One of which is that, at some point the universe was out of tune. Can you show that that was ever the case?

All of you are posting to just one maybe two other posters but I am posting to all of you. It takes time and I have other things to do too.

I'm just being silly, OD

 

[selfinflikted]

Also, my stupid quote function appears to be borked yet again.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, I mean exactly what I said. Besides that, the word "tuning" itself has several implications. One of which is that, at some point the universe was out of tune. Can you show that that was ever the case?

The term is the scientific term given to the phenomena that the values of the constants of the universe are tuned to the exact precise values that allow life to exist on earth.

I'm just being silly, OD

ok. It is hard to tell sometimes when all you have are words on here.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The term is the scientific term given to the phenomena that the values of the constants of the universe are tuned to the exact precise values that allow life to exist on earth.




ok. It is hard to tell sometimes when all you have are words on here.

What if every possible universe exists? Then only those that can bear life will have life in them,the rest will not.

About the fine tuning: It may be that if one parameter were altered, life would be impossible . . . and yet, if a second parameter were ALSO altered to compensate, then life would be again possible. So perhaps, among all the myriad possible universes, those in which life is possible exist in the realm of all possible universe scattered around the various options as if they were holes in a block of swiss cheese, or stars in the emptiness of space that is mostly blank.

Now about life: What if life in the stars - as patterns of energy - is very common, only we just haven't ever found it yet?

Then life in our cold, non-shining planet would be the anomaly.

 

[Davian]

My claim is that the universe is fine tuned and that is science and can be falsified.

Making the claim, and showing it to be valid, are two different things. You have not done the latter.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What if every possible universe exists? Then only those that can bear life will have life in them,the rest will not.

It would take according to string theorists that it would take 10 to the 500th power of universes for our kind of universe to exist.

About the fine tuning: It may be that if one parameter were altered, life would be impossible . . . and yet, if a second parameter were ALSO altered to compensate, then life would be again possible.

Luke Barnes addressed this very thing and there are serious effects that in most instances the universe itself would not be able to exist. He also addressed some of the problems with life as well and I've posted those.

So perhaps, among all the myriad possible universes, those in which life is possible exist in the realm of all possible universe scattered around the various options as if they were holes in a block of swiss cheese, or stars in the emptiness of space that is mostly blank.

Well you know anything might be possible and we might be able to come up with any ol' ad hoc story to explain it away but the laws of physics make most impossible and those possible pretty improbable. The problem with hypothesizing "other" universes is that we can make up any ol' story and there is nothing to show it is anywhere near plausible. So while it might be tempting to dismiss design as the reason behind the fine tuning phenomena with multiverse explanations, it really doesn't help that much anyway because in the multiverse producer there must be the fine tuning values that we find in our universe in it. So it just moves it up a level but does nothing to eliminate our own.

Now about life: What if life in the stars - as patterns of energy - is very common, only we just haven't ever found it yet?

IT would still be in this fine tuned universe. The fine tuning is still there and shows that life had to be tuned into it from the first of its existence and that it had to be fine tuned to exist too.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Making the claim, and showing it to be valid, are two different things. You have not done the latter.

The scientists think they have.

 

[HitchSlap]

Well I have to ask for your source that claims that overwhelming majority of cosmologists and astrophysicists don't believe in a designer?

fix'd