Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[Davian]

You are communicating with me yet I don't hear your voice.

Does God post on this board? Where?

 

[Smidlee]

Does God post on this board? Where?

Nope. Just like our military it's on a different system.

 

[Davian]

Nope. Just like our military it's on a different system.

But you are on it. How does it work? Do the results rise above chance and confirmation bias? Is it limited by your imagination?

 

[Davian]

Yes, the constants are constant. Bait and switch. Stick with tuning for now.

Again: where would the testing of a universe with other values be done?

What do you mean yes, the constants are constant? That makes no sense with what I wrote.

You don't even understand the steps.

I can see that you have yet to explain how "fine tuning" can be falsified.

Shall I keep asking, and you keep evading, until you complain that about the repetition of the question?

You are not doing science.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I can see that you have yet to explain how "fine tuning" can be falsified.

I most certainly answered your question. That you don't understand the answer is really not my problem.

Shall I keep asking, and you keep evading, until you complain that about the repetition of the question?

I didn't evade, I answered your question.

You are not doing science.

The Scientists are.

 

[Davian]

I most certainly answered your question. That you don't understand the answer is really not my problem.

I didn't evade, I answered your question.

You did not say how it could be falsified. Your claim, your problem.

The Scientists are.

Yes, but they admit when their claims are unfalsifiable.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You did not say how it could be falsified. Your claim, your problem.

Yes I did.

Originally Posted by Davian

In your own words, how would they falsify "fine tuning"?
​

When testing other values of the constants, they would allow life within them. There would be a vast number of values available for life to exist and differing the values would not make life impossible.

Yes, but they admit when their claims are unfalsifiable.

Right and they have claimed that fine tuning is indeed falsifiable.

 

[Davian]

Yes I did.

Originally Posted by Davian

In your own words, how would they falsify "fine tuning"?
​

When testing other values of the constants, they would allow life within them. There would be a vast number of values available for life to exist and differing the values would not make life impossible.

They didn't actually test the values, they only modelled them in a simulation. You would see that if you read past your confirmation bias. They didn't change the values in this universe, or go to another.

Right and they have claimed that fine tuning is indeed falsifiable.

Only in your imagination.

 

[Oncedeceived]

They didn't actually test the values, they only modelled them in a simulation. You would see that if you read past your confirmation bias. They didn't change the values in this universe, or go to another.

Yes, that is what theoretical physics is about. They are very good about making predictions about our universe and it allows them to do so with hypothetical other universes.

Only in your imagination.

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Davian]

Yes, that is what theoretical physics is about. They are very good about making predictions about our universe and it allows them to do so with hypothetical other universes.

Simulations of hypothetical other universes do not falsify anything. Still your problem.

You don't know what you are talking about.

I do not think you know what I am talking about.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Simulations of hypothetical other universes do not falsify anything. Still your problem.

I have no problem. It remains simple, you do not understand the way theoretical Physics works and so you do not understand the way Science works. Here is what Luke Barnes says about your assessment of "simulations of hypothetical other universes" not falsifying anything.

We don’t just measure the natural world, though this is crucial part of science. We can, with exquisite accuracy, predict the behaviour of the physical world by writing things on a sheet of paper. We propose models and explore their mathematical predictions. We find that there are parameters in these models that are not determined by the theory; they need to be measured in experiments. With these parameters in hand, the theory describes our universe beautifully. It follows that if these parameters (or the laws themselves, or the initial conditions of the universe) were different, then our universe would be different. Making theoretical predictions about these other universes is exactly the same process as making predictions about this universe. Experimental confirmation of our predictions in this universe makes us confident that the theory is correct, and thus we can predict what would happen in other universes.

Thus Myers’ claim that we cannot know what would happen if the laws of physics were different boils down to the claim that we cannot do theoretical physics. We can only “do the experiment”. This is an awfully big claim, coming from a biologist. Especially an evolutionary biologist. Will Myers demand that we “do the experiment” of creating another earth and observing it for a few billion years before he believes that all life on earth evolved from chemicals via Darwinian processes? Or is he willing to extrapolate from experimentally tested scientific theory?
Myers’ question is simply an admission of his own ignorance. How do we know? The reasons are all there in Barrow and Tipler, Hogan, Rees, Carter, Carr, Ellis et al. Has Myers carefully studied the research of these physicists and found it wanting? Myers seems to be offering nothing more than an argument from personal ignorance. Emphasis mine.


Myers asks: “Why can’t there be many different combinations of physical laws that can yield life?” This is aimed at a straw man. The claim is not that ours is the only (or best) universe that could support life, or that we are the only possible form of life. The claim is that if a universe were chosen at random from the range of possible universes, the probability of that universe being able to support intelligent life is very small. This claim is entirely consistent with the existence of other possible forms of life. To counter the claim that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life, Myers would need to give us some reason for believing that, given almost any set of physical constants + laws of nature + initial conditions, some form of intelligent life is able to develop.
Myers’ says that anthropic claims are “an undefined mish-mash of untested assumptions”. Let’s consider an example. If the strength of the strong force were decreased by 50%, all the atoms of all the elements used by living things would disintegrate. Undefined? It’s better than defined; it’s quantitative. This is the kind of mathematical precision that causes “physics envy” amongst biologists. Mish-mash? The sheer number and variety of fine-tuning claims are strong insurance that not all of them are wrong. Untested? Only if Myers has reason to think that we don’t understand the strong force. Assumption? No, calculation. (Masturbation? No comment.)
If Myers can imagine a form of intelligent life that could exist in such a universe, then he should tell us. We have positive reasons for believing that stable, information-carrying, replicating entities are not possible in such a universe. We know what these simple elements (H, He, Li, Be, B) can do chemically, and it’s not very much. You could (and many have) fill textbooks with all the chemical possibilities of carbon. You would struggle to fill a page on the chemistry of the first 5 elements of the periodic table. Carbon can make DNA. Beryllium couldn’t make a mess. Given the extraordinary complexity of life in this universe, it is reasonable to conclude that life is rather hard to please when it comes to universes and their laws.


Replace Myers' name with yours and you have your answer.

I do not think you know what I am talking about.

Oh I do and it is an argument from ignorance.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Simulations of hypothetical other universes do not falsify anything. Still your problem.

I have no problem. It remains simple, you do not understand the way theoretical Physics works and so you do not understand the way Science works. Here is what Luke Barnes says about your assessment of "simulations of hypothetical other universes" not falsifying anything.

We don’t just measure the natural world, though this is crucial part of science. We can, with exquisite accuracy, predict the behaviour of the physical world by writing things on a sheet of paper. We propose models and explore their mathematical predictions. We find that there are parameters in these models that are not determined by the theory; they need to be measured in experiments. With these parameters in hand, the theory describes our universe beautifully. It follows that if these parameters (or the laws themselves, or the initial conditions of the universe) were different, then our universe would be different. Making theoretical predictions about these other universes is exactly the same process as making predictions about this universe. Experimental confirmation of our predictions in this universe makes us confident that the theory is correct, and thus we can predict what would happen in other universes.

Thus Myers’ claim that we cannot know what would happen if the laws of physics were different boils down to the claim that we cannot do theoretical physics. We can only “do the experiment”. This is an awfully big claim, coming from a biologist. Especially an evolutionary biologist. Will Myers demand that we “do the experiment” of creating another earth and observing it for a few billion years before he believes that all life on earth evolved from chemicals via Darwinian processes? Or is he willing to extrapolate from experimentally tested scientific theory?
Myers’ question is simply an admission of his own ignorance. How do we know? The reasons are all there in Barrow and Tipler, Hogan, Rees, Carter, Carr, Ellis et al. Has Myers carefully studied the research of these physicists and found it wanting? Myers seems to be offering nothing more than an argument from personal ignorance. Emphasis mine.


Myers asks: “Why can’t there be many different combinations of physical laws that can yield life?” This is aimed at a straw man. The claim is not that ours is the only (or best) universe that could support life, or that we are the only possible form of life. The claim is that if a universe were chosen at random from the range of possible universes, the probability of that universe being able to support intelligent life is very small. This claim is entirely consistent with the existence of other possible forms of life. To counter the claim that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life, Myers would need to give us some reason for believing that, given almost any set of physical constants + laws of nature + initial conditions, some form of intelligent life is able to develop.
Myers’ says that anthropic claims are “an undefined mish-mash of untested assumptions”. Let’s consider an example. If the strength of the strong force were decreased by 50%, all the atoms of all the elements used by living things would disintegrate. Undefined? It’s better than defined; it’s quantitative. This is the kind of mathematical precision that causes “physics envy” amongst biologists. Mish-mash? The sheer number and variety of fine-tuning claims are strong insurance that not all of them are wrong. Untested? Only if Myers has reason to think that we don’t understand the strong force. Assumption? No, calculation. (Masturbation? No comment.)
If Myers can imagine a form of intelligent life that could exist in such a universe, then he should tell us. We have positive reasons for believing that stable, information-carrying, replicating entities are not possible in such a universe. We know what these simple elements (H, He, Li, Be, B) can do chemically, and it’s not very much. You could (and many have) fill textbooks with all the chemical possibilities of carbon. You would struggle to fill a page on the chemistry of the first 5 elements of the periodic table. Carbon can make DNA. Beryllium couldn’t make a mess. Given the extraordinary complexity of life in this universe, it is reasonable to conclude that life is rather hard to please when it comes to universes and their laws.


http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/fishing-while-the-world-burns-a-fine-tuned-critique-of-p-z-myers/



Replace Myers' name with yours and you have your answer.

I do not think you know what I am talking about.

Oh I do and it is an argument from ignorance.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

No, you are literally using statements that the universe LOOKS designed from some physicists, who seem to later explain how in fact it ISN'T designed or just comment it can't be determined, as evidence that the universe IS designed. You do understand that even if the universe was provably fine tuned for life, it wouldn't mean deities exist, right? So even if these professionals actually agreed with you on the fine tuning thing, which they really don't in the context of creationism/ID fine tuning, it wouldn't really matter in terms of whether or not deities exist. Fine tuning by itself is not evidence of deities.

 

[bhsmte]

No, you are literally using statements that the universe LOOKS designed from some physicists, who seem to later explain how in fact it ISN'T designed or just comment it can't be determined, as evidence that the universe IS designed. You do understand that even if the universe was provably fine tuned for life, it wouldn't mean deities exist, right? So even if these professionals actually agreed with you on the fine tuning thing, which they really don't in the context of creationism/ID fine tuning, it wouldn't really matter in terms of whether or not deities exist. Fine tuning by itself is not evidence of deities.

Indeed, just as this same poster keeps saying in another thread, the TOE is dependent on the origin of life, the same would apply to fine tuning (if it could be shown to be true.

Assuming fine tuning is real, explain and show us the tuner.

 

[Davian]

I have no problem. It remains simple, you do not understand the way theoretical Physics works and so you do not understand the way Science works. Here is what Luke Barnes says about your assessment of "simulations of hypothetical other universes" not falsifying anything.

We don’t just measure the natural world, though this is crucial part of science. We can, with exquisite accuracy, predict the behaviour of the physical world by writing things on a sheet of paper. We propose models and explore their mathematical predictions. We find that there are parameters in these models that are not determined by the theory; they need to be measured in experiments. With these parameters in hand, the theory describes our universe beautifully. It follows that if these parameters (or the laws themselves, or the initial conditions of the universe) were different, then our universe would be different. Making theoretical predictions about these other universes is exactly the same process as making predictions about this universe. Experimental confirmation of our predictions in this universe makes us confident that the theory is correct, and thus we can predict what would happen in other universes.

Thus Myers’ claim that we cannot know what would happen if the laws of physics were different boils down to the claim that we cannot do theoretical physics. We can only “do the experiment”. This is an awfully big claim, coming from a biologist. Especially an evolutionary biologist. Will Myers demand that we “do the experiment” of creating another earth and observing it for a few billion years before he believes that all life on earth evolved from chemicals via Darwinian processes? Or is he willing to extrapolate from experimentally tested scientific theory?
Myers’ question is simply an admission of his own ignorance. How do we know? The reasons are all there in Barrow and Tipler, Hogan, Rees, Carter, Carr, Ellis et al. Has Myers carefully studied the research of these physicists and found it wanting? Myers seems to be offering nothing more than an argument from personal ignorance. Emphasis mine.


Myers asks: “Why can’t there be many different combinations of physical laws that can yield life?” This is aimed at a straw man. The claim is not that ours is the only (or best) universe that could support life, or that we are the only possible form of life. The claim is that if a universe were chosen at random from the range of possible universes, the probability of that universe being able to support intelligent life is very small. This claim is entirely consistent with the existence of other possible forms of life. To counter the claim that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life, Myers would need to give us some reason for believing that, given almost any set of physical constants + laws of nature + initial conditions, some form of intelligent life is able to develop.
Myers’ says that anthropic claims are “an undefined mish-mash of untested assumptions”. Let’s consider an example. If the strength of the strong force were decreased by 50%, all the atoms of all the elements used by living things would disintegrate. Undefined? It’s better than defined; it’s quantitative. This is the kind of mathematical precision that causes “physics envy” amongst biologists. Mish-mash? The sheer number and variety of fine-tuning claims are strong insurance that not all of them are wrong. Untested? Only if Myers has reason to think that we don’t understand the strong force. Assumption? No, calculation. (Masturbation? No comment.)
If Myers can imagine a form of intelligent life that could exist in such a universe, then he should tell us. We have positive reasons for believing that stable, information-carrying, replicating entities are not possible in such a universe. We know what these simple elements (H, He, Li, Be, B) can do chemically, and it’s not very much. You could (and many have) fill textbooks with all the chemical possibilities of carbon. You would struggle to fill a page on the chemistry of the first 5 elements of the periodic table. Carbon can make DNA. Beryllium couldn’t make a mess. Given the extraordinary complexity of life in this universe, it is reasonable to conclude that life is rather hard to please when it comes to universes and their laws.


http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/fishing-while-the-world-burns-a-fine-tuned-critique-of-p-z-myers/



Replace Myers' name with yours and you have your answer.

That does not address my point. I am asking, how do they know that the constants can actually be tuned, that they could have been different?

Oh I do and it is an argument from ignorance.

Nope.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, you are literally using statements that the universe LOOKS designed from some physicists, who seem to later explain how in fact it ISN'T designed or just comment it can't be determined, as evidence that the universe IS designed. You do understand that even if the universe was provably fine tuned for life, it wouldn't mean deities exist, right? So even if these professionals actually agreed with you on the fine tuning thing, which they really don't in the context of creationism/ID fine tuning, it wouldn't really matter in terms of whether or not deities exist. Fine tuning by itself is not evidence of deities.

I seriously don't know what you mean by your comment that professionals don't agree with fine tuning in the context of creationism/ID. Fine tuning is in context of the universal parameters and how that permits life to exist. There are conclusions that are based upon that reality and ones' own worldview. It is not surprising that scientists would not claim actual design for two reasons.

1. Science only determines the workings of the natural world.
2. The scientists hold to their own worldviews that subjectively create their own conclusions.

That being said, there are those with equally impressive credentials that believe that the appearance of design which the fine tuning creates indicates actual design. An appearance of an intent by an agent for a specific purpose does indeed provide support to the conclusion that the intent was that of an agent with a specific purpose.

By the way, thank you for using deity or deities rather than "it". I appreciate it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That does not address my point. I am asking, how do they know that the constants can actually be tuned, that they could have been different?

That addresses your point exactly.

Nope.

It most certainly does.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Indeed, just as this same poster keeps saying in another thread, the TOE is dependent on the origin of life, the same would apply to fine tuning (if it could be shown to be true.

Assuming fine tuning is real, explain and show us the tuner.

IF there is the appearance of an intent of an agent for a specific purpose, then this appearance could mean that there was an intent of an agent for a specific purpose. It is a rational and reasonable conclusion and best fits with the Christian theology.

 

[bhsmte]

IF there is the appearance of an intent of an agent for a specific purpose, then this appearance could mean that there was an intent of an agent for a specific purpose. It is a rational and reasonable conclusion and best fits with the Christian theology.

Christian theology is one of many theologies that has no objective evidence to support whether it is true, so being consistent with it is really meaningless, unless one is relying on pure faith.

So, you keep mentioning how the TOE is dependent on life, I am simply saying, fine tuning is dependent on a tuner. Assuming (and it is a big assumption) that fine tuning did happen, what is your evidence of the tuner?

 

[Davian]

That addresses your point exactly.

Did they have access to another universe?

It most certainly does.

Nope.