Fine tuning, a new approach

[Oncedeceived]

Did you even read the whole article?

Yes.

 

[[serious]]

Did you even read the whole article?

yeah, not the first time shes done that

 

[[serious]]

Yes.

So you are intentionally posting an article about our universe being one of many in a multiverse?

 

[Oncedeceived]

yeah, not the first time shes done that

Which you wouldn't have even known if I had not honestly said I didn't.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So you are intentionally posting an article about our universe being one of many in a multiverse?

Yes, why wouldn't I?

 

[KCfromNC]

Ho hum. The "If the universe wasn't the way it is, we wouldn't be here," argument. Unfortunately it misses the point. There is only a very narrow range of parameters which allows the universe to a.) exist in the first place, and b.) for that universe, if it does exist, to support any kind of chemistry.

Now all you have to do is demonstrate that these parameters could have been different, and if so, that the range that allows for life is unlikely. Have fun.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once is claiming that laws cannot exist apart from the objects they describe. However, since the mathematical laws and constants that describe circles can exist apart from circles, there is no reason to assume the natural laws somehow don't work this same way.

How would you know that the mathematical laws and constants describe circles if there were no circles to determine that?

 

[KCfromNC]

So you are intentionally posting an article about our universe being one of many in a multiverse?

You're supposed to ignore the stuff that her experts say which doesn't line up with what she wishes was true. They're obviously only experts when they're saying things she agrees with.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Now all you have to do is demonstrate that these parameters could have been different, and if so, that the range that allows for life is unlikely. Have fun.

Luke Barnes: Our definition of fine-tuning doesn’t depend on a numerical probability, but on the observation that “of all the possible universes allowed by theoretical physics, an extremely small number would allow the evolution of intelligent life”.

Luke Barnes: “to significantly change the probability of a life-permitting universe, we would need a prior [probability] that centres close to the observed value, and has a narrow peak. But this simply exchanges one fine-tuning for two — the centre and peak of the distribution.”

 

[Oncedeceived]

You're supposed to ignore the stuff that her experts say which doesn't line up with what she wishes was true. They're obviously only experts when they're saying things she agrees with.

They are providing their conclusions based on the evidence. I have no problem with their views and conclusions about fine tuning. They could be right, but that doesn't mean that the fine tuning problem goes away either.

 

[46AND2]

Yes.

Well, did you understand it? Because it really doesn't support your claims.

 

[46AND2]

Yes, why wouldn't I?

 

[KCfromNC]

Luke Barnes: Our definition of fine-tuning doesn’t depend on a numerical probability, but on the observation that “of all the possible universes allowed by theoretical physics, an extremely small number would allow the evolution of intelligent life”.

Luke Barnes: “to significantly change the probability of a life-permitting universe, we would need a prior [probability] that centres close to the observed value, and has a narrow peak. But this simply exchanges one fine-tuning for two — the centre and peak of the distribution.”

Hmm. Exchanging one unknown for several, and trust me, they're both really unlikely. Really really unlikely. Exactly how unlikely? Well, very. Like you wouldn't believe how unlikely. Trust me, I have it on very good authority who is sure they have to be.

Remember, everyone, that this is no way an argument from ignorance.

 

[KCfromNC]

They are providing their conclusions based on the evidence. I have no problem with their views and conclusions about fine tuning.

Including explaining it using the AP and multiverse theory?

They could be right, but that doesn't mean that the fine tuning problem goes away either.

What problem?

 

[lesliedellow]

Once is claiming that laws cannot exist apart from the objects they describe. However, since the mathematical laws and constants that describe circles can exist apart from circles, there is no reason to assume the natural laws somehow don't work this same way.

So what does the Universal Constant of Gravitation refer to in the absence of mass?

 

[lesliedellow]

But that fine tuning only gets us to a universe where rocks can exist. God must be even more fine tuned to want not only rocks, but life, not only life, but intelligent life, and not only that, but life as we know it.

That is about as intelligible as anything Dad comes out with.

 

[lesliedellow]

Now all you have to do is demonstrate that these parameters could have been different, and if so, that the range that allows for life is unlikely. Have fun.

I will leave that to the astrophysicists who tripped over the fact that the universe seems to be very finely tuned - to the embarrassment of some of them.

 

[JaneC]

I will leave that to the astrophysicists who tripped over the fact that the universe seems to be very finely tuned - to the embarrassment of some of them.

It looks finely tuned because it works, if it didn't work we would not be here to say it looked finely tuned, the water in a hole doesn't say the hole was made just for it.

I know that you and I can trace our ancestors back to fish that crawled out of the sea, why? because we are here to tell the tale, billions upon billions didn't make it, I know that I am only here because my grandfather got compassionate leave during the first world war because my aunty was being born, had he not he would have more than likely been killed on the Somme with the rest of his battalion, out of 1000 men 96 survived and that's only because most were wounded and were brought back.

I will ask again but I don't expect an answer, why is it fine tuned? who fine tuned it? and who was it fine tuned for because it wasn't done for us or the rest of life on this planet, one large asteroid and all life on this planet might cease to exist.

 

[lesliedellow]

It looks finely tuned because it works, if it didn't work we would not be here to say it looked finely tuned, the water in a hole doesn't say the hole was made just for it.

If the machine used in the British National Lottery spat out the same six numbers for ten weeks in succession you could (in theory) argue that that outcome is as likely as any other, and there is nothing which needs explaining. In practice, however, nobody would buy that, and they would be demanding that the machine be examined to find out where the fault was.

You cannot simply write off the fact we live in a universe where chemistry is possible, when the chances against that being the case are many orders of magnitude greater than the analogous improbability mentioned above.

 

[[serious]]

Yes, why wouldn't I?

Because saying numerous earlier universes existed before the big bang directly contradicts your claim that nothing existed before the big bang.