• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Fine tuning, a new approach

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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?
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.”

 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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?
 
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,654
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟119,577.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oncedeceived
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,654
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟119,577.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
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.
 
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,654
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟119,577.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oncedeceived
Upvote 0

JaneC

Active Member
Jul 1, 2016
81
34
34
United Kingdom
✟393.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,654
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟119,577.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
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.
 
Upvote 0