Fine tuning, a new approach

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Assuming the values even could have been any different in the first place, off course.

Without chemistry, not only can life not exist in any shape or form, but b- all else can either.

Yes. And if things were different, things would be different.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I said evidence, not the opinion of a certain scientist.

You didn't get the memo?

Statements made by a scientists qualify as "evidence" if the statements can remotely be (ab)used to support your a priori beliefs.

When that can't be done, then those statements are "mere opinions" that don't mean anything (except, in some cases, that the scientist in question just wants to continue sinning, obviously).

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Great. Now, all you need to do, is demonstrate that this lottery machine is a workable analogy to the probability of a universe being the way it is.

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.

We actually can quite easily, unless you can actually demonstrate your statements about the probability of the universe being the way it is.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, it doesn't. If there were the trillions and trillions of universes needed to eliminate our universe's fine tuning, we would still be faced with the fine tuning of the universe generator that permits a life permitting one.

See, it's statements like this that exposes how dishonest the entire argument is...

This is literally a case of "I'm right, even when I'm wrong" and / or "heads I win, tails you lose".

 

[lesliedellow]

Assuming the values even could have been any different in the first place, off course.

No physicist has yet proposed a reason why they could not have been different, so that just sounds like the special pleading that it is.

 

[JaneC]

That, however, has got zilch to do with whether or not the universe is full of huge I probabilities that call out for explanation.

Then please try and explain it without resorting to 'Goddidit', because 'Goddidit' is not an answer it's a cop out, it's like saying the 'winkledeesquink' did it, it answers nothing.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

Who specifically was embarrassed by learning that if things were different they would be different?

And are you saying you don't know of any reason to think our particular universe would be unlikely? Do you just take it on faith that it is?

 

[KCfromNC]

That is not what your link says

You're only supposed to read the parts which agree with her preconceptions of what should be in there.

 

[KCfromNC]

From the link:

But now Vilenkin says he has convincing evidence in hand: The universe had a distinct beginning — though he can’t pinpoint the time. After 35 years of looking backward, he says, he’s found that before our universe there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself.

And presumably, not even a god. Or perhaps we're just supposed to ignore that minor issue if we take your source as authoritative.

 

[KCfromNC]

And that matters why?

Because as others have said, if there are an infinite number of other universes ours must exist no matter how unlikely it is.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Any universe generator by definition must be outside our universe.

Yes, but God is not of the physical world and a natural generator would still have to be part of a natural world.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Either way, he posits that something existed before our universe, and that the natural laws in that earlier universe, expansion in this case, created our universe. If you've actually come around to accepting this possibility, great. Otherwise, I don't follow how earlier universes can exist with expansion happening, yet somehow still allow for nothing existing and no laws, like expansion, existing.

Evidence that he says he has:
he’s found that before our universe there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself.
Nothing means nothing, no laws, no space, no matter, no energy and no time.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because clearly, according to that scientist, our universe did not just pop out of "nothing." It was spawned by another universe. If statements like his is what causes you to think that "most scientists" believe the universe started from nothing, then you are misapplying the statement and coming to an incorrect conclusion. I would agree that most scientists think the universe had a beginning (though certainly not all. There are infinite universe models). That is not the same thing as saying that they believe there was nothing else. Usually, they are careful with how they word it, including the scientist you linked: “We have very good evidence that there was a Big Bang, so the universe as we know it almost certainly started some 14 billion years ago. " The reason they use that 4 word caveat is because we know far to little about quantum physics, and we just don't know what else there could have been (or what else there IS).

He says in the same piece: he’s found that before our universe there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself. So as I said even he says the evidence shows there was nothing.

 

[[serious]]

Yes, but God is not of the physical world and a natural generator would still have to be part of a natural world.

Why would it need to be part of the physical world?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is not a "known". That is an assumption.

That simply is false. Look it up. ALL scientists agree that there was no space, energy, matter or time until our universe comes into existence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's good that you demand evidence for claims about unkowns like "before" the universe.
Now if only you would apply such standards to your own claims....

I have supplied numerous examples from actual scientists to support what I've claimed. What have you given but assertions?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The obvious answer seems "yes", considering what it is that you mean by "fine tuned".

You'ld have to comply to a whole bunch of criteria to even only be able to conceptualize what a factory or computer is, let alone design and build one.

And did a factory or computer just naturally pop out of nothing or do they arise from intelligence?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's good that you demand evidence for claims about unkowns like "before" the universe.
Now if only you would apply such standards to your own claims....

I have given scientist's account of such, they are not my claims.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's called a "hypothesis".

Also, to make clear that when a physicist like him speaks about "nothing", he doesn't mean the same thing as when lay-people, like you, use that word (in the sense of "complete nothingness").

"Nothing" has very different meanings when applied to different contexts / levels.

For example, in day to day life, I can take an empty box and say "there is nothing in the box". And for everyday conversation, that's fine.

But is there really "nothing" in the box? Off course not... There's ALL KINDS OF THINGS in that box. There're molecules, atoms, bacteria, etc in that box.

Then we can also say "there is nothing in the vacuum of deep space".
Sure. Correct again in day-to-day conversation.

Not so much when you get technical... There's space in there and I'm sure quite some quantum freakiness as well.

What people like Krauss try to say with statements like "nothing is something", is that we might not have reached the end level of what constitutes "nothing".
The question asked is that if we remove everything we "know" of: matter, energy, space itself, etc.... is what we are left with REALLY "nothing", as in: complete nothingness?

Is "absolute nothingness" even a state of affairs that is überhaupt even possible to begin with?

When Krauss says nothing is something he is going against what other scientists claim and he has gotten criticism from them for it. Nothing means nothing. And yes, complete nothing...no space, no matter, no energy, no time.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You should replace the word "explain" in that statement by the word "claim".

Words mean what they mean. I understand you would like to change the definitions of some of them.