Fine tuning, a new approach

[Oncedeceived]

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

God is not part of the natural world.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

That has nothing to do with what this quote is referring to.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

What else would you suggest it be?

 

[[serious]]

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.

That is the exact opposite of what he says.

"something is in place beforehand — namely the laws of physics."

Like seriously, the exact opposite of your argument.

 

[[serious]]

What else would you suggest it be?

What's your answer for where God is?

That.

 

[[serious]]

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

A factory is finely tuned. The person who designed it is more finely tuned. The universe which spawned that person is more finely tuned. The God that created that universe must then be even more finely tuned.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is the exact opposite of what he says.

"something is in place beforehand — namely the laws of physics."

Like seriously, the exact opposite of your argument.

If you will note from the link I shared written by Paul Davies:

Of course, this attempt to explain the origin of the universe is based on an application of the laws of physics. This is normal in science: one takes the underlying laws of the universe as given. But when tangling with ultimate questions, it is only natural that we should also ask about the status of these laws. One must resist the temptation to imagine that the laws of physics, and the quantum state that represents the universe, somehow exist before the universe. They don’t -- any more than they exist north of the North Pole. In fact, the laws of physics don’t exist in space and time at all. They describe the world, they are not “in” it. However, this does not mean that the laws of physics came into existence with the universe. If they did -- if the entire package of physical universe plus laws just popped into being from nothing -- then we cannot appeal to the laws to explain the origin of the universe. So to have any chance of understanding scientifically how the universe came into existence, we have to assume that the laws have an abstract, eternal character. The alternative is to shroud the origin in mystery and give up.

It might be objected that we haven’t finished the job by baldly taking the laws of physics as given. Where did those laws come from? And why those laws rather than some other set? This is a valid objection. I have argued that we must eschew the traditional causal chain and focus instead on an explanatory chain, but inevitably we now confront the logical equivalent of the First Cause -- the beginning of the chain of explanation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

A factory is finely tuned. The person who designed it is more finely tuned. The universe which spawned that person is more finely tuned. The God that created that universe must then be even more finely tuned.

How is a person fine tuned in your estimation?

 

[Oncedeceived]

What's your answer for where God is?

That.

I'm not disagreeing that God is outside of the universe. I am saying that God is not a part of the natural world at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

The universe coming into existence is something that would have happened at T = 0.

Here's the thing though: we can't actually go back to that with our current knowledge of physics. Our current knowledge of physics break down at Planck time, which is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a.............of a fraction AFTER T = 0.

We then ASSUME that if we take back that fraction as well, the universe exists as an almost infinitly small dense point in which there is no space and time - but the matter/energy still exists in that "singularity". So does the universe. As an "almost infinitly small point". A singularity.

This is an extrapolation of our current knowledge of physics. A model, by the way, which is known to be either wrong or incomplete.

Yes, given the knowledge we have at this point, it is a reasonable inference that at T = 0, the universe "exists" as a singularity with no space and time. You can then hypothesis about where that singularity came from.

But remember that none of these are FACTS. They are inferences and assumptions, based on a current model of physics. A model, which we KNOW is incomplete or incorrect.

We know this through various means:
- the fact that it breaks down at T = 0. I can't give the technical explanation, but I read once that the fundamental problem there is that at some point, the equations work out in such a way that we need to divide by zero or something. Not sure how that works, but it doesn't matter. The important thing is that it simply breaks down.

- gravity can't be unified with the other forces (yet?)

- there's no model to unify quantum physics with classical physics.

In short: there's no "unified field theory".
As I understand it, such a theory / model is needed to know / understand exactly what happens and exists at T = 0.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have supplied numerous examples from actual scientists to support what I've claimed.

You mean, you quote mined scientists who, more often then not, were merely sharing their opinions or beliefs.

What have you given but assertions?

I've never given any assertions other then saying that "i don't know" when it comes to things that are unknown.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Moving the goalposts, much?

If you are going to make silly watchmaker claims, just say so, so I can redirect you to one of the many many rebuttals of that PRATT.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

It's funny because that's what Krauss' "nothing" is: whatever is left after you remove space, matter, energy and time.

Nothing means nothing

As I have just explained to you in the very post you are replying to.... clearly it is not that simple.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

It's not about changing definitions. It's about correct use of words.

The things you mentioned are CLAIMS, not explanations.

"god created the universe" is not an explanation about the origins of the universe. Rather, it is a CLAIM about how the universe originated.

An explanation actually explains things. "god dun it" is not an explanation. It's just an assertion that teaches you nothing at all, which isn't usefull in any way and which can't be verified in any way.

It has exactly zero explanatory power.

 

[DogmaHunter]

God is not part of the natural world.

I don't get such statements.....

If we assume for a second that for example the multi-verse exists. Then this multi-verse would be part of the natural world, right?

So if a god exists, why wouldn't this god be part of the natural world?
Sure, you can state that he "lives" on some other plain of existence then this puny universe or whatever... but that plain of existence would STILL necessarily be part of the natural world, of natural reality, right?

See, this is what you get with such special pleading.....
All rules you subject everything else to, suddenly doesn't apply to your god of choice. Not because of some specific logical reason or something, nope... actually just because otherwise the special pleading argument falls apart.

See, if the "supernatural" were actually real, it would be natural.
The only thing "super" about it, would be that it would exist in a plain (or dimension or whatever) that isn't accessible to us folk stuck in 4-dimensional space-time.

But that which is labeled "super"natural, would still be a part of reality just like 4-dimensional space-time that we commonly observe.

Your god wouldn't be any different.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't get such statements.....

If we assume for a second that for example the multi-verse exists. Then this multi-verse would be part of the natural world, right?

So if a god exists, why wouldn't this god be part of the natural world?
Sure, you can state that he "lives" on some other plain of existence then this puny universe or whatever... but that plain of existence would STILL necessarily be part of the natural world, of natural reality, right?

See, this is what you get with such special pleading.....
All rules you subject everything else to, suddenly doesn't apply to your god of choice. Not because of some specific logical reason or something, nope... actually just because otherwise the special pleading argument falls apart.

See, if the "supernatural" were actually real, it would be natural.
The only thing "super" about it, would be that it would exist in a plain (or dimension or whatever) that isn't accessible to us folk stuck in 4-dimensional space-time.

But that which is labeled "super"natural, would still be a part of reality just like 4-dimensional space-time that we commonly observe.

Your god wouldn't be any different.

They have to say god is not part of the natural world. Otherwise, the whole story gets screwed up.

 

[lesliedellow]

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?

There is more than one example of fine tuning. One of the best known is gravity. One second after the Big Bang, if it had been one part in 10^15 stronger than its actual value the universe would have collapsed back in on itself. Conversely, if it had been one part in 10^15 weaker, the universe would have expanded too quickly for stars to form, and no stars would have meant no chemical elements heavier than helium.

Even if I knew of no specific examples, I see nothing wrong with taking it on faith that astrophysicists know what they are talking about when it comes to astrophysics. If they were pontificating about the doctrine of the Trinity, then I might believe that they have no special expertise which should give weight to what they say.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The universe coming into existence is something that would have happened at T = 0.

Here's the thing though: we can't actually go back to that with our current knowledge of physics. Our current knowledge of physics break down at Planck time, which is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a.............of a fraction AFTER T = 0.

We then ASSUME that if we take back that fraction as well, the universe exists as an almost infinitly small dense point in which there is no space and time - but the matter/energy still exists in that "singularity". So does the universe. As an "almost infinitly small point". A singularity.

This is an extrapolation of our current knowledge of physics. A model, by the way, which is known to be either wrong or incomplete.

Yes, given the knowledge we have at this point, it is a reasonable inference that at T = 0, the universe "exists" as a singularity with no space and time. You can then hypothesis about where that singularity came from.

But remember that none of these are FACTS. They are inferences and assumptions, based on a current model of physics. A model, which we KNOW is incomplete or incorrect.

We know this through various means:
- the fact that it breaks down at T = 0. I can't give the technical explanation, but I read once that the fundamental problem there is that at some point, the equations work out in such a way that we need to divide by zero or something. Not sure how that works, but it doesn't matter. The important thing is that it simply breaks down.

- gravity can't be unified with the other forces (yet?)

- there's no model to unify quantum physics with classical physics.

In short: there's no "unified field theory".
As I understand it, such a theory / model is needed to know / understand exactly what happens and exists at T = 0.

So what are you claiming that I am saying is incorrect or unknown exactly?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You mean, you quote mined scientists who, more often then not, were merely sharing their opinions or beliefs.



I've never given any assertions other then saying that "i don't know" when it comes to things that are unknown.

You are asserting that the scientists don't know what they are saying they know. I have not quote mined anyone. I've included the entire article/papers so everything is in context. Provide which articles/papers that are based on opinion or beliefs of the scientists.

 

[Oncedeceived]

They have to say god is not part of the natural world. Otherwise, the whole story gets screwed up.

The story is what the story is.