Fine tuning, a new approach

[Oncedeceived]

No, you provided an Opinion Piece. Opinion pieces aren't scientific papers.

He is one of the top physicist, cosmologist and astrobiologist in the country.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Actually, the existence of a multiverse is not a theory in and of itself, but instead is a possible interpretation of testable theories such as quantum mechanics. Think of it like theories of proton decay. We have no way of directly testing of protons decay as it would happen on timescales longer than stars can exist. However, because it's based on other testable theories, we can test the theories that lead us to that interpretation. Same thing here.

It is still unfalsifiable.

 

[[serious]]

You are asserting that God must be fined tuned and giving nothing that supports that assertion.
You body needs a cause to exist. For things to exist they have to begin to have that existence whether or not they are changed from star dust to us they still have a cause. Anything of the natural world needs a cause. You are saying so yourself. Where you limit this is with time itself but time began as well. What caused time? Time didn't exist and then it did. Space didn't exist but then it did. Matter didn't exist and then it did. Energy didn't exist then it did. How did they come into being?

As you said, any universe creating thing must be fine tuned itself. You are trying to invoke special pleading saying that divine universe creators are not subject to your own imposed rules on universe creators.

 

[[serious]]

Well yes, but evidence says that there was nothing and then there was the universe.

If there was no time before the big bang, there can't be nothing in the time before the big bang.

It's like asking what's inside a box that doesn't exist.

 

[[serious]]

Like I said, we have only like 4% that we can know and all that which we know nothing about.

We see gravitational effects of dark matter and know that it doesn't absorb or emit light at detectable levels. We are actively searching for the predicted parties.

 

[[serious]]

It is still unfalsifiable.

Yes, it is. The underlying theories are falsifiable, thus the derived explanations are falsifyable.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

He is one of the top physicist, cosmologist and astrobiologist in the country.

Still Opinion. There's no evidence, nor peer reviewed research on this opinion of his. There's quite a lot more Cosmologists (including more eminent Cosmologists than Paul Davies) that Don't subscribe to these ideas, so.....

It is still unfalsifiable.

For a long time, Einstein's Theory of Relativity predicted black holes - well before we had a way to detect them. This is in many ways the same reason a Multiverse has been offered. The Models we have using String Theory & M-Theory (both still hypotheses at this stage) predict the Multiverse in a similar way. We still have a long way to go because these hypotheses still have quite a few problems, but we're not throwing out the Multiverse as bare assertions by any stretch.

So, I have to ask, After nearly 30 pages of bunk from pretty much all quarters, You seem to be nearly the Only person asserting this idea - how does it not occur to you that perhaps you've misunderstood the things that these Cosmologists are saying? Pretty much Everybody has told you that you've misunderstood what they're saying...

 

[DogmaHunter]

What we observe is that there was nothing and then there was the universe which included time

No, we have never observed "nothing", nore did we ever observe the "thing" that was when there was no universe.

What we DO observe, is a universe with a time dimension. That's it.
This seems so obvious that I wonder why I have to point it out..........

We observe that nothing of the universe pops out of nothing.

That doesn't even make any sense to me.

Whales don't just pop up in front of us from nothing.

Que?

Even Krauss who is trying to say that something can come from nothing is not claiming nothing is nothing or not anything.

Which I have been telling you for several pages... when a physicist talks about "nothing", (s)he doesn't mean "absolute nothingness".

Again, we have never observed "absolute nothingness". It isn't even clear if "absolute nothingness" is actually a sensible/possible state of affairs.

In fact, all scientists that are proposing ways in which the universe could come from nothing are using something to cause that to happen. It may not be they say causality as we know it, but they are claiming that something had to cause the universe to exist.

Well, there surely must be some explanation of how the universe originated...
But that explanation is still unknown.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Paul Davies is taking the laws of physics as a given. Those are needed for the universe to exist according to Davies and Vilenkin.

Good job ignoring the point being made once more.

Again: causes happen before effects.
There is no before T = 0.

So, if you are going to call the universe an "effect", you are essentially implying that there is a temporal state outside of this universe, where the "cause" of the universe happened in.

Good luck supporting that claim..

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm saying how would we know for certain? We only know about 4% of the makeup of the universe the rest we can't even observe, how can we say for certain that there is not some cause that exists that we don't know of yet?

This is interesting....

So, basically, when you say things like "everything has a cause", you are essentially making a general truth claim of which you don't actually know if it is true?

You must be, since you just admitted that there are phenomena that seem uncaused or of which it isn't known what the causes are...

So, in the future, I advice you to nuance that premise "everything has a cause" a tiny bit, to reflect the fact that this statement isn't justified at all as a general rule.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yet, we see scientists proposing a multiverse which is unfalsifiable.

Not in principle.

Supernatural shenannigans is in principle unfalsifiable. It is literally defined as being unverifiable, untestable, unfalsifiable.

It's like my "undetectable" pet dragon.

Hypothesis from physics at the very frontiers of our current knowledge are not unfalsifiable in principle. They are just really, really, really hard to test. In some case, our current technology might even make it impossible to test it. But not in principle.

For example, consider the Higgs Boson. Modeled many decades ago. But only recently did we turn on the machine that was actually capable of testing it.

When we talk about falsifiable hypothesis, we don't mean that they need to be testable today or with great ease or whatever.

It means that it needs to be testable in principle. Perhaps we won't have the required technology for another 2 centuries... that's fine. That would just mean that it would take a long time before we could actually test the model.

But, again, they are testable in principle.

The supernatural, is not. It is defined as such that any testing, verifying or falsification is literally out of the question, in principle.

Have you met my undetectable pet dragon yet? He created the universe last thursday.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are asserting that God must be fined tuned and giving nothing that supports that assertion.

For crying out loud.... I gave the argument TWO times in a row. And on both occasions, you completely ignored it. Now you are even literally ignoring it by saying it isn't there, while it clearly is.

As I have explained to you: before you can build X, you need to actually be CAPABLE of building X.

This is your argument for the "fine tuning" of the universe: before it could bring forward life, it had to be capable of doing so.

In the exact same way, before I can build a cell phone, I need to be capable of building such a phone. I need to be fine tuned to do so, per your own argument for the fine tuning of the universe.

The exact same logic applies to your deity of choice as well.
Before creating a universe, this deity needs to be capable of doing so.
He needs to be fine tuned for building universes.

Please point out the flaw in the argument.
And please don't pretend again as if the argument wasn't given.
I've given it three times now.

3 times' the charm, they say. Let's see if it is true in this case. My money is on "no", though. Prove me wrong by addressing the actual argument.

You body needs a cause to exist. For things to exist they have to begin to have that existence whether or not they are changed from star dust to us they still have a cause. Anything of the natural world needs a cause. You are saying so yourself. Where you limit this is with time itself but time began as well. What caused time? Time didn't exist and then it did. Space didn't exist but then it did. Matter didn't exist and then it did. Energy didn't exist then it did. How did they come into being?

There you go again, talking about things that have nothing to do with the point being made.

Please address the argument.
It doesn't matter if I "began to exist" or if I "always existed".

The fact of the matter is that before I can build a tool, I need to be capable / fine tuned to do so.

Just like before your deity of choice can create a universe, that deity needs to be capable / fine tuned to do so.

True or false?
Can your deity create a universe while NOT being capable / fine tuned to do so?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, that is hindsight too.

No, not "too".

Hindsight is just that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Like I said, we have only like 4% that we can know and all that which we know nothing about.

yet, somehow... that doesn't stop your from making up general rules like "everything needs a cause", as if it applies universally... yet, here you are.... saying that we can't actually know that.

The sad part is that you don't even seem to realise how that completely destroys one of your most important premises....

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not necessarily. It is possible for entities to be identifiable but not predictable.

"entities"?
What are you talking about?

You know what.... why don't you give an example of a hypothesis / theory that models a specific phenomena, but which doesn't make any predictions.

No, I mean demonstrable but not predictable.
Easy example - you receive an unmarked letter in the mail every week. It always describes some specific, verifiable event that will happen during the week, and the described event happens without fail. You later determine that the letter is never placed in your mailbox - it simply appears there.
That's a describable and testable phenomenon, but it's not predictable. We have no idea what the letter will say each week, but over time we can test empirically that the predictions always come to pass.

Sorry, but this is an invalid analogy.
We are talking about explanations concerning phenomena of reality, not about explanations for actions of people who send letters and organize events.

 

[AdamSK]

Really? Most prominent scientists are claiming the same thing?

Please name the twenty top cosmologists and what they are working on.

 

[AdamSK]

We are talking about explanations concerning phenomena of reality, not about explanations for actions of people who send letters and organize events.

Are you claiming that actions of people are not "phenomena of reality"? Or just that actions of people cannot be explained by science?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Still Opinion. There's no evidence, nor peer reviewed research on this opinion of his. There's quite a lot more Cosmologists (including more eminent Cosmologists than Paul Davies) that Don't subscribe to these ideas, so.....

1. There is no evidence for what? What are you claiming is incorrect or unevidenced in Davies article?

For a long time, Einstein's Theory of Relativity predicted black holes - well before we had a way to detect them. This is in many ways the same reason a Multiverse has been offered. The Models we have using String Theory & M-Theory (both still hypotheses at this stage) predict the Multiverse in a similar way. We still have a long way to go because these hypotheses still have quite a few problems, but we're not throwing out the Multiverse as bare assertions by any stretch.

Ok, what evidence is there that the multiverse exists?

So, I have to ask, After nearly 30 pages of bunk from pretty much all quarters, You seem to be nearly the Only person asserting this idea - how does it not occur to you that perhaps you've misunderstood the things that these Cosmologists are saying? Pretty much Everybody has told you that you've misunderstood what they're saying...

What idea are you referring to that I am asserting?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, it is. The underlying theories are falsifiable, thus the derived explanations are falsifyable.

Strange that many phycists themselves claim that the multiverse is unfalsifiable.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As you said, any universe creating thing must be fine tuned itself. You are trying to invoke special pleading saying that divine universe creators are not subject to your own imposed rules on universe creators.

That is due to God not being a natural entity. God is a necessary eternal cause, a naturalistic universe generator would need to be fine tuned to allow for a fine tuned universe as ours. There would be no reason to conclude otherwise.