Fine tuning, a new approach

[Bugeyedcreepy]

This is a conclusion. The evidence is the parameters of the fundamental constants. This conclusion is that the fine tuning can be explained by the multiverse hypothesis. See the difference? He believes that the fine tuning can be explained by the multiverse, he still knows that those numbers are real, they are just the way they are because there are so many options for how they turn out.

They hypothesize why they might not be so. They make theories of why they are that way but the evidence shows they are that way.

If I roll a pair of dice a million times & record the results, are those results fine tuned?

 

[Oncedeceived]

If I roll a pair of dice a million times & record the results, are those results fine tuned?

Of course not. If you roll a dice a million times and come up with six a million times, yes.

 

[46AND2]

Of course not. If you roll a dice a million times and come up with six a million times, yes.

The odds of rolling exactly 5, 3, 4, 1, 6, 2, 2, 1, 5, 6

are exactly the same as the odds of rolling 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Of course not. If you roll a dice a million times and come up with six a million times, yes.

Ahh, THIS is where you're going wrong. Any string of a million numbers is equally unlikely. If you don't think it is, then please calculate the odds of the following million die rolls:

1) Only Your number 6 coming up for a million rolls
2) Only the number 1 coming up for a million rolls
3) Only the number 3 coming up for a million rolls
4) the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 coming up in that order repeating end on end for a million rolls
5) Any Random but unique set of numbers from a million rolls.

Please show your formula & workings - We'll get to the bottom of this yet!

 

[Oncedeceived]

The odds of rolling exactly 5, 3, 4, 1, 6, 2, 2, 1, 5, 6

are exactly the same as the odds of rolling 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6.

On average it takes six tries for a six to come up. If we get sixes every single time for a million tries it wouldn't take all million tries to determine something wasn't right.

 

[46AND2]

On average it takes six tries for a six to come up. If we get sixes every single time for a million tries it wouldn't take all million tries to determine something wasn't right.

Explain to me why the sequence 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6 is more significant than the sequence 5, 3, 4, 1, 6, 2, 2, 1, 5, 6.

Both sequences are EQUALLY LIKELY.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Explain to me why the sequence 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6 is more significant than the sequence 5, 3, 4, 1, 6, 2, 2, 1, 5, 6.

Both sequences are EQUALLY LIKELY.

It isn't more significant. It is more unlikely for a specific number to continually come up a million times.

 

[46AND2]

It isn't more significant. It is more unlikely for a specific number to continually come up a million times.

No it isn't. I just told you they have the same exact probability.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No it isn't. I just told you they have the same exact probability.

Yes, it is just as probable to get a six as any other number but that doesn't mean that rolling a six a million times will be just as likely as rolling other numbers along with the six.

 

[46AND2]

Yes, it is just as probable to get a six as any other number but that doesn't mean that rolling a six a million times will be just as likely as rolling other numbers along with the six.

You said that looking at the results of a million dice rolls is NOT fine tuning. And I agree.

Then you said that if, however, those results were all sixes, then it would be fine tuning. Why the difference?

If the results are a bunch of different numbers, it has the same probability as if the results were all sixes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You said that looking at the results of a million dice rolls is NOT fine tuning. And I agree.

Then you said that if, however, those results were all sixes, then it would be fine tuning. Why the difference?

If the results are a bunch of different numbers, it has the same probability as if the results were all sixes.

I was looking at the likelihood of six coming up each time a million times.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I was looking at the likelihood of six coming up each time a million times.

But that's the thing - You're looking for a string of a million sixes. If you were looking for a repeating pattern of 1, 3, 5, 2, 4, 6 that repeats for a million rolls, this is equally likely. In fact, ANY sequence of numbers you can imagine are equally probable. If you have an infinite opportunities to run those one million rolls (as in the Multiverse theory posits), then guess what? Anything that has ANY Chance of being rolled in Any sequence you can imagine, will also be rolled an infinite amount of times - That includes your one million sixes in a row!

Just because you think your million sixes (or any sequence of numbers you arbitrarily choose) are important, doesn't just all of a sudden make them become "Fine Tuned"! That's what we're all trying to get across to you.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Yes, it is just as probable to get a six as any other number but that doesn't mean that rolling a six a million times will be just as likely as rolling other numbers along with the six.

What about rolling the exact pattern of 1,2,3,4,5,6 recurring up to a million rolls? is this pattern 1) More likely, 2) Less likely or 3) the same as rolling 6 one million times?

 

[46AND2]

I was looking at the likelihood of six coming up each time a million times.

If you looked at bugeyed's result, and they were all sixes, you want to know what the probability is that those results came up? 100% just as it would be for any set of numbers he showed you. Because it already happened.

Additionally, if you want to determine what the probability is that all 6s will come up on his NEXT set of rolls, it is one in 6 to the millionth power. But that is true of ANY set of numbers you are looking for. If you have a lottery ticket for his rolls, isn't it equally unlikely to match your numbers, in order, as it is to be all sixes?

 

[46AND2]

I was looking at the likelihood of six coming up each time a million times.

Let's look at it this way...50 generations ago, the odds that at all your ancestors would hook up at just the right time to produce YOU, is mind-boggling. Just using the variable of sperm alone, the odds would be at least 50 to the millionth power, nevermind all the times it is multiplied by countless other variables.

Yet here you are. Does that mean that god fine tuned each copulation to produce you? I thought you believed in free will?

 

[Oncedeceived]

But that's the thing - You're looking for a string of a million sixes. If you were looking for a repeating pattern of 1, 3, 5, 2, 4, 6 that repeats for a million rolls, this is equally likely. In fact, ANY sequence of numbers you can imagine are equally probable. If you have an infinite opportunities to run those one million rolls (as in the Multiverse theory posits), then guess what? Anything that has ANY Chance of being rolled in Any sequence you can imagine, will also be rolled an infinite amount of times - That includes your one million sixes in a row!

Just because you think your million sixes (or any sequence of numbers you arbitrarily choose) are important, doesn't just all of a sudden make them become "Fine Tuned"! That's what we're all trying to get across to you.

Ok, so your conclusion for the fine tuning is the multiverse. It takes all those multiverses to explain the fine tuning of Our universe. That then can be a starting point for discussion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Let's look at it this way...50 generations ago, the odds that at all your ancestors would hook up at just the right time to produce YOU, is mind-boggling. Just using the variable of sperm alone, the odds would be at least 50 to the millionth power, nevermind all the times it is multiplied by countless other variables.

Yet here you are. Does that mean that god fine tuned each copulation to produce you? I thought you believed in free will?

I agree but that it is mind boggling but I am just any combination of all those generations. There is nothing special or remarkable about me. Some person would have come about from all those generations and there was nothing in anyway that brought "me" and nothing prohibited "me" from existing.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you looked at bugeyed's result, and they were all sixes, you want to know what the probability is that those results came up? 100% just as it would be for any set of numbers he showed you. Because it already happened.

Additionally, if you want to determine what the probability is that all 6s will come up on his NEXT set of rolls, it is one in 6 to the millionth power. But that is true of ANY set of numbers you are looking for. If you have a lottery ticket for his rolls, isn't it equally unlikely to match your numbers, in order, as it is to be all sixes?

Lets look at it this way. If I won the lottery tomorrow with the numbers 30-25-15-42-9. Then I won the lottery the following day with the numbers 30-25-15-42-9, and continued this for a month. Do you think that anyone would not question what was going on?

 

[[serious]]

Strange that most people on the planet have a sense of what it means by the word God, how God is eternal and uncaused and how that would relate to the necessary element of His nature.

Fluff that ignores the questions posed

You don't know what natural means? Simply stated it is a part of the physical world which in all is the universe.

If by your definition anything that exists outside our timeline is "unnatural" how do we know that laws of nature exist only in our timeline? Do galaxies pushed out of our lightcone by expansion cease being natural since they are no longer in our universe? How about events that have not yet reached us? they are not yet part of our universe, so they must be unnatural and suddenly change to natural after they have had time to reach us.

This is a rather troublesome definition of "natural"

A necessary eternal cause is one that explains why there is something rather than nothing. A necessary cause explains why there are contingent beings in a universe and a universe rather than absolutely nothing. The reason that a natural entity has less likelihood of being a necessary eternal cause is that the physical world came into being, it was not always eternal and the physical world is limited by its not being eternal, thus anything of the natural world is finite and not eternal and by coming into existence is not necessary for if it were necessary for itself to exist it could not exist.

Why can the laws of physics not fill that role as the people you've previously cited claim? Hawking says the universe arose from itself and not any external cause. What's his name said inflation gave rise to our universe and all others.

If there is more than one universe it would take trillions and trillions of them to explain the fine tuning of ours. This is not my estimation but that of the scientists that determine these things. For the fine tuning that is present in our universe the very first universe had to be fine tuned to give us our fine tuning .

One guy you cited said that there were (or would eventually be) infinite universes. That would be more than trillions and trillions.

And the first universe would be outside our universe, and thus not part of the natural world per your argument earlier in the post. As such, it wouldn't have to be fine tuned per your own logic.

Dr. Robin Collins has made an argument and argues that a “multiverse-generator” doesn’t eliminate the need for fine-tuning. The analogy he uses is that of a bread machine, which must have the right structure, programs, and ingredients (flour, water, yeast, and gluten) in order to produce decent loaves of bread. The same holds true, with the problem with a “multiverse-generator”, whether of the inflationary variety or some other type, is that the laws of the multiverse generator must be just right and fine tuned in order for it to produce universes whose constants and initial conditions permit the subsequent emergence of life and according to physicists this too in this scenario is pretty rare. So the problem of fine tuning is not eliminated but is necessary for the multiverse generator and if it is of a physical nature it would be in need of a beginning.

That's my logic. The characteristics of the multiverse generator (God) must be just right and fine tuned in order for it to produce universes whose constants and initial conditions permit the subsequent emergence of life

I've given evidence supported by science. What I have done is take theology that has been established for thousands of years about God being eternal and necessary as stated in theism, which I feel better explains the universe and us as contingent beings than naturalism.

Then why can't we likewise take philosophy that has been established for thousands of years about laws being necessary and eternal as stated in philosophy, and use that to better explain the universe?

 

[46AND2]

I agree but that it is mind boggling but I am just any combination of all those generations. There is nothing special or remarkable about me. Some person would have come about from all those generations and there was nothing in anyway that brought "me" and nothing prohibited "me" from existing.

It's exactly the same argument as your fine tuning of the universe. If any one of a mind numbing number of things happened differently, YOU would not have been born.

Therefore, according to your argument, YOU are fine tuned to exist, and god must have controlled every mating event to produce you.

After all, the odds are even worse than your multiple lottery winnings.