Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Luckily, physicists are very good at this sort of thing and the nice thing about mathematics, peer review makes certain the math is correct.
Upvote
0
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.
Luckily, physicists are very good at this sort of thing and the nice thing about mathematics, peer review makes certain the math is correct.What is the probability of that happening? Let's see if you actually understand the math.
1. We don't know how the universe originated, but that lack of knowledge doesn't change the fine tuning of it.It sounds like you are heavily invested in this false dichotomy of "either multiverse, or god" - and by 'god', you off course mean the specific god you happen to believe in, and not any of the thousands of other gods that humans have believed in and still believe in.
I've brought this to your attention before, but it seems to go in one ear and out the other every time......
As has been said, ad nauseum, we do NOT know how the universe originated.
We do NOT know if the constants even CAN have a different value.
We do NOT know how the constants are determined / assigned during universe origination.
If they even can be different, we do NOT know HOW different they can be.
For all we know, it could be that there indeed is a multi-verse and that every universe that comes from it, is exactly like our own. For all we know, a space-time continuum can only be like the one we live in.
You really need to stop with all this speculation and assumption.
When we are discussing our universe we are not considering the probability of THIS universe. We are considering the probability of a universe that supports intelligent life. The universe is not special because it just happens to be ours and we exist but we are considering the probability of a universe that supports intelligent life. Going back to the ping-pong ball being a person...any ball will be a person (any ol' sperm and any ol' egg) = a person no matter. Pick a different sperm or egg get a different person. But if we take any universe we certainly do not get a different intelligent life form. You get no life at all.
You are entirely missing the point. None of this paragraph is relevant. Let me illustrate by copy/pasting, and changing a couple variables, which will be emphasized in bold:
"But if we take any person we certainly do not get a different oncedeceived. You get no oncedeceived at all."
The point is that any ol' ball will not be oncedecieved. The target of the fine tuning in my argument is NOT a person. It is oncedeceived.
I've given you support which shows how they determine it.
In other words, no, you have no idea how unlikely even this simple example is.Luckily, physicists are very good at this sort of thing and the nice thing about mathematics, peer review makes certain the math is correct.
You are the one missing the point. You are correct if we take any person we certainly do not get a different me. We don't get me at all. However, me is not specified and unlikely. If Oncedeceived didn't exist it would just be someone else. That is not the case of the universe. If this universe didn't exist with its life allowing properties, life wouldn't exist at all. There wouldn't just be another universe with a different life form but no life form at all.You are entirely missing the point. None of this paragraph is relevant. Let me illustrate by copy/pasting, and changing a couple variables, which will be emphasized in bold:
"But if we take any person we certainly do not get a different oncedeceived. You get no oncedeceived at all."
The point is that any ol' ball will not be oncedecieved. The target of the fine tuning in my argument is NOT a person. It is oncedeceived.
I have to hope that others are not as bias and blind to the information being given.Keep claiming this and eventually someone might believe you. Won't be me, since I know better, but keep hope alive.
KC I haven't a PhD in physics nor in Cosmology, nor Mathematics but I am well aware of the way science works in all of those areas. If the majority of scientists in the field are claiming that the universe is unlikely and HAVE DONE the MATH, I trust the peer review process that would correct their calculations if they were incorrect.In other words, no, you have no idea how unlikely even this simple example is.
I have to hope that others are not as bias and blind to the information being given.
KC I haven't a PhD in physics nor in Cosmology, nor Mathematics but I am well aware of the way science works in all of those areas.
If the majority of scientists in the field are claiming that the universe is unlikely and HAVE DONE the MATH, I trust the peer review process that would correct their calculations if they were incorrect.
I've given references and either you are not understanding the information or you are arguing for argument sake and nothing more.Yeah, obviously the reason you can't find any actual references which back up what you claim is because people are biased against you.
I understood it well enough to ask questions about it you couldn't answer. Still can't, I guess, considering you're now trying to blame me rather than even try to respond with any sort of content.I've given references and either you are not understanding the information or you are arguing for argument sake and nothing more.
Fortunately for me and many others that don't hold degrees in Mathematical studies, the peer review process works wonderfully.Considering you can't answer simple a simple math question, I'm not convinced you're qualified to judge the work of experts in those fields.
KC you can't find a good argument against anything I've presented so you just continue to claim I am not providing it. There is no such paper and it is due to your lack of understanding that the fine tuning argument is based on over two dozen fundamental constants that each have been deemed necessary for intelligent life to exist. Paul Davies has said that there IS A CONSENSUS with scientists in the field that the parameters for intelligent life to exist are fine tuned.Nice hypothetical. What does it have to do with the reality of the situation here - that you can't demonstrate that this is a majority opinion. Heck, you can't even find a single paper which calculates the odds that the universe would end up friendly to life. So why bring up this fantasy?
I don't have to, I can trust the peer review process.I understood it well enough to ask questions about it you couldn't answer. Still can't, I guess, considering you're now trying to blame me rather than even try to respond with any sort of content.
You are the one missing the point. You are correct if we take any person we certainly do not get a different me. We don't get me at all. However, me is not specified and unlikely. If Oncedeceived didn't exist it would just be someone else. That is not the case of the universe. If this universe didn't exist with its life allowing properties, life wouldn't exist at all. There wouldn't just be another universe with a different life form but no life form at all.
Why?You absolutely are specified AND unlikely. The target in my analogy is, once again, NOT "a person", yet you continually state something like what I bolded in your post. The target is specifically you. THAT is absolutely specified and unlikely.
Again, I merely change variables:
"If YOU didn't exist with your endless string of ancestral hookups, you wouldn't exist at all. There wouldn't just be another oncedeceived but no oncedeceived at all.
You keep trying to show that another person would be another success for my analogy. It isn't. Another person is just as much a failure as a universe with no life form at all.
Fortunately for me and many others that don't hold degrees in Mathematical studies, the peer review process works wonderfully.
KC you can't find a good argument against anything I've presented so you just continue to claim I am not providing it. There is no such paper
Paul Davies has said that there IS A CONSENSUS with scientists in the field that the parameters for intelligent life to exist are fine tuned.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?