Fine tuning, a new approach

[KCfromNC]

No, you asked how they determined how unlikely the universe is and I gave you links to show how they determined it.

Post #?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your unique DNA is not something which sets you apart from other humans?

Of course it does, but although it is improbable that my DNA comes together it is not that improbability that we are discussing. Any DNA wins that arises from that improbable event. There is nothing that sets my DNA apart prior to the event happening. It isn't as if my parents determined prior to having me that I would be the outcome. Any outcome would have be equally improbable and equally predictable.

The fact that there are other humans in existence does not change the staggering improbability that hundreds of generations of people had to mate in exactly the way they did in order to produce you. Of course there are many different ways that a human, in general, can be produced. But that isn't part of my argument.

I totally agree it is a staggering improbability to produce me. Yet, all those hundreds of generations of people that had to mate in exactly the way they did in order to produce me could have produced Mary in just the same way. If my parents had not conceived on the day that I was produced, Mary or David or even Gabrielle would have been just as improbable and those hundreds of generations of people who had to have mated in exactly the way they did in order to produce me would be exactly the same who would produce Mary, David or Gabrielle. That is not the same situation as the fine tuning of the universe. If the fine tuning was not precisely what it was from the very beginning of its existence none of this would be a factor, no possible outcomes of life would be possible at all. Not just any outcome would create life, as in your example of me.

Once again, in my analogy, you are analogous to the life supported universe. NOT a universe, in general. Arguing that other humans shows that you are not specified, is like arguing that a universe with no life shows that a life supported universe is not specified. It makes no sense. I don't need to speculate that you are one of a kind in some weird way like a female with male chromosomes. You are one of a kind, simply because YOU are YOU, and nobody else is. I've already identified a one of a kind item which is the topic of my analogy.

And once again you are only looking at the improbability of me but not of an independently specified improbability. I am one of a kind but any one of a kind could have been the outcome.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Let's just say there's a pretty strong consensus that it is very unlikely, if you get my drift.

There is not a single paper or even many papers that focuses or is presented to document that there is a consensus that the universe is unlikely. Just as there is no one paper that shows or focuses that evolution is the consensus. It is an accumulation of data and independently discovered examples that lead to the consensus.

 

[KCfromNC]

There is not a single paper or even many papers that focuses or is presented to document that there is a consensus that the universe is unlikely.

Then I'll ask for a third time - why did you claim that you posted a link to research you're now claiming doesn't exist?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then I'll ask for a third time - why did you claim that you posted a link to research you're now claiming doesn't exist?

I gave you links to research that shows how unlikely different constants were. That is what I claimed I posted.

 

[[serious]]

Again, that is simply false. I was supporting a claim in each link. I didn't in any way claim that they were making the same conclusions from that information from the evidence.

1. even in the one you admitted you hadn't actually read?

2. If you are saying you wanted to pick out one isolated bit while ignoring it's larger contradiction of your claims, there's a term for that. It rhymes with Perry Chicking

 

[[serious]]

This doesn't make sense?

If one doesn't make sense, the other doesn't.

 

[[serious]]

The Carr paper was a paper that was cited in many of the later papers as the first serious paper on fine tuning. I thought it would be a good starting point for Athee as he hadn't had delved into the topic that much.
I didn't read the paper because I knew what other papers had cited from it and knew it gave a good run down on the scientific side of the issue. I had read other papers as well from the authors. I didn't say I offer 200 papers for evidence, I said there were suppose to be over 200 papers written on fine tuning and this number was given in the link from Luke Barnes.
There has been a lot of new information available since the time of the paper I linked and so much of the conclusions that were made were made without the new information discovered since then. Which is always true of any paper written that long ago.

Yet it's one you hadn't read.

What made you think a paper you hadn't read would be a good starting point? Why didn't you bother starting there yourself?

 

[[serious]]

I gave you links to research that shows how unlikely different constants were. That is what I claimed I posted.

I've yet to see any paper you've posted that addressed probabilities of any of the constants.

You did post a few nonsense things that confused order of magnitude with probability I think .

 

[Oncedeceived]

1. even in the one you admitted you hadn't actually read?

2. If you are saying you wanted to pick out one isolated bit while ignoring it's larger contradiction of your claims, there's a term for that. It rhymes with Perry Chicking

The point was establishing scientific documentation of fine tuning. It was very important to the argument to establish a firm foundation for the argument.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If one doesn't make sense, the other doesn't.

Perhaps, but I wouldn't know that since that didn't make sense to me to compare it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yet it's one you hadn't read.

What made you think a paper you hadn't read would be a good starting point? Why didn't you bother starting there yourself?

I felt it was a good starting point because it was a early documentation of the fine tuning problem.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I've yet to see any paper you've posted that addressed probabilities of any of the constants.

You did post a few nonsense things that confused order of magnitude with probability I think .

They were used to show the precision necessary and the extreme improbability of them being that precise to allow for intelligent life to exist.

 

[KCfromNC]

I gave you links to research that shows how unlikely different constants were. That is what I claimed I posted.

Post #s?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Post #s?

I gave you a link to a video:

I gave you a reference which I didn't have an online link for: The Life of the Cosmos by Lee Smolin where Smolin has calculated the probability of stars forming randomly (=1 in 10^229) as being the probability of life.

From the Book: going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10229 . To illustrate how truly ridiculous this number is, we might note that the part of the universe we can see from earth contains about 1022 stars which together contain about 1080 protons and neutrons. These numbers are gigantic, but they are infinitesimal compared to 10229 . In my opinion, a probability this tiny is not something we can let go unexplained. Luck will certainly not do here; we need some rational explanation of how something this unlikely turned out to be the case.

And I gave you the link from Luke Barnes: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647.pdf

I gave you at least a half dozen or so quotes from Scientists that claim the universe is unlikely to have the precise parameters we see by chance.

 

[pgp_protector]

Odds of winning Mega Millions Jackpot 1 in 258,890,850.
Total Winners to date Over 100 winning tickets.
High odds doesn't mean it will not happen.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Odds of winning Mega Millions Jackpot 1 in 258,890,850.
Total Winners to date Over 100 winning tickets.
High odds doesn't mean it will not happen.

I agree but that is not the argument.

 

[46AND2]

Of course it does, but although it is improbable that my DNA comes together it is not that improbability that we are discussing. Any DNA wins that arises from that improbable event. There is nothing that sets my DNA apart prior to the event happening. It isn't as if my parents determined prior to having me that I would be the outcome. Any outcome would have be equally improbable and equally predictable.

And herein lies the problem with your ability to understand what I am talking about. When it comes to the fine tuning argument of the universe, you are not deducing a fine tuner, you are assuming one. But you refuse to assume one for my argument, because you know what that implies. Of course there is no intent for you to be the result.

I totally agree it is a staggering improbability to produce me. Yet, all those hundreds of generations of people that had to mate in exactly the way they did in order to produce me could have produced Mary in just the same way.

Once again, it doesn't matter. Mary doesn't matter. Mary is a failure. The specified fine tuning is your DNA, not Mary's. Mary is just another lifeless universe.

If my parents had not conceived on the day that I was produced, Mary or David or even Gabrielle would have been just as improbable and those hundreds of generations of people who had to have mated in exactly the way they did in order to produce me would be exactly the same who would produce Mary, David or Gabrielle.

999,999 consecutive sixes before one 5 is still a failure. Not a success.

That is not the same situation as the fine tuning of the universe. If the fine tuning was not precisely what it was from the very beginning of its existence none of this would be a factor, no possible outcomes of life would be possible at all. Not just any outcome would create life, as in your example of me.

Of course it is the same. YOU are the one of a kind I have identified. You keep trying to change the success of my argument to ANY LIFE. Mary, David, and Gabrielle are analogous to NON-LIFE.

And once again you are only looking at the improbability of me but not of an independently specified improbability. I am one of a kind but any one of a kind could have been the outcome.

We are BOTH looking at something in hindsight, and trying to determine what the odds WOULD HAVE BEEN eons ago. The problem is that in my situation, we can actually see some of the failures, in yours we cannot. We have both picked, with POST-DICTION, not prediction, what the success of our fine tuning looks like.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And herein lies the problem with your ability to understand what I am talking about. When it comes to the fine tuning argument of the universe, you are not deducing a fine tuner, you are assuming one. But you refuse to assume one for my argument, because you know what that implies. Of course there is no intent for you to be the result.

I totally understand what you are talking about and you are the one that is not understanding the difference.

Once again, it doesn't matter. Mary doesn't matter. Mary is a failure. The specified fine tuning is your DNA, not Mary's. Mary is just another lifeless universe.

Mary does matter because Mary is just as likely as Oncedeceived as the outcome of Oncedeceived's parents and the improbability that lies within the past generations. Mary would not have my exact DNA but she would have the same genes that arise to produce her as would be available to produce me. That is not the same as the universe.

999,999 consecutive sixes before one 5 is still a failure. Not a success.

It isn't about failure or success. You can't show that a life prohibiting universe is a failed universe, what is it that failed?

Of course it is the same. YOU are the one of a kind I have identified. You keep trying to change the success of my argument to ANY LIFE. Mary, David, and Gabrielle are analogous to NON-LIFE.

That is because you argument isn't a correct analogy. It is any life. Mary would be just as improbable and just as likely to exist as I am. A week goes by and those same past generations, those past genes go to Mary and not to me. Life will always be the winner, the fact that it is me or Mary, or David or Gabrielle is of no consequence all are winners no matter who shows up.

We are BOTH looking at something in hindsight, and trying to determine what the odds WOULD HAVE BEEN eons ago. The problem is that in my situation, we can actually see some of the failures, in yours we cannot. We have both picked, with POST-DICTION, not prediction, what the success of our fine tuning looks like.

To begin with, if that was the case the Fine Tuning would not even be a problem and no one would be claiming it is so improbable for them being so precise as to allow intelligent life to exist. There are NO Failures in the case of Mary, David, Gabrielle or Oncedecieved. Which everyone shows up is the winner and all have the same improbability in the way things fell into place to produce them.

 

[46AND2]

I totally understand what you are talking about and you are the one that is not understanding the difference.


Mary does matter because Mary is just as likely as Oncedeceived as the outcome of Oncedeceived's parents and the improbability that lies within the past generations. Mary would not have my exact DNA but she would have the same genes that arise to produce her as would be available to produce me. That is not the same as the universe.



It isn't about failure or success. You can't show that a life prohibiting universe is a failed universe, what is it that failed?

That is because you argument isn't a correct analogy. It is any life. Mary would be just as improbable and just as likely to exist as I am. A week goes by and those same past generations, those past genes go to Mary and not to me. Life will always be the winner, the fact that it is me or Mary, or David or Gabrielle is of no consequence all are winners no matter who shows up.


To begin with, if that was the case the Fine Tuning would not even be a problem and no one would be claiming it is so improbable for them being so precise as to allow intelligent life to exist. There are NO Failures in the case of Mary, David, Gabrielle or Oncedecieved. Which everyone shows up is the winner and all have the same improbability in the way things fell into place to produce them.

They are failures because, just as you did with the universe, I identified a target in which to assign appearance of fine tuning. I could have picked me, and then you would have been a failure. Just because THEY also would have been highly improbable, does not make them a success. I agree that there are MANY targets I could have chosen. The point is, the target I chose has only happened one time.

At any rate, it is clear that I am unable to adequately describe how you are misapplying my analogy.