Fine tuning, a new approach

[Oncedeceived]

Such as the suggestion that "the various anthropic relations quoted above in principle determine the order of magnitude of most of the fundamental constants of physics". And that many-worlds is a potentially a "philosophically satisfying interpretation". Funny how your feelings on what must be in there are so very different from what one actually reads in the paper. I don't know how the authors could have gotten it so wrong.

Got what wrong?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because they understand what the words mean. That is, they're talking about the range of values which would lead to certain outcome rather than making any claims about how likely it is that they'd end up in those ranges.

But this line of thought is amusing :

I know they're talking about probability because these big numbers must mean that it is unlikely.
The experts use words like precision.
Since I know that they're talking about probability precision must be talking about probability.
Therefore anyone who uses the word differently is wrong.

And round and round we go.

Scientists in the field claim it is unlikely, that is where that comes from.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask and I can help educate you on what you're having problems understanding. But it seems like a simple request - without reading it you said you knew the paper was limited by certain technological limitations. Can you give specific examples of those limitations discussed in this paper you've never read?

I never said the paper discussed technological limitations.

 

[KCfromNC]

It talked about how it was determined.

Go ahead, explain it to us. Which model did he use to calculate whatever it is you think he did?

I didn't.

One of your sources says 1 in 10^10^123. Another says 1 in 10^229. Either they're disagreeing or one (or both) were attempts to dodge my question rather than answer it.

The unlikeliness of the universe have the precise values that allow for life by chance has been presented by quotes and by Smolin and Penrose.

And strangely enough, the quotes you've given have lots of contradictory numbers.

Eh.

No reason for me to take your belief seriously?

 

[KCfromNC]

Got what wrong?

The authors obviously got their conclusions wrong. What they wrote contradicts what you're telling us must be in there.

 

[KCfromNC]

Scientists in the field claim it is unlikely, that is where that comes from.

And yet for some reason when we dig into those claims, none of them agrees on how likely it might or might not be. Almost as if there's no scientific consensus and this whole idea is an argument deeply rooted in our ignorance of the subject.

 

[bhsmte]

And yet for some reason when we dig into those claims, none of them agrees on how likely it might or might not be. Almost as if there's no scientific consensus and this whole idea is an argument deeply rooted in our ignorance of the subject.

We call that, the small details and details that are ignored, because they dont align with the story.

 

[KCfromNC]

I never said the paper discussed technological limitations.

You said the paper ran up against certain technological limitations. I was hoping you'd go into detail on exactly what those limitations were and how they impacted the conclusions the paper. Because when I read the paper, it said exactly nothing about this. Guess it is another thing the authors got wrong. They failed to include the stuff that you - someone who hasn't read the paper - really really believes should be in there.

 

[KCfromNC]

We call that, the small details and details that are ignored, because they dont align with the story.

Stay on message! Stay on message! Don't let facts distract from the talking points.

 

[[serious]]

I know what their conclusions are from other papers. I could be wrong of course but it would be extremely unlikely that the authors would have some other conclusion in this paper and not hold the same conclusions in others of the same time period and beyond.

So, what do you think Carr's conclusion is? Why not just read it as it would have been far quicker than making endless excuses for why you still haven't read your own citation?

 

[[serious]]

Explain why the scientists in the field then use the term precision when discussing how fine tuned the universe is.

Because precision is related to any apparent tuning. Order of magnitude is not.

I'd try to explain more thoroughly, but I honestly have no idea what isn't clicking for you. I really figured the example with 1 g, 1000 mg, and .001 Kg would do the trick, but somehow you are still spinning your wheels on the concept.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So, what do you think Carr's conclusion is? Why not just read it as it would have been far quicker than making endless excuses for why you still haven't read your own citation?

Yes, he claims the anthropic principal and at that time he didn't think that there were but a few fine tuned parameters.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because precision is related to any apparent tuning. Order of magnitude is not.

I'd try to explain more thoroughly, but I honestly have no idea what isn't clicking for you. I really figured the example with 1 g, 1000 mg, and .001 Kg would do the trick, but somehow you are still spinning your wheels on the concept.

Ok. Lets just get down to the brass tacks. Do you agree with the scientific conclusion that the universe's fundamental constants have the very necessary values that allow for intelligent life to exist IN OUR UNIVERSE?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The authors obviously got their conclusions wrong. What they wrote contradicts what you're telling us must be in there.

They conclude the anthropic principle do they not?

 

[Oncedeceived]

And yet for some reason when we dig into those claims, none of them agrees on how likely it might or might not be. Almost as if there's no scientific consensus and this whole idea is an argument deeply rooted in our ignorance of the subject.

Actually the argument is based on what we know, what we don't know.

 

[[serious]]

Yes, he claims the anthropic principal and at that time he didn't think that there were but a few fine tuned parameters.

Then why do you list him as a scientist that supports fine tuning?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then why do you list him as a scientist that supports fine tuning?

I provided this as an early paper that discussed fine tuning early on. My point was to show how it was first discovered and how it has developed even more since then. I seriously wish I had not as it has became very convoluted and has become the focus when it was just a lead in to the argument.

 

[[serious]]

Ok. Lets just get down to the brass tacks. Do you agree with the scientific conclusion that the universe's fundamental constants have the very necessary values that allow for intelligent life to exist IN OUR UNIVERSE?

That all caps seems redundant. Like, does life in our universe depend on the values in our universe? Sure. God is finely tuned to want life but to not exempt such life from such constraints. That's part of the fine tuning of God. (hey, back on topic!)

But I can't rule out other types of life existing under very different constants.

 

[[serious]]

I provided this as an early paper that discussed fine tuning early on. My point was to show how it was first discovered and how it has developed even more since then. I seriously wish I had not as it has became very convoluted and has become the focus when it was just a lead in to the argument.

But then you listed him as a scientist that agreed with fine tuning. If your list of scientists who accept fine tuning includes people who think the anthropic principle negates fine tuning, it's not much of a list, is it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

But then you listed him as a scientist that agreed with fine tuning. If your list of scientists who accept fine tuning includes people who think the anthropic principle negates fine tuning, it's not much of a list, is it?

How does the anthropic principle negate fine tuning?