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.
Got what wrong?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.
Scientists in the field claim it is unlikely, that is where that comes from.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.
I never said the paper discussed technological limitations.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?
It talked about how it was determined.
I didn't.
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.
No reason for me to take your belief seriously?
The authors obviously got their conclusions wrong. What they wrote contradicts what you're telling us must be in there.Got what wrong?
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.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.
I never said the paper discussed technological limitations.
Stay on message! Stay on message! Don't let facts distract from the talking points.We call that, the small details and details that are ignored, because they dont align with the story.
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?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.
Because precision is related to any apparent tuning. Order of magnitude is not.Explain why the scientists in the field then use the term precision when discussing how fine tuned the universe is.
Yes, he claims the anthropic principal and at that time he didn't think that there were but a few fine tuned parameters.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?
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?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.
They conclude the anthropic principle do they not?The authors obviously got their conclusions wrong. What they wrote contradicts what you're telling us must be in there.
Actually the argument is based on what we know, what we don't know.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.
Then why do you list him as a scientist that supports fine tuning?Yes, he claims the anthropic principal and at that time he didn't think that there were but a few fine tuned parameters.
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.Then why do you list him as a scientist that supports fine tuning?
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!)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?
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?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.
How does the anthropic principle negate fine tuning?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?
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?