Fine tuning, a new approach

[[serious]]

Just how plumb and how level can you get something?

As level and plumb as the job calls for.

Are humans more finely tuned than a shed? I'd argue yes.the universe that gave rise to humans must be more finely tuned, and God is thus even more finely tuned.

 

[46AND2]

Ok. What scientists don't?

It's your claim. You show that "most" physicists believe the universe came from nothing.

Then, maybe you can explain why that is important, anyway, since what they believe has little to do with what we "know."

 

[lesliedellow]

And God was fine tuned to desire the universe to exist as it is with this for of life in it.

Ho hum. The "If the universe wasn't the way it is, we wouldn't be here," argument. Unfortunately it misses the point. There is only a very narrow range of parameters which allows the universe to a.) exist in the first place, and b.) for that universe, if it does exist, to support any kind of chemistry.

Without chemistry, not only can life not exist in any shape or form, but b- all else can either.

 

[[serious]]

What exactly might that mean? Circles are a mathematical abstraction, and they exist because we say they do. In any case, pi can be defined in more than one way. It could, for example, be defined as -i * log(-1).

Once is claiming that laws cannot exist apart from the objects they describe. However, since the mathematical laws and constants that describe circles can exist apart from circles, there is no reason to assume the natural laws somehow don't work this same way.

 

[[serious]]

Pi or the golden ratio has to do with a nautilus shell in the ocean that has to deal with the motion of the waves caused by gravity of the earth and the gravity of the moon. The shape and the thickness are both important for survival. This is why we end up with fibonacci numbers: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, etc. So Pi or Fibonacci numbers apply to the sea shell, the weather patterns (tornado) and the photos we get from the Hubble of Spirals Galaxies in our Universe. The same math for a sea shell or a whole Galaxy because of what we call the Law of Gravity.

The Golden Rectangle, and the relation between the Fibonacci Sequence and the Golden Ratio.
A Golden Rectangle is a rectangle in which the ratio of the length to the width is the Golden Ratio

1+1=2 / 1+2=3 / 2+3=5 / 3+5=8 / 5+8=13 / 8+13=21 / 13+21=34 / 21+34=55 / 34+55=89
The exact same precision you have in the beginning is maintained to the end. This is an example of fine tuning.

Right, bUT I thing we can agree that the shell is created according to the laws, not that the laws spring from the shells. That's what Once seems to be saying, that the natural laws are created by the things they describe.

 

[[serious]]

Ho hum. The "If the universe wasn't the way it is, we wouldn't be here," argument. Unfortunately it misses the point. There is only a very narrow range of parameters which allows the universe to a.) exist in the first place, and b.) for that universe, if it does exist, to support any kind of chemistry.

Without chemistry, not only can life not exist in any shape or form, but b- all else can either.

But that fine tuning only gets us to a universe where rocks can exist. God must be even more fine tuned to want not only rocks, but life, not only life, but intelligent life, and not only that, but life as we know it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And God was fine tuned to desire the universe to exist as it is with this for of life in it.

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's your claim. You show that "most" physicists believe the universe came from nothing.

Then, maybe you can explain why that is important, anyway, since what they believe has little to do with what we "know."

The reason they believe it is that is what the evidence shows.

You made a counter claim. Show those who don't believe that the evidence shows that the universe came from nothing, even if there was a singularity, it couldn't have been around any length of time because time didn't exist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I should have known better, I am the fool not you.

Are you not an intelligent life form? I mean if you don't I guess I can't refute it.

 

[46AND2]

The reason they believe it is that is what the evidence shows.

What evidence? We have no evidence, whatsoever, that there ever was a state of "nothing." Please show me this evidence in the form of a peer reviewed paper. It is abundantly clear that scientists DON'T KNOW what happened before planck time=1.

You made a counter claim. Show those who don't believe that the evidence shows that the universe came from nothing, even if there was a singularity, it couldn't have been around any length of time because time didn't exist.

Oi. "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." --Hitchens

It's your burden, not mine.

 

[bhsmte]

What evidence? We have no evidence, whatsoever, that there ever was a state of "nothing." Please show me this evidence in the form of a peer reviewed paper. It is abundantly clear that scientists DON'T KNOW what happened before planck time=1.



Oi. "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." --Hitchens

It's your burden, not mine.

Tight spot = shift the burden of proof.

You can set your watch by it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What evidence? We have no evidence, whatsoever, that there ever was a state of "nothing." Please show me this evidence in the form of a peer reviewed paper. It is abundantly clear that scientists DON'T KNOW what happened before planck time=1.



Oi. "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." --Hitchens

It's your burden, not mine.

Did you miss the link of Paul Davies? And:

But now Vilenkin says he has convincing evidence in hand: The universe had a distinct beginning — though he can’t pinpoint the time. After 35 years of looking backward, he says, he’s found that before our universe there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself.
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point

 

[46AND2]

Did you miss the link of Paul Davies?

I said evidence, not the opinion of a certain scientist.

And:

But now Vilenkin says he has convincing evidence in hand: The universe had a distinct beginning — though he can’t pinpoint the time. After 35 years of looking backward, he says, he’s found that before our universe there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself.
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point

I also asked for peer reviewed papers.

And you still haven't shown that "most" physicists think the BB popped out of nothing.

Do yourself a favor, and google the "planck epoch". Find out just what we "know" about what happened before planck time=1.

 

[46AND2]

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point

Did you even read the whole article?

 

[JaneC]

Are you not an intelligent life form? I mean if you don't I guess I can't refute it.

I think you are a fraud.

 

[bhsmte]

I think you are a fraud.

Dont think so.

Just someone, who likely stating they believe on faith is not good enough and they really, really, really need to convince themselves they have evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What evidence? We have no evidence, whatsoever, that there ever was a state of "nothing." Please show me this evidence in the form of a peer reviewed paper. It is abundantly clear that scientists DON'T KNOW what happened before planck time=1.



Oi. "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." --Hitchens

It's your burden, not mine.

I said what scientists believe, not what they know and what they believe comes from what they know. Does that make sense? So in that way they believe something from what the evidence is telling them.

Going back into time we come to planck time. We don't know whether there is a shorter element of time, time becomes time at planck time. So there is no time before time and time and space are considered together. It makes no sense to talk about a period of time we don't know because there was no time period at all.

Here is something that explains what I am saying:

In addition to offering a solution to the black hole information paradox, the physicists explain that the existence of minimum length and time intervals reminds us that it is important to know what questions one is allowed to ask in physics to get the correct answer. The scientists explain this idea using the analogy of a metal rod:

"We can ask, how much will a rod bend at a given force without breaking the rod? When we apply a force so great that it breaks the rod, it is meaningless to talk of bending that rod. In the same way, in gravity's rainbow, it becomes meaningless to talk of space below a certain length scale, and time below a certain interval.

"The most important lesson from this paper is that space and time exist only beyond a certain scale," Ali concluded. "There is no space and time below that scale. Hence, it is meaningless to define particles, matter, or any object, including black holes, that exist in space and time below that scale. Thus, as long as we keep ourselves confined to the scales at which both space and time exist, we get sensible physical answers. However, when we try to ask questions at length and time intervals that are below the scales at which space and time exist, we end up getting paradoxes and problems."



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-black-holes-space-theory.html#jCp

Why our laws of physics don't make sense, why we can't know what happened before planck time is that is the beginning of everything of this universe. No space existed, no matter existed, no energy existed and no time existed. Imagine this, I have a pen in my hand and a clean sheet of paper, I am bringing that pen down to the paper and I am going to draw a line. The line doesn't exist yet, the point where my pen will touch the paper doesn't exist yet and then I touch the paper with the pen and start the line. There is nothing of the line before that first touch of the pen, that first mark on the fresh paper. That first mark is like the beginning of our universe. There is no time smaller than 10-43 seconds because it is the smallest unit that can exist in time.

 

[[serious]]

That doesn't even make sense.

It's the same idea as the fine tuned universe.

God could have any number of traits and desires, but what is required for God to have the ability and desire to create life exactly as it is would be very specific. Thus God's abilities and desires can be viewed as finely tuned for our creation just like the universe.

You should go back and read the OP.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I said evidence, not the opinion of a certain scientist.



I also asked for peer reviewed papers.

And you still haven't shown that "most" physicists think the BB popped out of nothing.

Do yourself a favor, and google the "planck epoch". Find out just what we "know" about what happened before planck time=1.

I didn't say that there were peer reviewed papers or that scientists had evidence that the Big Bang "popped out of nothing". I said that most physicists believe so. The point is that our universe did not have space, matter, energy or time until it did. Which was my point from the beginning which is confirmed by everything I've provided.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think you are a fraud.

I think you best stick to discussing my argument and leave the personal attacks out of the mix. Thanks.