Fine tuning, a new approach

[AdamSK]

Everything is hindsight.

Not cosmology. First we make predictions, then we make measurements to attempt to falsify or confirm those predictions. For example, we first predicted the CMBR, then we confirmed it.

 

[AdamSK]

True, but that is more a science of the gaps example than uncaused cause.

Bell's inequality implies there are no local hidden variables underlying the decay event - it is genuinely stochastic. You are claiming there is some hidden, nonlocal cause that exists but just can't be observed or measured in any way and violates quantum mechanics?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, that is not the reason mentioned in the quote of Davies.
Perhaps you should read it again.

The reason is because there is no "prior" where the cause could happen in.
As said, causes happen before effects. But there is no logical "before" here....




In the exact same way. A cause is a cause. Supernatural or not. A cause happens before an effect.

Paul Davies is taking the laws of physics as a given. Those are needed for the universe to exist according to Davies and Vilenkin.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not cosmology. First we make predictions, then we make measurements to attempt to falsify or confirm those predictions. For example, we first predicted the CMBR, then we confirmed it.

The cosmos happened the way they happened and anything we learn is from hind sight.

 

[AdamSK]

The cosmos happened the way they happened and anything we learn is from hind sight.

That's not what people mean when they accuse you of interpreting Scriptures according to hindsight. They are saying that you are taking whatever evidence we already have and changing your interpretation of the passages to match. Whereas what cosmologists are doing is first using the model to make predictions, then making measurements to see if the predictions match.

Yes, the Big Bang happened a long time ago. But the point is that we can make a model that predicts the other stuff we will find when we go look - stuff we haven't looked for yet. And that stuff isn't "hindsight predictions," like when creationists first see what fossils are in a location and then make up a story about how they got there. That stuff is "foresight predictions," like when paleontologists examine transition between fish and tetrapods and decide ahead of time where the fossils of the intermediate form will be, then go find those fossils.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Bell's inequality implies there are no local hidden variables underlying the decay event - it is genuinely stochastic. You are claiming there is some hidden, nonlocal cause that exists but just can't be observed or measured in any way and violates quantum mechanics?

I'm saying how would we know for certain? We only know about 4% of the makeup of the universe the rest we can't even observe, how can we say for certain that there is not some cause that exists that we don't know of yet?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's not what people mean when they accuse you of interpreting Scriptures according to hindsight. They are saying that you are taking whatever evidence we already have and changing your interpretation of the passages to match. Whereas what cosmologists are doing is first using the model to make predictions, then making measurements to see if the predictions match.

Yes, the Big Bang happened a long time ago. But the point is that we can make a model that predicts the other stuff we will find when we go look - stuff we haven't looked for yet. And that stuff isn't "hindsight predictions," like when creationists first see what fossils are in a location and then make up a story about how they got there. That stuff is "foresight predictions," like when paleontologists examine transition between fish and tetrapods and decide ahead of time where the fossils of the intermediate form will be, then go find those fossils.

They make those predictions based on what they have found prior to those predictions. They aren't going to look for a rabbit fossil in the precambrian because it would be completely out of line with what is already known about the way life progressed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because unfalsifiable models are infinite in number.

Yet, we see scientists proposing a multiverse which is unfalsifiable.

Actually... science limits itself to that which can actually be independently verified. That just happens to be "limited" to the natural world.

Don't blame it on science that the supernatural is an unfalsifiable, untestable, unverifiable idea. In terms of explanatory power, it is entirely useless and meaningless for that reason.

Yet, scientists are proposing multiverses.

Good luck supporting that claim.

Thanks.

 

[Oncedeceived]

...a cause IN the universe, yes.

However, not sure what this has to do with the point I was making. I didn't speak about any causes. I spoke about how I can only build tools because I am capable of doing so.

Just like the only reason the universe brought forward life is because the universe had the potential of doing so first.

That is what you refer to by "fine tuned".

The only point I'm making, is that your god had to be "fine tuned" in the exact same way, for the exact same reason.

So if that is your argument for the "fine tuning" of the universe, then the same goes for the "fine tuning" of your god.

You may being the special pleading now.



First of all, as others have already pointed out to you, nothing in our universe ever is "created" or "begins to exist".

What actually happens is that existing stuff is changed / rearranged into new configurations. Take your own body for example.

Every single atom that makes up your body, existed LONG before "you" did. What "you" are is, in essence, nothing more or less then a specific configuration of matter.
Matter that existed before you did, in another configuration.



1. merely asserting it, doesn't make it true or sensible

2. "never dying"? How did you jump from "uncaused cause" to that cause being some time of thing that could be seen as "alive"?

3. for the gazzilionth time, causality requires the existence of a time dimension. It's a phenomena of physics as it applies in this universe. Removing the universe, would remove all physical phenomena it contains (as well as time itself). So to speak about a "cause" for the universe, exposes a chicken and egg problem.



I just explained to you why that is incorrect and you completely ignored it. In fact, you just dissmissed it without giving any justification for it at all. Yet another bare assertion on your part.

I'll explain again: in order for your god to be able to create a universe, he must actually meet the requirements needed to be able to do it. Just like I need to meet certain criteria in order to even only be able to make a tool. I require a brain to imagine 3d models, I require reasoning abilities to make a manufacturing plan, I require fine motoric skills to assemble all the parts, etc.

In your language/terminology, that means that I must be "fine tuned" for tool-making.

In exactly the same way, your god must be "fine tuned" for universe-making.

Why is it a valid argument for my body or the universe itself, but not for your god?
Without engaging in special pleading...off course.



... and he has to be fine-tuned for universe making.

You are asserting that God must be fined tuned and giving nothing that supports that assertion.
You body needs a cause to exist. For things to exist they have to begin to have that existence whether or not they are changed from star dust to us they still have a cause. Anything of the natural world needs a cause. You are saying so yourself. Where you limit this is with time itself but time began as well. What caused time? Time didn't exist and then it did. Space didn't exist but then it did. Matter didn't exist and then it did. Energy didn't exist then it did. How did they come into being?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, that's his claim. It is not generally accepted by physicists as being true. It is the hypothesis he is working on.

Really? Most prominent scientists are claiming the same thing?

 

[Freodin]

Everything is hindsight. Almost everything we know about science is discovery by hindsight. The Bible is not a science book and does not go into great detail about creation nor scientific material but it gives us insight and just like how we understand some disconnected fact but not how it comes together with other fact in nature, so do we in the Bible.

That is incorrect.

Hindsight is trying to adapt what you said earlier to new observations, in order to not have to admit that you were wrong previously or just didn't know.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is incorrect.

Hindsight is trying to adapt what you said earlier to new observations, in order to not have to admit that you were wrong previously or just didn't know.

Yes, that is hindsight too.

 

[KCfromNC]

I didn't say so. God said so.

God's nowhere to be found and certainly doesn't seem to be saying anything.

God didn't need to be "fine tuned" to be the first cause.

Why not? Sounds like if it were even slightly different the results would have been vastly different?

 

[KCfromNC]

True, but that is more a science of the gaps example than uncaused cause.

If you could actually prove this you would win a Nobel Prize.

 

[[serious]]

Such as?

Browning motion, radioactive decay, quantum tunneling, and Casimir effects come to mind.

 

[[serious]]

What we observe is that there was nothing and then there was the universe which included time. We observe that nothing of the universe pops out of nothing. Whales don't just pop up in front of us from nothing. Even Krauss who is trying to say that something can come from nothing is not claiming nothing is nothing or not anything. In fact, all scientists that are proposing ways in which the universe could come from nothing are using something to cause that to happen. It may not be they say causality as we know it, but they are claiming that something had to cause the universe to exist.

We have no observation of any time in which the universe had nothing in it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

We have no observation of any time in which the universe had nothing in it.

Well yes, but evidence says that there was nothing and then there was the universe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Browning motion, radioactive decay, quantum tunneling, and Casimir effects come to mind.

Like I said, we have only like 4% that we can know and all that which we know nothing about.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I have supplied a paper on the Big Bang by Paul Davies which completely refutes what you are saying but you continue to say it. Go figure.

No, you provided an Opinion Piece. Opinion pieces aren't scientific papers.

 

[[serious]]

Yet, we see scientists proposing a multiverse which is unfalsifiable.



Yet, scientists are proposing multiverses.



Thanks.

Actually, the existence of a multiverse is not a theory in and of itself, but instead is a possible interpretation of testable theories such as quantum mechanics. Think of it like theories of proton decay. We have no way of directly testing of protons decay as it would happen on timescales longer than stars can exist. However, because it's based on other testable theories, we can test the theories that lead us to that interpretation. Same thing here.