Fine tuning, a new approach

[KCfromNC]

yet, somehow... that doesn't stop your from making up general rules like "everything needs a cause", as if it applies universally... yet, here you are.... saying that we can't actually know that.

More interestingly, we need to switch from "the universe is fine tuned for life" to "at least 4% of the universe is fine tuned for life but we know nothing about whether or not the rest is". That's if we're supposed to be consistent.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If there was no time before the big bang, there can't be nothing in the time before the big bang.

It's like asking what's inside a box that doesn't exist.

Time didn't exist and then it did either at the beginning of the Big Bang or shortly after inflation. Nothing would mean not anything.

 

[KCfromNC]

That is due to God not being a natural entity. God is a necessary eternal cause, a naturalistic universe generator would need to be fine tuned to allow for a fine tuned universe as ours.

Hmm, "necessary eternal cause". Seems like a pretty specific type of object there. The kind of thing that if it were different would produce different effects. That's what fine tuned means.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, we have never observed "nothing", nore did we ever observe the "thing" that was when there was no universe.

What we DO observe, is a universe with a time dimension. That's it.
This seems so obvious that I wonder why I have to point it out..........



That doesn't even make any sense to me.




Que?



Which I have been telling you for several pages... when a physicist talks about "nothing", (s)he doesn't mean "absolute nothingness".

Again, we have never observed "absolute nothingness". It isn't even clear if "absolute nothingness" is actually a sensible/possible state of affairs.



Well, there surely must be some explanation of how the universe originated...
But that explanation is still unknown.

No, there are a few scientists that are claiming that nothing is something but they are being criticized for it.

 

[KCfromNC]

No, there are a few scientists that are claiming that nothing is something but they are being criticized for it.

As would be expected when there's no consensus answer for a field of study. Your point?

 

[AdamSK]

Strange that many phycists themselves claim that the multiverse is unfalsifiable.

Many do, yes. Others posit mechanisms to falsify it. No consensus.

 

[Oncedeceived]

More interestingly, we need to switch from "the universe is fine tuned for life" to "at least 4% of the universe is fine tuned for life but we know nothing about whether or not the rest is". That's if we're supposed to be consistent.

Regardless of the rest of the universe, what it takes for the universe to exist the WHOLE universe and life on earth is fine tuned.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Many do, yes. Others posit mechanisms to falsify it. No consensus.

I agree.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As would be expected when there's no consensus answer for a field of study. Your point?

There is no consensus.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is interesting....

So, basically, when you say things like "everything has a cause", you are essentially making a general truth claim of which you don't actually know if it is true?

You must be, since you just admitted that there are phenomena that seem uncaused or of which it isn't known what the causes are...

So, in the future, I advice you to nuance that premise "everything has a cause" a tiny bit, to reflect the fact that this statement isn't justified at all as a general rule.

Scientists say:

Nothing happens by chance or outside the Universal Laws. Every Action has a reaction or consequence "We reap what we sow". Ralph Waldo Emerson said the Law of Cause and Effect is the "law of laws". The most important lesson involving human conduct and interation is seen in the Cosmic Law of Cause and Effect. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". Every human thought, word and deed is a Cause that sets off a wave of energy throughout the universe which in turn creates the effect whether desirable or undesirable. The law states the effect must to physical manifestation. This is why good thoughts, words, emotions, and deeds are essential for a better world for the all create good effects.

With every thought of intention, action and emotion that is transmitted from you, a person sets into motion unseen chain of effects which vibrate from the mental plane thought the entire cellular structure of body out into the environment and finally into the Cosmos. Eventually the vibratory energy returns to the original source upon the swing of the pendulum.

The law of cause and effect states that every cause has an effect and every effect becomes the cause of something else. This law suggests that the universe is always in motion and progressed from a chain of events.

http://lawsoftheuniverse.weebly.com/law-of-cause-and-effect.html

 

[AdamSK]

I agree.

Then stop claiming a consensus. Don't talk about what "science says" or "physics says" in areas of cosmology that are still highly speculative.

 

[AdamSK]

Scientists say:

No, that quote does not come from scientists. About half of that is directly contrary to quantum physics, particularly the idea that nothing happens by chance.

Please don't reference crazy websites from people preaching about psychics and pretend it's what "scientists say." Neither that page, nor the page about "the Law of Divine Oneness" or "the Seven Hermetic Laws," has anything to do with science.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then stop claiming a consensus. Don't talk about what "science says" or "physics says" in areas of cosmology that are still highly speculative.

Fine tuning is not highly speculative

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, that quote does not come from scientists. About half of that is directly contrary to quantum physics, particularly the idea that nothing happens by chance.

Please don't reference crazy websites from people preaching about psychics and pretend it's what "scientists say." Neither that page, nor the page about "the Law of Divine Oneness" or "the Seven Hermetic Laws," has anything to do with science.

Causality is the relationship between causes and effects.[1][2] It is considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics. Causality is also a topic studied from the perspectives of philosophy and statistics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

 

[AdamSK]

Fine tuning is not highly speculative

But the idea that there was nothing before the Big Bang is still highly speculative, as you have now agreed.

 

[AdamSK]

Causality is the relationship between causes and effects.[1][2] It is considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics. Causality is also a topic studied from the perspectives of philosophy and statistics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

There you go. And do you acknowledge that your previous quotation wasn't from "scientists" and can be disregarded?

 

[KCfromNC]

Regardless of the rest of the universe, what it takes for the universe to exist the WHOLE universe and life on earth is fine tuned.

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

I'll just let you argue with yourself here.

 

[KCfromNC]

Causality is the relationship between causes and effects.[1][2] It is considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics. Causality is also a topic studied from the perspectives of philosophy and statistics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

Yes, that's a definition of the word. Does that mean all thing have causes? From your source :

Confusion of causality and determinism is particularly acute in quantum mechanics, this theory being acausal in the sense that it is unable in many cases to identify the causes of actually observed effects or to predict the effects of identical causes

You should consider reading all the words in the references you post. That would help prevent you from posting things which contradict your own claims.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But the idea that there was nothing before the Big Bang is still highly speculative, as you have now agreed.

Where did I agree? I feel that Davies and Vilenkin have made it clear that they do believe that and Lilenkin says there is evidence that there was nothing.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, that's a definition of the word. Does that mean all thing have causes? From your source :



You should consider reading all the words in the references you post. That would help prevent you from posting things which contradict your own claims.

I read it....it doesn't contradict my point.