Fine Tuning Debunked

Nihilist Virus · Nov 19, 2017

Quid est Veritas? said:
You got the equation right, you just don't seem to understand it - based on the OP. It is for an hypothetical Perfect Gas that perfectly follows the three Gas Laws. No Gas in existence does this, so no Chemist can derive any variable in real practice of any sort from it. Likewise its constant does not exist in reality. It is therefore a very poor and frankly silly choice for a fine tuning argument. What it does do, is suggest how real gases should have acted if they were Perfect and with the addition of information such as the vapour point, molecular mass, Reynold's number and flow, etc., we may be able to derive values therefrom with some semblance to reality - even here though, our theory seldom fits how we actually measure gases act.

After looking it up, I see that R, the gas constant, is the product of two other constants. So, touché.

Check my profile. I often agree with people as per my given rates. You just seem to enjoy talking about things of which you seem to know very little, hence requiring correction.

I've seen where you dish out your likes. You hand them out like candy to people who disagree with me, and, considering that this is a Christian forum, that's a lot. You are a contrarian. You refused, tooth and nail, to agree to the correct definition of "atheism" despite being shown in excruciating detail that you are wrong. Frankly, I have very little respect for your intellectual honesty.

Don't worry about it. I am an Anaesthetist, and it is not by chance that surgeons call us Gas Monkeys.
These are the actual Gas Laws though, derived from extrapolation of experimental results to a vague principle - even if no gas actually follows it.
The ideal Gas Law is a fudge where these three laws were artificially thrown together and their constants equated - it is therefore not technically a 'scientific law' at all, but a method of application of the actual Laws.

Thank you.

Nope. You said we "painstakingly compared measurements to refine this constant". We did nothing of the sort. We compared measurements to derive the principles of the three Perfect Gas Laws. We then invented a hypothetical gas that fits them perfectly and artificially invented a constant to place all three into one equation for a mole of the hypothetical gas. No experiment or measurement went into deriving the value of the constant - experiments were done for the principles of the Perfect Gas Laws, which don't correspond to the actual results of any measurement or experiment, but the constant simply follows a hypothetical combination of them and is determined therefore by convention.

Yes, I see that now.

Well, the masses of elementary particles such as the Hoyle number of Carbon; or the strengths of fundamental forces like electroweak or strong nuclear; for instance. Our standard model of particle physics and lambda CDM cosmological model has all kinds of fairly arbitrary values that had they been different , which math allows and often would rather have been expected, then the universe as we know it could not exist. I am not going to argue these much though, as there is a lacunae in my knowledge here, so this is my understanding taken on authority from what physicists I have read. As I said, I find Fine Tuning a bit of a catch-22 argument, so...

But again, as I said in the OP, there is the issue of Relativity vs quantum mechanics. We don't know how to mesh those together, so we cannot accurately model the Big Bang. A theory of quantum gravity is the Holy Grail of physics. Until we find it, it is premature for theists to trumpet fine tuning. I'd like to see more of them admit this. You, at least, don't blow the trumpet so kudos to you for that.

The values that we obtain by observation are the 'fine tuned' values that would give us that observation. These were utilised to create our physics in the first place, so it stands to reason that values used to derive something would be in accord with what was derived therefrom; and would be in accord with the required values for the observation to have occurred in the first place; and for the Observer to exist.

Are you referring to an absolute frame of reference?

Quid est Veritas? · Nov 20, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
After looking it up, I see that R, the gas constant, is the product of two other constants. So, touché.

I am glad you actually read up topics under discussion when people disagree with you, on occasion. I strongly advise you to continue on in this vein henceforth.

I've seen where you dish out your likes. You hand them out like candy to people who disagree with me, and, considering that this is a Christian forum, that's a lot. You are a contrarian.

People agree with those that have arguments they find compelling. I have had many interesting talks and friendly discussions with Atheists on these forums. Check out Christianity and World Religions and you'd find many such examples.
Anyway, I don't see you readily agreeing with Theists who respond to you, so a bit of a double standard, maybe.

You refused, tooth and nail, to agree to the correct definition of "atheism" despite being shown in excruciating detail that you are wrong. Frankly, I have very little respect for your intellectual honesty.

I explained in excruciating detail why I consider the redefinition of atheism an unnecessary duplication that adds no meaning, in fact obscures it. It is not an historical definition and is frank sophistry and disingenuous. So such statements on your "little respect for my intellectual honesty", seem highly ironic to me.

But again, as I said in the OP, there is the issue of Relativity vs quantum mechanics. We don't know how to mesh those together, so we cannot accurately model the Big Bang. A theory of quantum gravity is the Holy Grail of physics. Until we find it, it is premature for theists to trumpet fine tuning. I'd like to see more of them admit this. You, at least, don't blow the trumpet so kudos to you for that.

So you play it as a 'Science of the gaps' issue? That is fine by me, as I don't find it a particularly strong argument either. It is a bit different from it being "debunked" though.

Are you referring to an absolute frame of reference?

Not at all. Any universe being observed would appear fine-tuned for the observations found and the observer doing so. Stands to reason, for otherwise neither the observer nor the act of observation could have occurred. The universe must allow the observer's existence and his observations as well and via them, would appear fine tuned for them for the observation to be able to take place in the first place. Classic catch-22 situation.

Everybodyknows · Nov 20, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
If the relationship between pressure, volume, temperature, and number of particles is not constant, then there is no finely tuned constant in that regard. That's all I'm saying.

@Quid est Veritas? Has addressed this point far better than I could.

Are you saying that the laws of physics vary depending on the conditions of a system?

The laws are of nature, physics is our understanding of them and is woefully incomplete.

Seems to contradict your previous speculation about the laws of physics varying. I'm confused as to what your point is.

We simply don't have physics to describe what goes on in a black hole. It doesn't mean laws are inconsistent, it just means we don't understand all of them. And why do you think the gravitational constant doesn't apply to back holes? The strength of their gravity is proportional their mass just like everything else in the universe.

I'm talking about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

I'm not sure how you have concluded that c is not constant because of the uncertainty principle?

Clearly it never was a good argument. When I thought it was, it bothered me because it was the one exception in an otherwise completely dominated domain of good atheist arguments versus poor theistic arguments.

I take each argument on its merit regardless of who's making them. The only things that bother me are bad arguments.

Nihilist Virus · Nov 20, 2017

Quid est Veritas? said:
I am glad you actually read up topics under discussion when people disagree with you, on occasion. I strongly advise you to continue on in this vein henceforth.

People agree with those that have arguments they find compelling. I have had many interesting talks and friendly discussions with Atheists on these forums. Check out Christianity and World Religions and you'd find many such examples.
Anyway, I don't see you readily agreeing with Theists who respond to you, so a bit of a double standard, maybe.

I explained in excruciating detail why I consider the redefinition of atheism an unnecessary duplication that adds no meaning, in fact obscures it. It is not an historical definition and is frank sophistry and disingenuous. So such statements on your "little respect for my intellectual honesty", seem highly ironic to me.

So you play it as a 'Science of the gaps' issue? That is fine by me, as I don't find it a particularly strong argument either. It is a bit different from it being "debunked" though.

Not at all. Any universe being observed would appear fine-tuned for the observations found and the observer doing so. Stands to reason, for otherwise neither the observer nor the act of observation could have occurred. The universe must allow the observer's existence and his observations as well and via them, would appear fine tuned for them for the observation to be able to take place in the first place. Classic catch-22 situation.

To summarize, you have contributed to this thread by correcting an issue in the OP. I'll edit the OP and credit you when the timing suits me. Since the issue is not vital to my case, and is merely an example, I'll leave the thread up.

And since you were never convinced of fine tuning to begin with, is there anything else or are we done here?

Quid est Veritas? · Nov 21, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
To summarize, you have contributed to this thread by correcting an issue in the OP. I'll edit the OP and credit you when the timing suits me. Since the issue is not vital to my case, and is merely an example, I'll leave the thread up.

And since you were never convinced of fine tuning to begin with, is there anything else or are we done here?

No, I corrected your errors on the Gas Laws, but also said you were confused thereafter. You said Fine Tuning was based on man-made constants, but in fact it is based on measured values such as those I mentioned above. So as far as I am concerned, your OP has been somewhat negated. For those values are relevant now, even if we can't model the big bang. Regardless how they came to be, they are present now.

Anyway, the OP says "debunked" which is really not the same as "cannot be conclusively shown to be the case" which is what your argument based on our ignorance amounts to in opposition to it. On those grounds, Science is "debunked" as almost none of it is better grounded either. I think you should go back to the drawing board, perhaps. Editing the OP would not save a weak argument based on missapprehensions.

Nihilist Virus · Nov 21, 2017

Everybodyknows said:
@Quid est Veritas? Has addressed this point far better than I could.

Agreed.

The laws are of nature, physics is our understanding of them and is woefully incomplete.

Agreed.

We simply don't have physics to describe what goes on in a black hole. It doesn't mean laws are inconsistent, it just means we don't understand all of them.

Agreed again.

And why do you think the gravitational constant doesn't apply to back holes? The strength of their gravity is proportional their mass just like everything else in the universe.

My understanding is that the gravitational constant doesn't even work in our solar system. It doesn't account for the curvature of space.

I'm not sure how you have concluded that c is not constant because of the uncertainty principle?

It's possible to make two observations of the same particle which imply the particle has moved faster than c. Now, is it really travelling that fast or is it teleporting?

I take each argument on its merit regardless of who's making them. The only things that bother me are bad arguments.

Then I am curious about what convinced you of Christianity.

Nihilist Virus · Nov 21, 2017

Quid est Veritas? said:
No, I corrected your errors on the Gas Laws, but also said you were confused thereafter. You said Fine Tuning was based on man-made constants, but in fact it is based on measured values such as those I mentioned above.

Like I said, we don't have a theory of quantum gravity and thus we cannot show that the masses of elementary particles are finely tuned.

So as far as I am concerned, your OP has been somewhat negated. For those values are relevant now, even if we can't model the big bang. Regardless how they came to be, they are present now.

They are what they are. A tautology proves nothing. Fine tuning sympathizers must show that they cannot be different, which is currently impossible.

Anyway, the OP says "debunked" which is really not the same as "cannot be conclusively shown to be the case" which is what your argument based on our ignorance amounts to in opposition to it.

Showing that something is in error is called a debunking. Semantics is not your area of expertise.

On those grounds, Science is "debunked" as almost none of it is better grounded either.

This is a stupid comment. Science is self correcting by nature. All it does is attempt to debunk itself.

I think you should go back to the drawing board, perhaps. Editing the OP would not save a weak argument based on missapprehensions.

Objectively, this is probably my worst thread I've made.

Quid est Veritas? · Nov 21, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
Like I said, we don't have a theory of quantum gravity and thus we cannot show that the masses of elementary particles are finely tuned.

They are what they are. A tautology proves nothing. Fine tuning sympathizers must show that they cannot be different, which is currently impossible.

Showing that something is in error is called a debunking. Semantics is not your area of expertise.

Debunking means to expose as fraud or to disprove. Neither of these things have been done here. At best, you have said it might perhaps be wrong, which is really not the same as saying something IS in error.

This is a stupid comment. Science is self correcting by nature. All it does is attempt to debunk itself.

If fine tuning is "debunked" on grounds of a possibility it might be wrong, the same is true of all human knowledge. Science functions by disproving hypotheses, but it doesn't disprove itself, but assumes we accept its Methodology and base axioms required for it. You are playing with the nefarious ambigious meaning of Science as Method versus the theory based thereon.

Objectively, this is probably my worst thread I've made.

I don't know, some others can really give it a run for its money.
Seriously though, don't feel bad about it. We all make mistakes on occasion.

Everybodyknows · Nov 21, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
My understanding is that the gravitational constant doesn't even work in our solar system. It doesn't account for the curvature of space.

Never heard of that, I don't know enough about that to comment. The point is that gravity has a particular strength, the attractive force exerted between two masses. The force is the same, proportionally to mass, throughout the universe. So in that sense its constant, even if as you say the curvature of space time has some effect making it not perfectly linear. If that force was stronger or weaker the universe would look much different.

Nihilist Virus said:
It's possible to make two observations of the same particle which imply the particle has moved faster than c. Now, is it really travelling that fast or is it teleporting?

No observation of particles has ever yielded a measurement of motion faster than c, where did you get that idea?

Nihilist Virus said:
Then I am curious about what convinced you of Christianity.

Not arguments that's for sure. My view of the world is not based on a series of true/false propositions, as useful as they may be under particular circumstances. Naturalism supported by empirical evidence is useful within its frame of reference but I feel there is so much more to our existence.

Nihilist Virus · Nov 21, 2017

Everybodyknows said:
Never heard of that, I don't know enough about that to comment. The point is that gravity has a particular strength, the attractive force exerted between two masses. The force is the same, proportionally to mass, throughout the universe. So in that sense its constant, even if as you say the curvature of space time has some effect making it not perfectly linear. If that force was stronger or weaker the universe would look much different.

No observation of particles has ever yielded a measurement of motion faster than c, where did you get that idea?

Honestly, I regret making most, if not all, of the claims in this thread. I'm not going to defend this thread any longer.

Not arguments that's for sure. My view of the world is not based on a series of true/false propositions, as useful as they may be under particular circumstances. Naturalism supported by empirical evidence is useful within its frame of reference but I feel there is so much more to our existence.

When it's "feel" vs "real" you must go with the latter.

Everybodyknows · Nov 21, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
When it's "feel" vs "real" you must go with the latter.

Sure, if what I feel is contradicted by some evidence then I need to reevaluate my position. However some of the most important things in our experience of life can't be quantified scientifically, leaving a whole realm of 'feels' open for exptloration.

Nihilist Virus · Nov 22, 2017

Everybodyknows said:
Sure, if what I feel is contradicted by some evidence then I need to reevaluate my position. However some of the most important things in our experience of life can't be quantified scientifically, leaving a whole realm of 'feels' open for exptloration.

Are you saying that you have no actual argument to support Christianity, and that you are a Christian only because of some subjective experience?

Everybodyknows · Nov 22, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
Are you saying that you have no actual argument to support Christianity, and that you are a Christian only because of some subjective experience?

Yes

Nihilist Virus · Nov 22, 2017

Everybodyknows said:
Yes

Then I'm curious... what do you expect to accomplish in the apologetics forum? Also, aren't you saying that if one does not have experiences similar to your own, then belief in Christianity is unreasonable?

Everybodyknows · Nov 23, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
Then I'm curious... what do you expect to accomplish in the apologetics forum?

I don't have a particular objective to accomplish. I enjoy the discussion, and usually end up learning something, or discovering a new point of view.

Also, aren't you saying that if one does not have experiences similar to your own, then belief in Christianity is unreasonable?

Spiritual beliefs are rarely reasonable in the first place. That is, we don't arrive at them through rational reasoning. I've yet too see anyone change their beliefs by being presented with a logical argument alone, but arguments sure can be fun for a contrarian like myself. Furthermore there is an interplay between beliefs and experiences in that our beliefs affect the way we experience things and then those experiences feed back into our beliefs. The question I ask myself is how are these beliefs and experiences beneficial to my life and my betterment as a person. I tend to lean toward universalism so other beliefs don't bother me so much, even Christians can't really agree on beliefs anyway.

Nihilist Virus · Nov 23, 2017

Everybodyknows said:
I don't have a particular objective to accomplish. I enjoy the discussion, and usually end up learning something, or discovering a new point of view.

That's a good approach.

Spiritual beliefs are rarely reasonable in the first place. That is, we don't arrive at them through rational reasoning. I've yet too see anyone change their beliefs by being presented with a logical argument alone, but arguments sure can be fun for a contrarian like myself. Furthermore there is an interplay between beliefs and experiences in that our beliefs affect the way we experience things and then those experiences feed back into our beliefs. The question I ask myself is how are these beliefs and experiences beneficial to my life and my betterment as a person. I tend to lean toward universalism so other beliefs don't bother me so much, even Christians can't really agree on beliefs anyway.

You ask how your beliefs are beneficial to your life? Don't you ever ask yourself whether or not your beliefs are true?

Fine Tuning Debunked

Infectious idea

In Memoriam to CS Lewis

The good guys lost

Infectious idea

In Memoriam to CS Lewis

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

In Memoriam to CS Lewis

The good guys lost

Infectious idea

The good guys lost

Infectious idea

The good guys lost

Infectious idea

The good guys lost

Infectious idea

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency