Fine tuning of the Universe

[Chriliman]

Why is it rational to assume intent?

Because of the magnitude of fine-tuning needed for our universe to exist as it does, regardless if others exist or not.

all we know is that it's possible for at least one universe to exist - there could be no others or an infinite number, we don't know.

It's more than possible, it's actually fact that our universe exists. The possibility of other universes is unknown because there's no evidence for them.

You mean like you have to assume a creator because it hasn't been shown to exist, which means the assumption is not based on evidence?

It's based on the evidence that our universe is finely tuned to an extreme magnitude.

I think what you're failing to grasp is the concept of possibility, of hypotheticals. The multiverse is a possibility, just as an intelligent designer is a possibility, we have no evidence for one, so it's not rational to assume there is one, but hypothetically it's a possibility (albeit a vanishingly small possibility for an intelligent designer, in my opinion).

The possibility of something can only be established if there's evidence for it - there is no evidence of other universes, but there is evidence that our universe was intended to exist based on the observation of extreme fine-tuning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wonder how many of the "fine tuning" proponents here accept the theory of evolution? You can't accept one and not the other.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not really. The universe as we experience it is like coming accross a 100 dice, neatly ordered in rows of all threes and assuming it happened randomly instead of by intention.

It's more rational to assume the dice were ordered and intended to be in rows of threes for a reason, rather than assuming it all happened by random chance.

Here's the problem with this analogy....
We actually know and understand how dice and dice throws work. We do not have such knowledge about how the coming into being of universes work.

For all we know, when it comes to universes, the dice does not have the numbers 1 to 6 on them, but instead has 3 written on every side.

So while it's fun to ask "what if" questions... they are only usefull if they can be shown to actually be an option in reality.

Even if the universe were different, this logic still applies.

Fallacious logic never really applies though....
But, yes, if the universe were different - it would be different. It would not be like our universe, it would be like the universe that it is. Yes. Things are the way they are. This seems to surprise "cdesign proponentsists" for some reason. That things are like they are and not like they aren't.

The dice could be in columns of all 4s or in a repeating pattern of 1 to 6 and we should still rationally assume intention because the odds that it all happened by random chance is beyond rational acceptance(or at least should be beyond rational acceptance.)

I don't see why though.
The fact is that if you roll a gazitrillion dice, then objectively ANY outcome is just as likely as any other. That's just basic probability 101.

But in any case, you're back to that false analogy.... You ASSUME that the universe is like a dice roll. You ASSUME that cosmological constants could have different values. You ASSUME all kinds of things that you simply can not justify, because these things are unknown about the universe.

For example, to continue with the dice thing...
Suppose the dice are magnetic and the table top on which you roll them is magnetic to. Suppose the magnetic fields are such that all dice automatically align in the same pattern every time you throw them. That would mean that the probability of that particular outcome is 1 in 1 and that there is exactly zero chance of any other outcome - no matter how much dice are being used.

As it stands, there is exactly zero reason to assume complete randomness as opposed to such an inevitable outcome.

You know why? Because we don't have the knowledge required to make this assessment.

In other words, it seems to me that the only reason that creationists tend to assume the "completely random" thingy, is simply because they are purposefully constructing an argument while already having a specific prefered conclusion in mind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Right, but there's no evidence that there were more than just one roll.

Just like there is no evidence that was ANY roll at all.

IOW, you're assuming more roles(infinite amount) without any evidence to support that assumption

You are assuming a single roll without any evidence to support that assumption.
And for the record, I don't think Loudmouth considers his assumption to be accurate or true. Most likely, he's just pointing out that your particular assumption is, by far, not the only possibility. Since we have no evidence either way, all assumptions about it are not in evidence.

Whereas I'm assuming intent based on the fact that they are in ordered rows of 3s, therefore my assumption is rational and yours is not(at least yours isn't based on any evidence).

As said, your assumption isn't in evidence either.
And in fact, I'ld even say that your assumption is, purely by nature, less probable then LM's assumption.

Why? Well, we know of at least one universe that exists. Where there is one, there could be more.

But we have NO EXAMPLES AT ALL of "universe creating entities".
Assuming that more then just this one universe exists, is less of a stretch then assuming the existance of things of which we don't even have a single example.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're misstating the observation. There's more to it. If there weren't more to it you'd have never heard the phrase "fine tuning".

Claiming it, does not make it so.
Again, observing that life can exist in the universe, doesn't explain why that is the case.

Okay, tell me how it could be different and still exist.

Please read my post with a bit more attention. I said that you are assuming that it could be different.

You don't know this. For all we know, a universe with these constants is inevitable. For all we know, the constants are truelly constant.

Also, for all we know, they could be different while our universe is just one of a near infinite amount of universes. Which also would make our universe inevitable and not require any special explanation.

We do not know.

We know our universe is fine-tuned. Claiming that we need a probability distribution to compare it to is just hand-waving away that fact.

No, it's not. You need more then just one example to make such evaluations.
It's like saying "this is a heavy object", while the object you refer to is the only object with mass that you know about. You more then one example so that you can actually compare it. Heavy as compared to what?? Just like "fine-tuned as compared to what?".

What's funny is that in the other thread I invited you to restate it how you like, without using loaded words, and you just gave me a tautology amounting to "it is what it is", then you stopped replying, and now you bring it up again.

Sorry, I don't remember that. Link?

 

[Vaccine]

Nope. It's controversial to those who understand the difference between fact an opinion.

Fair enough it's a conclusion, not a measurement. Scientists don't ignore coincidences though, they tend to go where the facts lead. So many coincidences lead them to the conclusion of fine tuning.

No idea what you are trying to say here.

I just like to see how many people challenge a 'unique position' to save their worldview. Unlike a conclusion of fine tuning, that the Milky Way is unique position in the universe is an observation. This observation horrified Hubble, who proposed an idea to obfuscate that fact. The $20,000 question is, why is someone horrified by an observation?
Is an eclipse horrifying to a scientist?

 

[KCfromNC]

Because of the magnitude of fine-tuning needed for our universe to exist as it does

Exactly what is the magnitude? Don't forget to show your work.

 

[KCfromNC]

I just like to see how many people challenge a 'unique position' to save their worldview. Unlike a conclusion of fine tuning, that the Milky Way is unique position in the universe is an observation. This observation horrified Hubble, who proposed an idea to obfuscate that fact. The $20,000 question is, why is someone horrified by an observation?

Because it seemed to violate assumptions about the uniformity of natural laws which had worked for the entire history of humanity. Later research provided an explanation for why this initial impression was wrong, of course, but that kind of thing will get a scientist's attention.

Not sure what it has to do with the religious apologetics being discussed in this thread, though.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Because of the magnitude of fine-tuning needed for our universe to exist as it does, regardless if others exist or not.

Why do you think that implies intent? Even extremely improbable things can happen. The appearance of fine tuning is a measure of our ignorance. The fact is, we have no idea what the 'magnitude' of fine tuning really is because we don't know how it came about.

It's based on the evidence that our universe is finely tuned to an extreme magnitude.

We don't know that for sure - there have been a lot of inaccurate and hyperbolic descriptions of what we do know, and the assumption of a creator is merely replacing a potentially explicable unknown with an explicitly inexplicable unknown. You can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable, and an 'explanation' that raises more questions than it answers, particularly unanswerable questions, does not explanation of anything.

The possibility of something can only be established if there's evidence for it - there is no evidence of other universes, but there is evidence that our universe was intended to exist based on the observation of extreme fine-tuning.

The various multiverse hypotheses are implications or predictions of our most successful physical models - that's why they're considered possible. No assumption of intent required.

 

[Chesterton]

Sorry, I don't remember that. Link?

Everything mentioned you already mentioned before and it was addressed. Specifically, posts 28, 29, 40-43 and 45.

What is Fine Tuning in General?

 

[Chriliman]

Everything mentioned you already mentioned before and it was addressed. Specifically, posts 28, 29, 40-43 and 45.

What is Fine Tuning in General?

Agreed, no reason to rehash information that's already been presented.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Fair enough it's a conclusion, not a measurement.

It's not a conclusion either. It's an opinion.

Scientists don't ignore coincidences though, they tend to go where the facts lead. So many coincidences lead them to the conclusion of fine tuning.

Through an argument from ignorance.

I just like to see how many people challenge a 'unique position' to save their worldview. Unlike a conclusion of fine tuning, that the Milky Way is unique position in the universe is an observation.

Unique position? What are you talking about?

This observation horrified Hubble, who proposed an idea to obfuscate that fact. The $20,000 question is, why is someone horrified by an observation?
Is an eclipse horrifying to a scientist?

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.

If you wish to talk about people being horrified by facts and rejecting them for that reason... try the silly "ey, don't call my great great ...grand mother a monkey!!!!"

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Extraordinary universes require extraordinary excuses.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Everything mentioned you already mentioned before and it was addressed. Specifically, posts 28, 29, 40-43 and 45.

What is Fine Tuning in General?

LOL!!

That's the thread where I asked a couple dozen times for you guys to support/demonstrate the premise of the presented argument. I'm still waiting for that demonstration.

You didn't address anything in that thread.

All you did was repeat the same bare assertions over and over again, ignoring every single request for support of those assertions.

You are welcome to go back to that thread and demonstrate that premise.

 

[HitchSlap]

I'll let you reread your grand statement while living in this one time through life.

Yes, it's amazing we're here at all. Make the most of it and try to believe as many true things as possible, and reject as many false things as possible.

 

[Larniavc]

n designed then it was designed. Your sudden suspension of the evalu

And what is the criteria?

If the critieria includes complexity, what units would you use to measure complexity?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What are the criteria for determining whether something has been designed?

Bump...

 

[Radrook]

Fair enough it's a conclusion, not a measurement. Scientists don't ignore coincidences though, they tend to go where the facts lead. So many coincidences lead them to the conclusion of fine tuning.










I just like to see how many people challenge a 'unique position' to save their worldview. Unlike a conclusion of fine tuning, that the Milky Way is unique position in the universe is an observation. This observation horrified Hubble, who proposed an idea to obfuscate that fact. The $20,000 question is, why is someone horrified by an observation?
Is an eclipse horrifying to a scientist?

They are horrified because of their extreme aversion to anything that indicates an ID.

 

[Speedwell]

They are horrified because of their extreme aversion to anything that indicates an ID.

No, we're mystified because we don't know what your criteria are.
One of the most cogent objections to ID has always been the lack of a reliable test for the presence of what is said to be intelligent design in natural objects. We await your word, o wise one...

 

[Radrook]

I didn't go "back" to anything. You just substituted "suited" for "tuned". If tuned implies a Tuner, suited implies a Tailor. You can't get around it.

That's equivocation.