Fine tuning of the Universe

[Subduction Zone]

Since you're obviously still reading this thread, can you address my post above, please, and quantify the parameters you listed? You say, for example, that if the decay rate of protons were greater than it is that life would die due to the radiation and if it were smaller that the universe wouldn't contain much matter. This information is meaningless by itself. What is the decay rate now? How much greater would it have to be to release enough radiation to eliminate all potential forms of life which could exist? How much smaller would it have to be to deplete matter enough so that it would be unable to sustain life?

Since you are arguing for the "fine tuning" of these values, you must know this information, or have learnt it at some point. Otherwise how could you possibly have made an informed decision on the matter?

This information is the least that you have to provide in order to start making a cogent argument. There is more, but that would be a good enough place to get started.

Nice find. I wonder if Dr. Ross meant to say "Neutron decay". Proton decay is so small and slow that if it exists at all it is still on the order of at least a 10^ 31 years half life:

Proton decay - Wikipedia

To date no confirmed proton decay has ever been observed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because those parameters are the ones which are necessary for life as we know it to exist and the probability of all of them converging is astronomically slim. That is an agreed-upon evaluation unless you bring in hypothetical multiple universes as a factor in order to evade the issue.

BTW
As for the specifics of each one of those factors I suggest that you contact the scientists who did the calculations in order to get a meticulous explanation concerning each one. I haven't made a claim of being a physicist nor is being a physicist necessary to do research and reach conclusions in reference to God's existence based on that research. If indeed you are personally qualified to challenge those estimates then present your evidence to the contrary instead of demanding that I explain them all.

What are you talking about? Ross does not have a meticulous explanation. He uses quite a bit of hand waving. That is why no other physicists seem to be taking him seriously at all.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Because those parameters are the ones which are necessary for life as we know it to exist and the probability of all of them converging is astronomically slim. That is an agreed-upon evaluation unless you bring in hypothetical multiple universes as a factor in order to evade the issue.

BTW
As for the specifics of each one of those factors I suggest that you contact the scientists who did the calculations in order to get a meticulous explanation concerning each one. I haven't made a claim of being a physicist nor is being a physicist necessary to do research and reach conclusions in reference to God's existence based on that research. If indeed you are personally qualified to challenge those estimates then present your evidence to the contrary instead of demanding that I explain them all.

We already established that you believe there have already been multiple universes and at least one more to follow. The one quality all of those universes have in common is the ability to support life. So any fine tuning has nothing to do with supporting life.

 

[Radrook]

We already established that you believe there have already been multiple universes and at least one more to follow. The one quality all of those universes have in common is the ability to support life. So any fine tuning has nothing to do with supporting life.

I never claimed to believe in multiple universes. I might have mentioned hypothetical explanations as to why the idea is believed feasible based on individual electron orbit positional unpredictability. But as to actually believing it an undisputable fact? I never made that claim.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I never claimed to believe in multiple universes. I might have mentioned hypothetical explanations as to why the idea is believed feasible based on individual electron orbit positional unpredictability. But as to actually believing it an undisputable fact? I never made that claim.

So who wrote this post on your behalf?

 

[Radrook]

So who wrote this post on your behalf?

That is referring to a future time when the ID mentioned in the Bible promises to restore our universe to its pristine original condition. It was offered as a response to criticism concerning our present universe.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

That is referring to a future time when the ID mentioned in the Bible promises to restore our universe to its pristine original condition. It was offered as a response to criticism concerning our present universe.

What that post says is that the current universe is different to the original one - i.e. it is a different universe with different parameters. There will also be a new universe in the future - i.e. it will be a different universe with different parameters. That makes a minimum of 3 universes capable of supporting life. Your "fine tuning for life" argument is dead and buried by your own claims.

 

[Radrook]

What that post says is that the current universe is different to the original one - i.e. it is a different universe with different parameters. There will also be a new universe in the future - i.e. it will be a different universe with different parameters. That makes a minimum of 3 universes capable of supporting life. Your "fine tuning for life" argument is dead and buried by your own claims.

I didn't say that it involved the fine tuning-that is your assumption.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I didn't say that it involved the fine tuning-that is your assumption.

My assumption is based on your claims:
1. This universe is fine tuned for life
2. There are (or will be) multiple universes that support life

Are you now saying that this universe is fine tuned for life but the others are not? That makes no sense as the other universes support life. So it must be that this universe is not fine tuned.

You're in a bit of a pickle, aren't you?

 

[durangodawood]

Because those parameters are the ones which are necessary for life as we know it to exist and the probability of all of them converging is astronomically slim. That is an agreed-upon evaluation unless you bring in hypothetical multiple universes as a factor in order to evade the issue.

BTW
As for the specifics of each one of those factors I suggest that you contact the scientists who did the calculations in order to get a meticulous explanation concerning each one. I haven't made a claim of being a physicist nor is being a physicist necessary to do research and reach conclusions in reference to God's existence based on that research. If indeed you are personally qualified to challenge those estimates then present your evidence to the contrary instead of demanding that I explain them all.

The probability of any particular set of values is very very slim.

The only reason it would seem uncanny is if you impose some kind of telos-story upon existence. That we (living beings) are a goal. Maybe we are! But thats strictly a matter of faith

 

[Radrook]

The probability of any particular set of values is very very slim.

The only reason it would seem uncanny is if you impose some kind of telos-story upon existence. That we (living beings) are a goal. Maybe we are! But thats strictly a matter of faith

Your view of faith isn't the biblical one. It is a very common misunderstanding.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your view of faith isn't the biblical one. It is a very common misunderstanding.

Can you support your claim? You have not been doing that very well.

What is your view of "faith"?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Your view of faith isn't the biblical one.

Unless you can quantify the variables that you listed above, then your view of fine-tuning isn't a scientific one.

 

[Radrook]

Unless you can quantify the variables that you listed above, then your view of fine-tuning isn't a scientific one.

No need! My view is the logical one and that suffices.

BTW
If indeed you have a gripe with any of the data, why not quantify exactly what you are griping about?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No need! My view is the logical one and that suffices.

You're free to claim this, of course, but a lack of quantification still means that you lack a cogent argument.

If indeed you have a gripe with any of the data, why not quantify exactly what you are griping about?

My gripe is that you haven't provided any data. Data is what I'm asking you to provide. What you've provided is vague declamation.

And I don't think you understand the word "quantify".

 

[Radrook]

You're free to claim this, of course, but a lack of quantification still means that you lack a cogent argument.



My gripe is that you haven't provided any data. Data is what I'm asking you to provide. What you've provided is vague declamation.

And I don't think you understand the word "quantify".

You classify any and all argument that don't fit in with your atheist agenda as incoherent or lacking cogency as you also classify all data which contradicts your atheist presupposition a non-data. That's silly!

Your argument that my methodology is flawed would garner you an F grade in college classes where familiarity with proper argumentation and presentation of evidence is required knowledge. So you aren't fooling anyone but yourself.

BTW
I understand "quantify" infinitely better than you understand logic.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You classify any and all argument that don't fit in with your atheist agenda as incoherent or lacking cogency[...]

Straw man and supposition. I have very clearly set out what the issue is with the argument you've presented and explained why it's an issue.

I'll reiterate, if you like - the problem is that it's incredibly vague. You use words like "larger" and "smaller" but don't say how much larger or smaller, or even larger or smaller than what.

Your argument is that these variables are "fine-tumed" - that they must be within a narrow band of what they currently are. But this is a meaningless statement unless you can quantify how narrow that band actually is. Could gravity be 0.1% stronger and the universe still support life? How about 1%? 10%? 100%? 1,000%? I have no idea because you've not provided that data.

And if you don't know, then you don't understand the argument that you're making. You're not making a cogent, logical, supported argument, you're mindlessly copy-pasting empty rhetoric because you think it supports the conclusion that you would like to think is true.

[...] as you also classify all data which contradicts your atheist presupposition a non-data.

"Larger" is not data. "25% larger" is data.

Your argument that my methodology is flawed would garner you an F grade in college classes where familiarity with proper argumentation and presentation of evidence is required knowledge.

You haven't outlined any methodology. I'd love it if you did. What you've presented is polemic.

In fact, I'm trying to walk you towards presenting a methodology. It'd be superb if we could get there. Of course, that would require you to quantify your variables and then demonstrate how those variables fit the model you're espousing. That's why I'd like you to make the first step and quantify your variables.

And it shouldn't be hard - you're claiming these as scientific facts. That means that the data is out there. Someone has done the calculations, and those calculations must be the basis for the fine-tuning argument - unless it's just made up. So please, take the first step towards presenting a methodology. Who knows? You might actually make a persuasive argument, rather than shouting into the void.

I understand "quantify" infinitely better than you understand logic.

Then you know that asking me to "quantify exactly what you are griping about" is meaningless, and I wonder why you would type such a thing.

Just to make it explicit - the word "quantify" means to express as a number, or to count. So what you said was "If indeed you have a gripe with any of the data, why not express as a number exactly what you are griping about?" or "If indeed you have a gripe with any of the data, why not count exactly what you are griping about?". It's nonsensical.

 

[Radrook]

Straw man and supposition. I have very clearly set out what the issue is with the argument you've presented and explained why it's an issue.

I'll reiterate, if you like - the problem is that it's incredibly vague. You use words like "larger" and "smaller" but don't say how much larger or smaller, or even larger or smaller than what.

Your argument is that these variables are "fine-tumed" - that they must be within a narrow band of what they currently are. But this is a meaningless statement unless you can quantify how narrow that band actually is. Could gravity be 0.1% stronger and the universe still support life? How about 1%? 10%? 100%? 1,000%? I have no idea because you've not provided that data.

And if you don't know, then you don't understand the argument that you're making. You're not making a cogent, logical, supported argument, you're mindlessly copy-pasting empty rhetoric because you think it supports the conclusion that you would like to think is true.



"Larger" is not data. "25% larger" is data.



You haven't outlined any methodology. I'd love it if you did. What you've presented is polemic.

In fact, I'm trying to walk you towards presenting a methodology. It'd be superb if we could get there. Of course, that would require you to quantify your variables and then demonstrate how those variables fit the model you're espousing. That's why I'd like you to make the first step and quantify your variables.

And it shouldn't be hard - you're claiming these as scientific facts. That means that the data is out there. Someone has done the calculations, and those calculations must be the basis for the fine-tuning argument - unless it's just made up. So please, take the first step towards presenting a methodology. Who knows? You might actually make a persuasive argument, rather than shouting into the void.


Then you know that asking me to "quantify exactly what you are griping about" is meaningless, and I wonder why you would type such a thing.

Just to make it explicit - the word "quantify" means to express as a number, or to count. So what you said was "If indeed you have a gripe with any of the data, why not express as a number exactly what you are griping about?" or "If indeed you have a gripe with any of the data, why not count exactly what you are griping about?". It's nonsensical.

Well, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Well, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

I can only take this to mean that you are, in fact, just copy-pasting something that you have blindly accepted as true and that you haven't actually examined the veracity of it for yourself. If you had, you'd find it easy to present the data. As it is you seem unwilling to even look for the data.

And this is a surprising stance for a Christian to take. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 states:

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

That's an explicit instruction to test hypotheses, rather than just taking them on, well, faith. By just accepting what you want to be true, rather than determining for yourself whether or not it actually is true, you're going against God.

It's a shame, as I'm sure there's an interesting conversation to be had on the subject, but it seems you're happier spouting empty rhetoric than trying to engage with the discussion that you initiated.

 

[KCfromNC]

Because those parameters are the ones which are necessary for life as we know it to exist and the probability of all of them converging is astronomically slim.

How do you know this? Do you have a well-tested peer-reviewed model of how the fundamental constants of nature are locked in when universes form? This needs a giant blinking citation needed tag.