The fine tuning of the universe.

[RickG]

IF something has the appearance of design (it looks like someone designed it)the most plausible explanation is that it is designed.

Correlation must also include causation. What is the causation and evidence for supporting it?

 

[Moral Orel]

The point is that the math might have supported that option but not until fine tuning was it taken seriously.

Well, when something was "taken seriously" is going to be a subjective matter.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Funny, last time I asked you said that evidence was an answer to a question I never asked.

False.

You asked: Now all you have to do is do the math to show that whatever it is you think is fine tuned is an improbable outcome. Feel free to start any time you'd like.

I gave you this:

Penrose is a mathematician and Physicist and if his calculations were incorrect there would be peer reviewed corrections and there are not.

I gave you Lee Smolin's answer to improbability as well. Here is something that talks about that:

There are a number of parameters in theoretical physics which are only known empirically: there is no theoretical basis for them having the values that they do. Among these are the rest-masses of the various wave-particles and the ratios of the strengths of the four fundamental forces. All of these parameters could have different values, according to theory, but if they did then life in our Universe would be impossible. The fact that they all do have values that allow life is called the problem of cosmic coincidences, also known as the fine-tuning problem. Each of these actual values is quite improbable, and the totality of them together vastly more so: Lee Smolin has calculated that the probability of this is about one chance in 10 ; and 1 229 he lists four proposed explanations of this extraordinarily improbable fact.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.4562.pdf

Nope. I'd bother tracking it down but every time I've done so in the past you've ignore those posts. Not going to waste my time on made up accusations you don't have the courage to back up.

Right.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Now all you have to do is do the math to show that whatever it is you think is fine tuned is an improbable outcome. Feel free to start any time you'd like.

The scientists have done this and you ignore it. Smolin and Penrose were presented for you but you ignore it.

 

[quatona]

IF something has the appearance of design (it looks like someone designed it)the most plausible explanation is that it is designed.

Says who?

Apart from that, we don´t know what "design" looks like. We - at best - have some clue what human design looks like - not what design in general or supernatural/divine design looks like.

As soon as you have some workable criteria to distinguish divine design from devine non-design we can start looking into this argument. Until then, not so much.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, when something was "taken seriously" is going to be a subjective matter.

Well we know that Carr has said:
“If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”

 

[Moral Orel]

Pure speculation here, no facts or data to back this up, but I had a funny thought.

What if the multiverse theory is true, but not only that, but there is some way that universes that are more likely to produce a functioning universe with life are "selected for" like with evolution? Inflation theory basically states the way it would work is a new universe pops up from quantum fluctuations at the end of the life of an old universe (sort of, I'm not describing it extremely well). Well maybe that new universe copies it's universal constants somewhat from the last one, but sometimes is a little different. And if those little differences make it more likely to sustain itself for a while, then it will produce another universe, and so on.

I just think it would be hilarious if the multiverse worked like evolution, since the Fine-Tuning argument is little more than argument from Intelligent Design.

 

[KCfromNC]

We recognize design by how we as intelligent beings design

In your experience, how do we as intelligent beings design universes?

it is obvious that if something has the appearance of someone designing that to claim it is just an illusion without any evidence that would support that view is wishful thinking.

Is there a version of So's Law which talks about the questionable content of claims starting with "it is obvious"?

 

[KCfromNC]

False.

You asked: Now all you have to do is do the math to show that whatever it is you think is fine tuned is an improbable outcome. Feel free to start any time you'd like.

I gave you this:

Penrose is a mathematician and Physicist and if his calculations were incorrect there would be peer reviewed corrections and there are not.

I gave you Lee Smolin's answer to improbability as well. Here is something that talks about that:

There are a number of parameters in theoretical physics which are only known empirically: there is no theoretical basis for them having the values that they do. Among these are the rest-masses of the various wave-particles and the ratios of the strengths of the four fundamental forces. All of these parameters could have different values, according to theory, but if they did then life in our Universe would be impossible. The fact that they all do have values that allow life is called the problem of cosmic coincidences, also known as the fine-tuning problem. Each of these actual values is quite improbable, and the totality of them together vastly more so: Lee Smolin has calculated that the probability of this is about one chance in 10 ; and 1 229 he lists four proposed explanations of this extraordinarily improbable fact.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.4562.pdf


Right.

Great, we're back to pretending that numbers which differ by 100+ orders of magnitude are an accurate representation of the scientific consensus answer. That sure clears things up.

 

[KCfromNC]

The scientists have done this and you ignore it. Smolin and Penrose were presented for you but you ignore it.

Funny how last time you were pressed on this you eventually came clean and admitted that these were not an answer to my question but to a totally different one. Now in this thread you're pretending I'm ignoring this as an answer. A little consistency would be nice.

 

[[serious]]

False.

You asked: Now all you have to do is do the math to show that whatever it is you think is fine tuned is an improbable outcome. Feel free to start any time you'd like.

I gave you this:

Penrose is a mathematician and Physicist and if his calculations were incorrect there would be peer reviewed corrections and there are not.

I gave you Lee Smolin's answer to improbability as well. Here is something that talks about that:

There are a number of parameters in theoretical physics which are only known empirically: there is no theoretical basis for them having the values that they do. Among these are the rest-masses of the various wave-particles and the ratios of the strengths of the four fundamental forces. All of these parameters could have different values, according to theory, but if they did then life in our Universe would be impossible. The fact that they all do have values that allow life is called the problem of cosmic coincidences, also known as the fine-tuning problem. Each of these actual values is quite improbable, and the totality of them together vastly more so: Lee Smolin has calculated that the probability of this is about one chance in 10 ; and 1 229 he lists four proposed explanations of this extraordinarily improbable fact.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.4562.pdf


Right.

1. That paper was not written by Smolin
2. That paper does not contain any math
3. Unless I'm mistaken, Smolin argues for a multiverse

 

[lesliedellow]

3. Unless I'm mistaken, Smolin argues for a multiverse

Well you are wrong about that. On the internet, I can only find one excerpt from an article written by the man himself. To read the whole thing you have to be a subscriber to New Scientist. However, there is no shortage of people on the internet alluding to his opposition to the multiverse idea.

 

[Oncedeceived]

1. That paper was not written by Smolin
2. That paper does not contain any math
3. Unless I'm mistaken, Smolin argues for a multiverse

1. The calculations were taken from Smolin's book.
2. The Book contains the math.
3. Smolin has a different outlook from the usual multiverse. Which is absolutely irrelevant to the point being made.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well you are wrong about that. On the internet, I can only find one excerpt from an article written by the man himself. To read the whole thing you have to be a subscriber to New Scientist. However, there is no shortage of people on the internet alluding to his opposition to the multiverse idea.

Actually I have quite a few articles written by Smolin if you want them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Funny how last time you were pressed on this you eventually came clean and admitted that these were not an answer to my question but to a totally different one. Now in this thread you're pretending I'm ignoring this as an answer. A little consistency would be nice.

I put the post up with the question I was answering.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Great, we're back to pretending that numbers which differ by 100+ orders of magnitude are an accurate representation of the scientific consensus answer. That sure clears things up.

What?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Says who?

Apart from that, we don´t know what "design" looks like. We - at best - have some clue what human design looks like - not what design in general or supernatural/divine design looks like.

As soon as you have some workable criteria to distinguish divine design from devine non-design we can start looking into this argument. Until then, not so much.

What would characterize divine non-design?

 

[quatona]

What would characterize divine non-design?

As I said: that´s the question you would have to answer in order for your argument to even have a leg to stand on. If you don´t have reliable and workable criteria for the distinction "designed by God" vs "not designed by God" you, well, can´t make that distinction.

 

[[serious]]

1. The calculations were taken from Smolin's book.
2. The Book contains the math.
3. Smolin has a different outlook from the usual multiverse. Which is absolutely irrelevant to the point being made.

1. The book was not linked
2. The math was not presented in your post or the link
3. Does he do the one universe at a time thing with quantum fluctuations producing a new big bang on very large timescales, or is he one of the black holes are new universes ones? Either way, if you have infinite universes, any odds, no matter how small, are assured to occur.

 

[KCfromNC]

1. The calculations were taken from Smolin's book.
2. The Book contains the math.

Did you read this book?