The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

Fundamental constants having precise values excludes a designer.

Oh really? How is that?

 

[[serious]]

I've been looking for any corrections to Smolin's calculations or critiques that would call into question his calculations and there is nothing but praise for his book.

Well, if you are looking for critiques, why not start with the one I just gave you?

Let's do another analogy. Let's say we look at the wealth of Americans. If we follow his same logic and assume Bill Gates net worth is fixed and everyone else has a random distribution of wealth between 0 and 75 billion, then we would expect the vast majority of americans to be billionaires.

We could do the same with city sizes. Thus, most cities should have over a million people.

Not only that, but if you calculate the probability of the real numbers based on those assumptions, you would get a MUCH smaller number than he got for the masses of particles.

After we resolve this, there are also issues with his particle selection as some are fundamental particles, some are not.

 

[RickG]

Oh really? How is that?

Everything we observe has natural verifiable explanations which have no observable connection to any designer, past present or future.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, if you are looking for critiques, why not start with the one I just gave you?

Let's do another analogy. Let's say we look at the wealth of Americans. If we follow his same logic and assume Bill Gates net worth is fixed and everyone else has a random distribution of wealth between 0 and 75 billion, then we would expect the vast majority of americans to be billionaires.

We could do the same with city sizes. Thus, most cities should have over a million people.

Not only that, but if you calculate the probability of the real numbers based on those assumptions, you would get a MUCH smaller number than he got for the masses of particles.

After we resolve this, there are also issues with his particle selection as some are fundamental particles, some are not.

That is how probability is derived. To take known values and tweak them this way and that. Do you have anything that criticizes his calculations from other physicists?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Everything we observe has natural verifiable explanations which have no observable connection to any designer, past present or future.

Even if that were true and it isn't, what would prohibit a connection to an Intelligent designer?

 

[[serious]]

That is how probability is derived. To take known values and tweak them this way and that. Do you have anything that criticizes his calculations from other physicists?

Really, you think assuming that probability distribution is the only one that exists is reasonable? There are literally dozens of other probability distributions.

 

[RickG]

Even if that were true and it isn't, what would prohibit a connection to an Intelligent designer?

Thank you for your opinion, we differ.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Really, you think assuming that probability distribution is the only one that exists is reasonable? There are literally dozens of other probability distributions.

I really couldn't say. Do you have anything from any other physicist that criticizes Smolin's calculations?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Thank you for your opinion, we differ.

What would prohibit a designer?

 

[RickG]

What would prohibit a designer?

The fact that we see things forming, occurring, etc., through natural observable and falsifiable testing without a designer or the need for one. What evidence is there for a designer? None.

 

[[serious]]

I really couldn't say. Do you have anything from any other physicist that criticizes Smolin's calculations?

1. you've only vaguely stated that you saw some unnamed, uncited reviews that praised his calculations
2. Even if you actually give links to these people you say you've found, it would ultimately break down to a "my physicist can beat up your physicist" type argument.

I've offered specific criticism of his methodology which you have ignored. If you (or one of these unnamed experts you claim) can speak to those criticisms, do so.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The fact that we see things forming, occurring, etc., through natural observable and falsifiable testing without a designer or the need for one. What evidence is there for a designer? None.

For this thread...fine tuning. How do things form, occur through natural observable and falsifiable testing...order the order of the universe and life itself is evidence for a designer.

 

[Oncedeceived]

1. you've only vaguely stated that you saw some unnamed, uncited reviews that praised his calculations
2. Even if you actually give links to these people you say you've found, it would ultimately break down to a "my physicist can beat up your physicist" type argument.

I've offered specific criticism of his methodology which you have ignored. If you (or one of these unnamed experts you claim) can speak to those criticisms, do so.

Unless you can show that this criticism is something that physicists agree to be a problem I don't know if your criticism is valid.

 

[W2L]

The fact that we see things forming, occurring, etc., through natural observable and falsifiable testing without a designer or the need for one. What evidence is there for a designer? None.

I guess that would depend on what the designer intended.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You haven't done that.

Off course I did.

Ignoring it, doesn't make it go away.

 

[DogmaHunter]

For this thread...fine tuning. How do things form, occur through natural observable and falsifiable testing...order the order of the universe and life itself is evidence for a designer.

That doesn't follow.

Please, describe what a non-designed universe would look like. And explain why.

 

[AV1611VET]

Kalam cosmological argument

 

[In situ]

My point wasn´t that an explanation must be correct, my point was that it needs to explain something.

Per definition an explanation explains something. You are not entitled to say that an explanation does not explain something. Nor are you entitled to say an explanation is not an explanation because it not "good enough" according to some standard.

when the answer to "How does grass grow?" is "It´s done by invisible elves", no mechanism is explained. Now, maybe, if the answer is "On each single blade of grass sits an invisible elve pulling it out of the ground manually" that would be closer to an explanation (i.e. description of a mechanism)

What you are doing here is to put certain explanations in a category as being wrong because they are insufficient and then assert they are not explanations.

 

[quatona]

Per definition an explanation explains something.

Yes, that´s why when something doesn´t explain something it´s not an explanation.

You are not entitled to say that an explanation does not explain something.

I am fully entitled to say that an alleged explanation doesn´t explain something.

Nor are you entitled to say an explanation is not an explanation because it not "good enough" accoring to some standard.

Most definitely I am, just like everybody else is.
In particular I am not only entitled but even logically justified in comparing two alleged "explanations" by the criterium "explanatory power". Like, when another person asks "How?" in reference to a competing hypothesis, yet her own hypothesis can´t answer the "How?", I´m fully justified in pointing out a double standard.

Now, how about just taking in the actual message of the sentence you have been quoting:
You misunderstood me when you felt I was talking about correct/incorrect. Did that reach you?

Or how about concentrating on the rest of my post (because the above quoted sentence was just a clarification)?

 

[In situ]

The fine tuning is the evidence and explanations are explanations that explain the evidence.

Do you agree the fine tuning is an explanation, not an observations?