I suppose so. Getting back to Smolin, if you can find a few physicists that criticize Smolin's use of the Planck Mass in calculations I will consider your argument valid.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
The fine tuning of the universe.
- Thread starter Oncedeceived
- Start date
Same problem with intelligent design. If you think that god designed everything, then design means nothing. That random pile of garbage over there - designed and/or fine tuned somehow. Some dust on the counter - designed and/or fine tuned somehow. A clock - designed and/or fine tuned, but by a designer we actually know exists.
That latter example actually means something, but like you say claiming that everything is fine tuned is pointless. It becomes a synonym for exist. When people need to start redefining everyday words to make their pet ideas work it is a sign that they really aren't as solid as the confident assertions might have us believe.
Upvote
0
Didn't you hear? If you can't find an expert scientist who has wasted their time debunking religious apologetics, those apologetics become science be default.
Upvote
0
That makes him just as qualified as the people you've quoted who came up with contradictory numbers. Maybe there's a reason he didn't put those calculations in a peer reviewed paper after all.
Upvote
0
If we can find a physicist who thinks that multiple universes explains fine tuning would you change your mind about it pointing to your god? If not, then it seems like your request is pretty hypocritical.
Upvote
0
We do? What are they, specifically? How designed is, say, a snow flake compared to a border collie puppy compared to a grain of interstellar dust. Let's see how this criteria works.
Upvote
0
There are no contradictory numbers KC!!!!!!!!! They are numbers that are concerning two different fine tuning constants in regard to your question.
Here is a list of his peer reviewed papers:
http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/au:+Smolin_Lee/0/1/0/all/0/1?per_page=100
Upvote
0
There is a difference, of course I understand how anything that points to God must be wrong but multiverse does not do away with fine tuning as you seem to assume.
Upvote
0
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
Well then by all means invite them to the thread. I've presented criticisms of the methodology which you have thus far ignored because you are unable or unwilling to address them.
No reason for including planck mass has been given. No reason for assuming the random probability distribution was given.
But even if we were to assume that quotes of criticisms gain some magical validity that one on one debate lacks, you've not presented any "actual physicists" that have said the planck mass is relevant and the assumed distribution is reasonable. You've made vague claims about it, but haven't actually shown us anything.
In short, not only is your demand a transparent attempt to dodge the issue, but you are unable to even meet such demands yourself.
Upvote
0
I'm still not sure why you'd think it was a good idea to post bunch of contradictory answers to a single question, but it certainly isn't doing much to convince me that your sources are as certain as you claim.
Do any of them provide calculations showing how unlikely out universe is? And are any of the results of those widely accepted by other scientists?
Upvote
0
I thought the goal was to explain the apparent fine tuning all your sources were talking about, not do away with it.
Seems like you're implying that your god does away with fine tuning, which is strange given how much time you've spent trying to convince us that the appearance of fine tuning is actually real.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,333
- 52,693
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I like the ones that say:
I BELIEVE IN THE BIG BANG: GOD SPOKE AND BANG, IT WAS DONE!
SCIENTISTS MAKE MONKEYS OUT OF THEMSELVES
I'M THE CHRISTIAN THE DEVIL WARNED YOU ABOUT
WHEN SATAN REMINDS YOU OF YOUR PAST, REMIND HIM OF HIS FUTURE
Upvote
0
I supplied specific, clear criticisms of the book you cited (even though you apparently read it years ago and don't recognize the actual quote of the author's methodology).
You then refused to address the issue unless I can paste it as a quote from someone else.
Unfortunately for you, I happen to be in touch with some of my old professors. Dr Belandi says, "Yeah, those issues that [my actual name] brought up need to be addressed."
So, please defend the inclusion of planck units in his system and the assumption of a random distribution between 1 and this arbitrary unit.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
