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.
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.So the furlong is fine tuned? A quart of milk is fine tuned? When Lincoln said 4 score and 20 years ago, that measure was fine tuned?
By that measure, "fine tuning" loses all meaning because it's so broadly applied.
Soo... your plan is to just ignore the specific criticism of those methods rather than trying to defend them. Gotcha.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.
So the furlong is fine tuned? A quart of milk is fine tuned? When Lincoln said 4 score and 20 years ago, that measure was fine tuned?
By that measure, "fine tuning" loses all meaning because it's so broadly applied.
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.Soo... your plan is to just ignore the specific criticism of those methods rather than trying to defend them. Gotcha.
I would like to see actual physicists/astrophysicists that share your view.Soo... your plan is to just ignore the specific criticism of those methods rather than trying to defend them. Gotcha.
We are talking specifically about Lee Smolin's calculations, he is a top scientist.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.
That is why we have a criteria for what we view as designed.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.
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.We are talking specifically about Lee Smolin's calculations, he is a top scientist.
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.I would like to see actual physicists/astrophysicists that share your view.
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.That is why we have a criteria for what we view as designed.
There are no contradictory numbers KC!!!!!!!!! They are numbers that are concerning two different fine tuning constants in regard to your question.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.
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.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.
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.I would like to see actual physicists/astrophysicists that share your view.
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
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.
I like the ones that say:It passes the message across to anyone who sees it.
I didn't know chick tracts came as bumper stickersI 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
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).I have been the only one providing support for my claims. You have supplied nothing but assertion, speculation and anti-religious rhetoric.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?