The fine tuning of the universe.

[KCfromNC]

No it isn't.

So you're OK with fine tuning not being a process?

What are you referring to. I don't claim in post 116 anything about FT is based on observation.

the life permitting universe is very low from what we've observed.

You were saying?

 

[KCfromNC]

If those universes have basically the same physical laws as ours, but with the constants of nature messed with a bit, which is what the argument about fine tuning posulates, then the calculation can be done.

But they're only interesting if you know how likely it is to end up with those "messed" up constants. If there's something which guarantees that the universe had to be the way it is, knowing that it would be different if it were different is a pointless triviality.

 

[KCfromNC]

I see where you think this paper is not in line with my view. The part you are reading is not from Luke Barnes but Victor Stenger.

Is it?

 

[KCfromNC]

The argument is about fine tuning: In the set of possible physics, the subset that permit the evolution of life is very small. There is a narrow range in around 30 fundamental constants that will permit life or the universe to exist and those are what we see in our universe.

We're back to "if it were possible that things were different and if they actually were, then they'd be different". OK, so what?

 

[joshua 1 9]

No, you are not well educated or trained in evolution, and when you try and attack it, people also complain.

Whatever, there is no serious discussion here about the theory of evolution. I really wish there was someone here willing to have a serious discussion on the subject. I have thousands of books on the subject and I would be glad to discuss any of them with anyone. For example when I went through cardio therapy they recommend the diet that I should be eating to give me the best health with my condition. So according to the theory of evolution - natural selection we can assume that man evolved along with the plants and food that he was eating. So there should be a correlation between the diet that science recommends today and the diet that ancient or primitive man was eating. So I would love to have a conversation about what I have studied about the primitive diet of primitive man but no one seems to be interested. Then you have the neolithic revolution where man was no longer a food gather and he became a food producer. At that time that was a considerable increase in problems man was having with health issues. When it involves man's health civilization was not a good move for him.

Bottom line is that at the time of Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago mankind was going though huge and rapid changes in his living condition and in the food he was eating. Evolution is based on small gradual changes over long periods of time. So there are a lot of issues that you need to deal with if you want to try to defend Darwin's theory. Because if you go by his theory then there are huge contradictions between the different branches of science. All I get on here are claims that Adam and Eve did not exist which means that a lot of so called evolutionists do not know what they are talking about and they do not understand the theory to any degree at all. Of course the people that understand the least are going to be the ones that are accusing others of the exact very thing that they are guilty of.

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you suppose the said dragon would avoid combusting itself?

Mr. Palase could take a clue from the bombardier beetle, couldn't he?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV1611VET is smarter then me. My IQ is only about 140 or 145.

You're too kind, my brother.

And for the record, my wife would disagree with you!

 

[KCfromNC]

...but you gotta admit that that´s an amazing coincidence!

Classical philosophers confronted a similar question :

 

[KCfromNC]

Some physicists try to argue that the universe is the way it is because it is the only one which could exist, but there is no evidence of that being the case, and some indication that it isn't. Those other universes can, after all be modelled, and there is no apparent inconsistencies within them.

Some people need more than "logically possible" to admit things into the category of real.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The argument is about fine tuning: In the set of possible physics, the subset that permit the evolution of life is very small. There is a narrow range in around 30 fundamental constants that will permit life or the universe to exist and those are what we see in our universe.

Maybe more like 30 billion constants. The universe is a lot more complicated then people seem to realize. For example for two cells to communicate with each other requires at least 60 different chemical interactions. If one is missing then there will be some degree of breakdown between the cells. So you have two things you need to explain if you want to talk about evolution. Where the first cell came from and how cells developed the ability to be able to communicate with each other. One aspect of all of this is that at the most basic and fundamental (atomic) levels there had to have been a marriage take place. They call this Quantum entanglement. Just like we know at the other end a marriage took place between man and women, Adam and Eve.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The complaint I am hearing is similar to the "completely formed" nonsense I hear from those that reject science.
When you show them an eye that is no 'completely formed' in the sense that it is no complex as the eyes of other species, they will still complain that it works and therefore 'completely formed'. They have their blinders on and refuse to see. I think that this argument is simply being used to keep the "blinders" on in regards to the existence of gods.

Ironically, you are doing the same thing you are accusing creationists of doing.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You're too kind, my brother.

And for the record, my wife would disagree with you!

That is what wives are for to keep you humble. Problem is my wife has 50 or 60 friends and I have to deal with all of them. It is a all or none proposition.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is what wives are for to keep you humble.

Ain't that the truth!

Problem is my wife has 50 or 60 friends and I have to deal with all of them.

Yikes!

It is a all or none proposition.

There's strength in numbers, eh!?

 

[joshua 1 9]

The complaint I am hearing is similar to the "completely formed" nonsense I hear from those that reject science.
When you show them an eye that is no 'completely formed' in the sense that it is no complex as the eyes of other species, they will still complain that it works and therefore 'completely formed'. They have their blinders on and refuse to see. I think that this argument is simply being used to keep the "blinders" on in regards to the existence of gods.

You have to look at all that is involved before the light gets to the eye. You start with the Sun, then the light is filtered by the atmosphere. Then you have your rocks that absorb, reflect or refract light. All of this takes place before the eye becomes a part of the equation. We know that "God made the firmament," long before eyes began to evolve. Even we know from Science that you can not even have plants without a greenhouse effect in the firmament or the atmosphere around the earth.

According to Collins man is the purpose of the entire universe. God started in the beginning 14 billion years ago with the objective of the creation of man today. In High School Biology we had to trace food as the food went into the body and to the cells and was eliminated from the body. Today you can trace the elements that God used to make man back to the beginning of the universe. This is all one continuous process from beginning to end. God has been apart of the creation of man from the beginning of the universe. Even if you just want to look at the process from the perspective of the natural laws that we know were are work. God is the Law Giver. He created the laws that science likes to study.

BTW my Biology teacher was a graduate of Harvard University.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Yikes! There's strength in numbers, eh!?

They are pretty good.

 

[joshua 1 9]

They should be abolished!

It is pretty complicated to do an operation. They have their limits in what they are effect at being able to do. People need to realize that. Everything is so specialized now that people only learn how to do their little niche.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yeah, and the supposed fine-tuning.


What we know is but a pittance, a dust mote in a mansion, compared to what there is still unknown. Just because the volume of information we have seems like a lot, and, heck, could even take a lifetime to learn, that doesn't mean we aren't just barely making a tiny scratch on the surface of the topic. Also, we are talking universe origins here, something that is still relatively unknown. We can approximate the start of it existing, but we have no means of studying whatever existed prior to that point.

We are talking about the fine tuning of the existing universe.

We know quite a bit of the physical properties of the universe, sure, but there are unknowns in that regard. If that wasn't the case, then how are we ending up dating some stars as being older than the universe from which they came, which obviously can't be right, and if it is, we have no working explanation other than human error.

I guess you haven't seen the new study on the Methuselah star then. The study came up with a age at the start of the universe rather than being older. Obviously that is how science works. Just like in Biology, new information and a new way of determining information brings new understanding. Just like in Biology, these finding perfect usually what is known. It is through the same scientific methodology that we have discovered the fine tuned constants in our universe. We might perfect what we know but that doesn't mean that these will change because they are as foundational as say DNA is to us. Without them we would not be here discussing them.

We actually don't, only for a universe exactly like ours to exist, and for life exactly like ours to exist to some extent. Those aren't completely understood either. Consider this: abiogenesis experiments got promising results each time they were adjusted for changes in the models of the early Earth. Some were better than others, but all resulted in amino acids necessary for life as we know it to exist. Dozens of variations in environments, some purposely made to be hostile, can still get some indication for potential life formation. And that's just for life as we understand it.

What you are failing to see is that you wouldn't be getting amino acids necessary for life if it were not for the fine tuned constants. That is the point.

Yes, there are limits on the physics range that would allow that type of life specifically to exist, but that doesn't necessarily apply to life in general. In a universe where Oxygen has properties similar to carbon in our own, life may be oxygen based. Stuff like that could actually exist within our universe, and we just haven't found it yet. The properties of our universe make carbon-based life make sense, chemically speaking. In another universe, it might be uranium, or argon, or some element so strange we wouldn't be able to comprehend it. Or, maybe this is the only universe amongst a vast multiverse that can support life of any sort. That also makes it the only universe in which anything could become self-aware and question its own origins and existence, so even if this universe were extremely unlikely, it ended up existing anyways, so playing that numbers game is pointless. Unlikely events happen from time to time. In any case, we have no idea what physics combinations would permit life, because we don't know all the forms life could take. We only really know those on this tiny planet of ours.

We aren't playing the numbers, we are doing science. It seems that because your main focus is on life of this planet and you don't really care why or how it exists, then it is of no scientific significance. The fine tuning argument isn't that only our form of life could exist, it is that our kind of life couldn't if they were different. But I have to ask, why do you think there would be life of another kind?

Or, there could be a fifth fundamental force we don't know about, and so on and so forth. If you go back far enough, any event will seem so unlikely as to be impossible. Doing it happens to be using statistics incorrectly, which is why you end up with that paradoxical result.

Have you used Bayesian probability in your studies?

I know fine tuning doesn't mean consistent universe, and that even if it did, black holes like to mess physics up and constants are just what we measure to the best of our ability. The "universal constants" are demonstrably not precise, just close enough that the degree at which we are off doesn't prevent their utilitarian uses from continuing while we try to improve upon them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_tests_of_QED This might show what our abilities are.

And your training is in...? I may not be a physics major, but I do have to take physics classes as a requirement for my major. And so much chemistry that I get an automatic minor in it. And a statistics class and calculus, both which I excelled in. I don't think you understand how few unknowns it takes to throw a calculation off. It can take as few as 1, and statistics are explicitly useless on a cosmic scale. If I am wrong, REFUTE ME, show me the information, demonstrate that what I think is unknown is actually known, or my position still stands. That you don't like my reasons, that we don't know enough about the universe to make claims on it being designed or not, that's a personal problem, and I won't care unless you demonstrate an actual flaw in my reasoning.

Right now Sarah we are only discussing the fine tuning part of the argument and it seems to me that everyone including you are so set against God that you would rather stubbornly dismiss scientific theory if it could in any way be used in an argument for God's existence. You all might want to ask yourselves why you will support anything in science up to or excluding that which might provide evidence for God. You are always claiming you really want to know but then I see you here in this thread and your actions are speaking to the opposite of what you are claiming.

I never defend a position I don't support without vocalizing that I'm doing it... well, typing it, in this case. I've seen the fallacy in action outside of this issue, with people assuming a natural formation that looked like steps to be a designed stairway, and other similar situations. I'll admit that I am not everyone, so I can't confirm how much the fine-tuning idea stems from that fallacy, but the behavior is mimicked, so it's not much of a stretch to think it contributes. I highly doubt it's the only contributor, that bias is pretty easy to overcome if a person tries.

Sarah, the majority of scientists in the field agree that the universe is fine tuned for intelligent life. These scientists have all sorts of different beliefs, some are atheists, some are deists, some are Christians but their personal beliefs are not what the fine tuning is based upon.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Perhaps if you held up your end of the conversation I would be able to help you more. One more time can you describe what you think 'fine tuning' is in your own words? You seem to have a different definition than scientists do. Very few see it as evidence for any gods.

I used exactly what scientist use.

 

[Oncedeceived]

OK so here we have Once giving her definition of fine tuning. I see a few problems with it as written:
1) set if possible physics - how do we determine what the possible sets of physics are?

I used Luke Barnes definition because he has done a great deal of research into the fine tuning of the universe. Why he says possible sets is because we know what our set of physics are and what they cause for the universe; using those they tweak the measurements/values to see what would happen if they were different.

2) evolution of life. I would want to amend to "life as we know it". Are you willing to accept that as part of your definition Once or should we go deeper into that?

Most certainly.

3) This one isn't so much a problem as an admission of my ignorance. What are these 30 that keep getting mentioned and how do they break down, meaning which are required for life as we know it and which are required for our universe to exist? Also what are the relationships or proven lack of relationships between these numbers?

Here are some examples:

1. strong nuclear force constant
   if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
   if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2. weak nuclear force constant
   if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
   if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. gravitational force constant
   if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
   if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4. electromagnetic force constant
   if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
   if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
   if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
   if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
   if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
   if smaller: same as above
7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
   if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
   if smaller: same as above
8. expansion rate of the universe
   if larger: no galaxies would form
   if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
9. entropy level of the universe
   if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
   if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10. mass density of the universe
    if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
    if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
11. velocity of light
    if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12. age of the universe
    if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
    if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. initial uniformity of radiation
    if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
    if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. average distance between galaxies
    if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
    if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
15. density of galaxy cluster
    if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
    if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
16. average distance between stars
    if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
    if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
    if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
18. decay rate of protons
    if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20. ground state energy level for 4He
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
    if smaller: same as above
21. decay rate of 8Be
    if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
    if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
    if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
    if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
    if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
    if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24. polarity of the water molecule
    if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
    if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
25. supernovae eruptions
    if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
    if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
26. white dwarf binaries
    if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
    if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
    if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
    if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
    if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
    if smaller: no galaxies would form
28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
    if smaller: same result
29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
    if larger: same result
30. mass of the neutrino
    if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
    if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31. big bang ripples
    if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
    if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
    if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
    if larger: same result
33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
    if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
34. cosmological constant
    if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

Big Bang Refined by Fire by Dr. Hugh Ross, 1998. Reasons To Believe, Pasadena, CA.
He is a Christian, but he is a Phd in Astrophysics.

Edited to add: IF you want to know the exact smaller or larger in these constants I believe I have something bookmarked with that but if not I will look it up for you if you need them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, I agree.

My only point is, that there is nothing TO explain about the idea that things that exist, exist in such a way that they actually can exist - or they wouldn't exist.

Oncedeceived seems to be suggesting the opposite..

So you believe that there is no reason to do science to find out about how something exists but you defend evolution all the time. Why the difference?