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.
No it isn't.
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.
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.
Is it?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.
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?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.
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.No, you are not well educated or trained in evolution, and when you try and attack it, people also complain.
Mr. Palase could take a clue from the bombardier beetle, couldn't he?How do you suppose the said dragon would avoid combusting itself?
You're too kind, my brother.AV1611VET is smarter then me. My IQ is only about 140 or 145.
...but you gotta admit that that´s an amazing coincidence!
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.
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.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.
Ironically, you are doing the same thing you are accusing creationists of doing.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.
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.You're too kind, my brother.
And for the record, my wife would disagree with you!
Ain't that the truth!That is what wives are for to keep you humble.
Yikes!joshua 1 9 said:Problem is my wife has 50 or 60 friends and I have to deal with all of them.
There's strength in numbers, eh!?joshua 1 9 said:It is a all or none proposition.
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.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.
They are pretty good.Yikes! There's strength in numbers, eh!?
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.They should be abolished!
We are talking about the fine tuning of the existing universe.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.
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 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.
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.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.
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?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.
Have you used Bayesian probability in your studies?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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_tests_of_QED This might show what our abilities are.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.
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.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.
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.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.
I used exactly what scientist use.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 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.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?
Most certainly.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?
Here are some examples: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?
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?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..
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?