The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

Come on, if you have an answer just post it rather than make people fish it out of a 67-page paper.

ETA - Anyway, if you're interested in discussing measurements of the CMB, why didn't you post the paper discussing the most up to date set of data?

You seem to have an issue with the science, I provided information you can take it or leave it.

Come on, if you have an answer just post it rather than make people fish it out of a 67-page paper.

ETA - Anyway, if you're interested in discussing measurements of the CMB, why didn't you post the paper discussing the most up to date set of data?

What by way of most up to date do you have?

 

[Oncedeceived]

As I already explained, if we know what will happen, the probability is 1. What happens if you flip a two headed coin?

So you are claiming what has been presented is incorrect then?

 

[AirPo]

So you are claiming what has been presented is incorrect then?

No, I'm claimimng your post makes no sense.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, I'm claimimng your post makes no sense.

What post doesn't make sense?

 

[AirPo]

What post doesn't make sense?

The one I quoted.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The one I quoted.

Ok? What doesn't make sense?

 

[Athée]

The purpose of the heart would not be to pump blood throughout the body? Is that not purpose?

No that is a function. Purpose is confered on things by conscious beings.

You are reaching outside our universe. I am assuming nothing.

I'm confused. If you want to just stick with our universe then let's do that...we are aware of one universe. In 1 out of 1 universes we observe that the values are specific in the ways we observe. Therfore the probability is 1 out of 1. If you want to stick to our universe and what we observe as you have stated then you no longer have acess to hypothetical computer simulations to try to make you case, since they are not actual universes and may or may not be possible.

We do have a special significance, Life. It is special in regard to the universe because what we have right now is a small blue dot in this great big galaxy within a stupendously large universe and we know of life no where else other than this small blue dot which set EXACTLY where it needs to for our life to exist.

I thought we were still talking about the likeliness of our universe. Life in a universe isn't any more special than a universe that leads to a single massive rock floating through space.

There are certain elements we should observe if Christianity is true, such as a universe that had a beginning, intelligent life, a universe that is governed by laws, a universe that we can understand with the appearance of design

I actually kind of agree with you here. If Christianity were true I would expect a universe that is actually fine tuned to life instead on one where 99.999....percent is inimical to life. I would expect a small universe with maybe just one planet and heaven above the planet like the holy book says, in short I would expect the universe to look designed What we actually observe is the kind of universe you would expect if there were no guiding force. Almost entirely hostile to life, not easily studied and an over complicated mess.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No that is a function. Purpose is confered on things by conscious beings.

You do realize that function is a synonym of purpose and vice versa? There is a purpose for a function don't you agree?

I'm confused. If you want to just stick with our universe then let's do that...we are aware of one universe. In 1 out of 1 universes we observe that the values are specific in the ways we observe. Therfore the probability is 1 out of 1. If you want to stick to our universe and what we observe as you have stated then you no longer have acess to hypothetical computer simulations to try to make you case, since they are not actual universes and may or may not be possible.

Oh but I do, which is why you and others are not understanding the probability used for determining what happens when you change a parameter in our universe. We know what are parameters are, we know what life requires, we understand the laws of physics in how they affect the universe and with all that data we can change the parameters to different values to understand what would happen to this universe if they were different.

I thought we were still talking about the likeliness of our universe. Life in a universe isn't any more special than a universe that leads to a single massive rock floating through space.

Life is no more special than a rock? Are you seriously trying to convince me of that?
This

is just as "special" as this below?

I actually kind of agree with you here. If Christianity were true I would expect a universe that is actually fine tuned to life instead on one where 99.999....percent is inimical to life. I would expect a small universe with maybe just one planet and heaven above the planet like the holy book says, in short I would expect the universe to look designed What we actually observe is the kind of universe you would expect if there were no guiding force. Almost entirely hostile to life, not easily studied and an over complicated mess.

Actually it looks very designed and I don't know of any scientists that don't agree.

 

[KCfromNC]

You seem to have an issue with the science, I provided information you can take it or leave it.

If you're not able to find anything relevant in that paper I'm not sure why you think it turns into my job, nor do I understand why you bothered to post a link to a paper without being able to identify what was relevant in it.

Actually, I take that last part back - I have a pretty good guess why you'd post a random 60+ page paper rather than answer.

What by way of most up to date do you have?

Asks the person who thinks I'm not familiar enough with actual science. Sorry, if you're not going to bother answering my questions I don't see any need to help you out here.

 

[KCfromNC]

Ok? What doesn't make sense?

The post, obviously.

What post?

And round and round we go.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The post, obviously.

What post?

And round and round we go.

Saying something doesn't make sense doesn't say what doesn't make sense. It seems you are the ones going round and round.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you're not able to find anything relevant in that paper I'm not sure why you think it turns into my job, nor do I understand why you bothered to post a link to a paper without being able to identify what was relevant in it.

Actually, I take that last part back - I have a pretty good guess why you'd post a random 60+ page paper rather than answer.



Asks the person who thinks I'm not familiar enough with actual science. Sorry, if you're not going to bother answering my questions I don't see any need to help you out here.

Right

 

[AirPo]

Ok? What doesn't make sense?

It's meaningless. It doesn't support the OP in anyway, so why bother? Unless the point of the OP is if things were different , they'd be different.

 

[KCfromNC]

YOh but I do, which is why you and others are not understanding the probability used for determining what happens when you change a parameter in our universe. We know what are parameters are, we know what life requires, we understand the laws of physics in how they affect the universe and with all that data we can change the parameters to different values to understand what would happen to this universe if they were different.

You're confusing describing different states with predicting the odds that they happen.

 

[KCfromNC]

Saying something doesn't make sense doesn't say what doesn't make sense. It seems you are the ones going round and round.

Already addressed this in a previous post

 

[Athée]

You do realize that function is a synonym of purpose and vice versa? There is a purpose for a function don't you agree?

They are different words for a reason. Function is what a thing does. Purpose is the intended reason for doing it. Tree branch has a function in supprting leaves etc but not a purpose. A branch carved into a baseball bat has a purpose. Purpose is always confered on an object by a conscious being. Unless you can think of an example where this is not the case?

We know what are parameters are, we know what life requires, we understand the laws of physics in how they affect the universe and with all that data we can change the parameters to different values to understand what would happen to this universe if they were different.

We understand some of the laws of physics, we understand some of what might be required for life as we know it, we can speculate with incomplete models about what might happen if we changed the parameter's of our universe but it is all just speculation. You said you wanted to stay within this universe and look at the observed evidence. That evidence is 1 out of 1.

Life is no more special than a rock? Are you seriously trying to convince me of that?

Excellent appeal to emotion, well done Remember we are talking about likely or unlikely, about probabilities. From a probability perspective there is nothing more special about a life generating universe than a non life generating universe.

Actually it looks very designed and I don't know of any scientists that don't agree.

Sean Carroll

 

[KCfromNC]

Right

Still can't answer my question, can you? Go ahead, at least give me a page number that you think it relevant to the discussion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

They are different words for a reason. Function is what a thing does. Purpose is the intended reason for doing it. Tree branch has a function in supprting leaves etc but not a purpose. A branch carved into a baseball bat has a purpose. Purpose is always confered on an object by a conscious being. Unless you can think of an example where this is not the case?

You didn't answer my question, is the purpose of the heart to pump blood? Most people I think would agree that the purpose is to pump blood. The function is how that purpose is fulfilled.

We understand some of the laws of physics, we understand some of what might be required for life as we know it, we can speculate with incomplete models about what might happen if we changed the parameter's of our universe but it is all just speculation. You said you wanted to stay within this universe and look at the observed evidence. That evidence is 1 out of 1.

Probability Myth: we’ve observed X, so the probability of X is one
November 18, 2013 by lukebarnes

Continuing with the probability theory, a quick myth-busting. I touched on this last time, but it comes up often enough to deserve its own post. Recall that rationality requires us to calculate the probability of our theory of interest T given everything we know K. We saw that it is almost always useful to split up our knowledge into data D and background B. These are just labels. In practice, the important thing is that I can calculate the probabilities of D with B and T, so that I can calculate the terms in Bayes’ theorem,

Something to note: in this calculation, we assume that we know that D is true, and yet we are calculating the probability of D. For example, the likelihood

. The probability is not necessarily one. So do we know D or don’t we?!

The probability

is not simply “what do you reckon about D?”. Jaynesconsiders the construction of a reasoning robot. You feed information in one slot and, upon request, out comes the probability of any statement you care to ask it about. These probabilities are objective in the sense that any two correctly constructed robots should give the same answer, as should any perfectly rational agent. Probabilities are subjective in the sense that they are relative to what information is fed in. There are no “raw” probabilities

. So the probability

asks: what probability would the robot assign to D if we fed in only T and B?

Thus, probabilities are conditionals, and in particular the likelihood represents a counterfactual conditional: if all I knew were the background information B and the theory T, what would the probability of D be? These are exactly the questions that every maths textbook sets as exercises: given 10 tosses of a fair coin, what is the probability of exactly 8 heads? We can still ask these questions even after we’ve actually seen 8 heads in 10 coin tosses. It is not the case that the probability of some event is one once we’ve observed that event.

What is true is that, if I’ve observed D, then the probability of D given everything I’ve observed is one. If you feed D into the reasoning robot, and then ask it for the probability of D, it will tell you that it is certain that D is true. Mathematically, p(D|D) = 1.

Excellent appeal to emotion, well done Remember we are talking about likely or unlikely, about probabilities. From a probability perspective there is nothing more special about a life generating universe than a non life generating universe.

Emotion? I think of it more as logic. How logical is it to assume that a rock is as special as life when even one cell is so incredible.

Sean Carroll

Ok. Are you going to provide anything that shows he doesn't think the universe appears designed?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Still can't answer my question, can you? Go ahead, at least give me a page number that you think it relevant to the discussion.

I gave you a link to understand the whole concept. You asked for support for my statement on tweaking the constants and Bayesian approach to probabilities.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You're confusing describing different states with predicting the odds that they happen.

See the last post I provided to Athee.