The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

Yes I have. I demonstrated a very unlikely event in one try. No trillons and trillions of trials necessary. If that is an exact Paul Davies quote, it is mathematically incorrect.

I bet that Paul Davies would be overjoyed to have someone such as you who has so simply proven he doesn't know what he is talking about and that you've shown in your little example that all those years he has spent not only getting his education and the many years since being an expert in his field that a deck of cards provided an explanation for fine tuning! How irresponsible of him.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Now all you have to do is do the math to show that whatever it is you think is fine tuned is an improbable outcome. Feel free to start any time you'd like.

Simply state what you problem is please and put a argument out there that you feel explains where you think this information and data is incorrect.

 

[[serious]]

How is this relevant? There is no special way they have to be, what does that have to do with the universe?

Right, the universe is some way. There is no special way it has to be. Life that arises in any given universe must be compatible with that universe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I understand why you want to say that this sequence is astoundingly improbable (it is) but from a probability standpoint the scenario you described with all the cards in pre shuffle order is exactly the same as the one you would call random. It is only because you retroactively place a value on the sequence you see as ordered that it seems more special to you.

I'm sorry, what? You are making the claim that if the cards were to come out as I've said would be called random? Is that what you are implying, that just because they fall in a sequence that we recognize as sequenced means nothing?

Not sure how this is relevant except that it makes it more likely that this is an observer effect.

How so?

 

[AirPo]

I bet that Paul Davies would be overjoyed to have someone such as you who has so simply proven he doesn't know what he is talking about and that you've shown in your little example that all those years he has spent not only getting his education and the many years since being an expert in his field that a deck of cards provided an explanation for fine tuning! How irresponsible of him.

Being wrong is not irresponsible. Knowing it's wrong but still saying it is. But then again, we haven't seen the quote, so we don't know if that is what he actually said.

 

[Athée]

I'm sorry, what? You are making the claim that if the cards were to come out as I've said would be called random? Is that what you are implying, that just because they fall in a sequence that we recognize as sequenced means nothing?

Yup you got it. Imagine we only had 5 cards labeled 1 2 3 4 5.
If I draw the 1 first what is the probability that the next card is the 2...1/4 what is the probability that that same draw could have been the 5...1/4, so the probability of the sequence 1 2 3 4 5 is the same as the probability of drawing the sequence 4 2 5 3 1, the difference is that we see a pattern in the first and call it special.

How so?

Only the kind of observer suited to exist in this environment could be there to observe it and so would necessarily find that condition wereally well suited to its existence.

 

[AirPo]

Right, I know this is what you are all saying but it is not accurately portraying fine tuning.

That's because fine tuning is a farce.

Lets take your scenario here, the cards are shuffled and you start to lay them out and the first one is an ace of spades, the next one is the two of spades, the next is the third of spades, then comes all the next cards in sequence and all spades... four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, Jack, Queen and then the king. You continue and the next card is the ace of clubs, all the next cards are the following clubs accordingly, and then diamonds, and finally all the hearts in sequence as well ending with the jokers. You would certainly understand that this would not happen by chance, at least it would be amazingly improbable that the cards just fell in that order.

Just as amazingly improbable as any other sequence. But you got it on the first try. That's the point.

Now add to this in regard to the universe that not only were all these cards coming in sequence in their appropriate place

No such thing as an appropriate place.

but they were not even known all at once.

Not relevant.

They were discovered as physicists did their work in their fields. This is just the tip of the ice berg.

So what. That doesn't change the math

 

[Oncedeceived]

Right, the universe is some way. There is no special way it has to be. Life that arises in any given universe must be compatible with that universe.

You are making to assumptions:
1. That the universe had no special way to be. Perhaps, but if it were another way intelligent life would not exist here.
2. The assumption that life can just happen in any ol' universe, but besides begging the question, we know that universes are not that "easy" to make. Life permitting ones, rare.

 

[AirPo]

You are making to assumptions:
1. That the universe had no special way to be. Perhaps, but if it were another way intelligent life would not exist here.
2. The assumption that life can just happen in any ol' universe, but besides begging the question, we know that universes are not that "easy" to make. Life permitting ones, rare.

Actually, someone else is making the assumptions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yup you got it. Imagine we only had 5 cards labeled 1 2 3 4 5.
If I draw the 1 first what is the probability that the next card is the 2...1/4 what is the probability that that same draw could have been the 5...1/4, so the probability of the sequence 1 2 3 4 5 is the same as the probability of drawing the sequence 4 2 5 3 1, the difference is that we see a pattern in the first and call it special.

This isn't the fine tuning question. It isn't that we see a pattern and call it special. We KNOW that it is special because of it wasn't we wouldn't be here and the unvierse wouldn't be either.

Only the kind of observer suited to exist in this environment could be there to observe it and so would necessarily find that condition wereally well suited to its existence.

Right. However, scientists are not ones to sit on their hands or put them in the air and say oh well if we were not here to observe the fine tuning that allows us to exist we wouldn't know it was. How does that explain anything?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Actually, someone else is making the assumptions.

Yes, you. Please explain why most of the top experts in the fields of physics, astrophysics, cosmology, and astronomy all agree that the universe is fine tuned for intelligent life? Do you think that they are making assumptions?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's because fine tuning is a farce.

That is not what the top scientists in their fields claim.

Just as amazingly improbable as any other sequence. But you got it on the first try. That's the point.

No such thing as an appropriate place.

Not relevant.


So what. That doesn't change the math

Have you provided these top scholars your math? Have you shown them where their math fails?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Being wrong is not irresponsible. Knowing it's wrong but still saying it is. But then again, we haven't seen the quote, so we don't know if that is what he actually said.

He has written several books on the subject. The material is massive out there on fine tuning.

 

[Athée]

This isn't the fine tuning question. It isn't that we see a pattern and call it special. We KNOW that it is special because of it wasn't we wouldn't be here and the unvierse wouldn't be either.

Right, it is special to us, if it wasn't the way it is, we wouldn't be here. But it is not special in a probability sense. The contents of our universe are as special as any other possible universe and we could say that that other universe is incredibly fine tuned to allow for the existence of that single rock in space. The pointerview is that from the math perspective the values we observe are not any more or less likely than any other set. We are not special in terms of probability even though we olare obviously special from our own perspective

 

[AirPo]

Yes, you. Please explain why most of the top experts in the fields of physics, astrophysics, cosmology, and astronomy all agree that the universe is fine tuned for intelligent life? Do you think that they are making assumptions?

No, but what they are agree is "the universe is fine tuned." The "for intelligent life" is the assumption.

 

[AirPo]

He has written several books on the subject. The material is massive out there on fine tuning.

Hope you didn't spend any money on them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Right, it is special to us, if it wasn't the way it is, we wouldn't be here. But it is not special in a probability sense. The contents of our universe are as special as any other possible universe and we could say that that other universe is incredibly fine tuned to allow for the existence of that single rock in space. The pointerview is that from the math perspective the values we observe are not any more or less likely than any other set. We are not special in terms of probability even though we olare obviously special from our own perspective

Now are you going to stay in this universe or are you going to the many other universe possibility? See you continue to go back and forth it seems. So if we observe OUR universe the terms of probability are special because very minute changes make us non-existent in THIS universe. So what do you have that provides support that our values are no more less likely than any other set?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hope you didn't spend any money on them.

Paul Davies is just one of the majority of scientists that are experts in the field that are countering everything you have used to deny fine tuning. Just one.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, but what they are agree is "the universe is fine tuned." The "for intelligent life" is the assumption.

No, actually. They factor in all those factors to determine why intelligent life such as ourselves would not exist if not for the way the universe is.

 

[AirPo]

Paul Davies is just one of the majority of scientists that are experts in the field that are countering everything you have used to deny fine tuning. Just one.

Don't believe him, and don't spend any money on him. Because if that is what he actually siad, he doesn't know what he's talking about or he's lying.