The fine tuning of the universe.

[Gene2memE]

Not precise, narrow.

Important difference.

To repeat from earlier on in the thread, the author the OP is quoting stated, in the same article, that:

"Infinitely precise laws are an extreme idealisation with no shred of real world justification. In the first split second of cosmic existence, the laws must therefore have been seriously fuzzy. Then, as the information content of the universe climbed, the laws focused and homed in on the life-encouraging form we observe today. But the flaws in the laws left enough wiggle room for the universe to engineer its own bio-friendliness.

Thus, three centuries after Newton, symmetry is restored: the laws explain the universe even as the universe explains the laws. If there is an ultimate meaning to existence, as I believe is the case, the answer is to be found within nature, not beyond it. The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself."​

 

[[serious]]

Thank you for not pointing out that I said to for two Just realized that reading my quote.

1. What type would you suggest? Intelligence takes fine tuning elements in and of itself.
2. If we look at the universe we reside in, and the galaxy that we are part of it seems to be very rare.

If intelligent life existed in the universe with us, where are they? We are in a young part of the universe, it would seem most likely that intelligent life would be far more advanced and older than we are and yet...nothing.

1. Who knows? different values may produce stable elements we do not have, bonding configurations we can't imagine. But let me address the second part, what fine tuning is required specifically for intelligence?
2. What about our galaxy is rare?

 

[AirPo]

Do you understand the argument?

Of course, it's just another pratt. Suprised it's gotten the attention it has.

Well you certainly are free to have your own opinion.

Aren't we all.

 

[AirPo]

Thank you for not pointing out that I said to for two Just realized that reading my quote.

1. What type would you suggest? Intelligence takes fine tuning elements in and of itself.
2. If we look at the universe we reside in, and the galaxy that we are part of it seems to be very rare.

If intelligent life existed in the universe with us, where are they? We are in a young part of the universe, it would seem most likely that intelligent life would be far more advanced and older than we are and yet...nothing.

Since we don't know if there are other universers or not, we cannot say it's rare without just making up that it is. And if you actually look at the universe, you will see a lot of galaxies, so that comment isn't correct either.

 

[AirPo]

Wow this is still going?

Theist: Here are the numbers and they're incredibly precise to support life
Atheist:What numbers?
Theist: *Shows numbers*
Atheist: That's not real!
Theist: *Shows scientists confirmations*
Atheist: That's not real!
Theist: Why not?
Atheist:Because it's not real!
Theist: It's scientific fact
Atheist: No it's not!
Theist: Uh yeah it is. *Shows scientists confirmations*
Atheist:NO! Who's to say no life will form out of those numbers being off?!
Theist: I suppose we could imagine, but that's not science.
Atheist: IT COULD HAPPEN! THOSE NUMBERS DON'T EXIST!!

*repeat

thread

Just like the OP, completely backwards.

 

[Athée]

I guess I don't know what you mean by probability numbers? Could you perhaps explain what you mean by that?

You want to say that the universe as we observe it is unlikely. The word unlikely is a referent for a probability. Unlikely means that the probability of the event in question is less that 0.5. Now when you say the universe is unlikely you don't mean less than 0.5 you mean something like 0.0000....01 probability. So how are you arriving at these numbers, what data are you using in those variables from Bayes equation. As I say to my students, show your work

One is what we have and it is not me that injects other universes but what I am showing is how the changing of parameters would do according to this one.

This is exactly what I mean. You are going outside the observed evidence (as you must to make a probability judgement when we only have one instance of the phenomenon innquestion). You are saying "IF" we change one of these values, then...
The word IF is the giveaway. It denotes a hypothetical. There is no actual universe that you can observe in which the value is different, so you propose a hypothetical alternate universe where this is the case.

No, stop that. PA2 was not about chance vs purpose. It was strictly about whether or not this universe and its life permitting parameters was considered highly unlikely to come about by chance or accidentally.

But it is. You yourself said that if something does not happen by chance then in happens on purpose, that these options represent a true dychotomy. We are still debating if only intelligent beings can confer purpose but so far you haven't given an example of something with a purpose that is not connected to a sentient being. Therfore, when you say it can't happen by chance (which of course is a probability judgment ) you are saying it happened on propose.

 

[Oncedeceived]

1. Who knows? different values may produce stable elements we do not have, bonding configurations we can't imagine. But let me address the second part, what fine tuning is required specifically for intelligence?
2. What about our galaxy is rare?

1. Surprisingly we know quite a lot about different values and what they would produce. We know that in some instances there would be nothing that could provide life of any form, in fact there is more of those hypothetical non-permitting life results than those life permitting due to the requirements of stability and order. For instance, if the nuclear force was slightly larger or smaller, no atoms could exist other than hydrogen. An Intelligent life form cannot be composed merely of hydrogen gas. Intelligent life requires enough stable complexity and organization to exist. Many of the results do not create that.

2.
Milky Way galaxy, the home galaxy of the Solar System, and of Earth, belongs to a rare subset among the billions that populate the cosmos and just four percent of galaxies are similar to our Milky Way, according to a new research.

We are interested in how the Milky Way fits into the broader context of the universe, said Stanford University astrophysicist Risa Wechsler. This research helps us understand whether our galaxy is typical or not, and may provide clues to its formation history.


The research team compared the Milky Way to similar galaxies in terms of luminosity--a measure of how much light is emitted--and distance to other bright galaxies. They found galaxies that have two satellites that are as bright and close by as the Milky Way's two closest satellites, the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, are rare.

For this analysis, Wechsler's group studied more than 20,000 galaxies with properties similar to the Milky Way and investigated the galaxies surrounding these Milky Way twins, to create a census of galaxies similar to the Milky Way in the universe.

The research showed that just four percent of the simulated galaxies had two satellites like the Magellanic Clouds.

http://www.ibtimes.com/how-unique-our-milky-way-galaxy-286793

 

[Oncedeceived]

Of course, it's just another pratt. Suprised it's gotten the attention it has.

AirPo, your posts seem to be based on your anti-religious biases that will not allow any information that might challenge your preconceived ideas. This is not a pratt, if it were the scientists involved would be out of work.

Aren't we all.

Yes, but you might want to consider how the opinions you hold go against scientific consensus.

 

[AirPo]

AirPo, your posts seem to be based on your anti-religious biases that will not allow any information that might challenge your preconceived ideas. This is not a pratt, if it were the scientists involved would be out of work.

Logic seems anti-religious to you?

Yes, but you might want to consider how the opinions you hold go against scientific consensus.

I've yet to see a scientist say what you think they mean.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Since we don't know if there are other universers or not, we cannot say it's rare without just making up that it is. And if you actually look at the universe, you will see a lot of galaxies, so that comment isn't correct either.

Once again you are asserting information that is false. It doesn't matter if there are other universes or not because the universe is rare and that is deemed so by the scientists in the field. I posted a link showing an aspect of how rare our galaxy really is.

So far, I have provided the only scientific backed, documented information in this thread. The other posts (other than Athee and Serious) have been irrational innuendo, assertion and denial. Not one of you have provided anything to support your "opinions".

 

[Oncedeceived]

Logic seems anti-religious to you?

What logic? All I've seen is rash denial and opinion.

I've yet to see a scientist say what you think they mean.

I haven't claimed they are saying anything but what they themselves are saying.

 

[AirPo]

Once again you are asserting information that is false. It doesn't matter if there are other universes or not because the universe is rare and that is deemed so by the scientists in the field. I posted a link showing an aspect of how rare our galaxy really is.

So far, I have provided the only scientific backed, documented information in this thread. The other posts (other than Athee and Serious) have been irrational innuendo, assertion and denial. Not one of you have provided anything to support your "opinions".

You've presented scientific information and grossly misinterpreted it.

 

[AirPo]

What logic? All I've seen is rash denial and opinion.

Seems like anti-logic bias to me.

I haven't claimed they are saying anything but what they themselves are saying.

Then let's see that actual quote from Paul Davies.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You've presented scientific information and grossly misinterpreted it.

How have I grossly misinterpreted it? Explain.

 

[AirPo]

How have I grossly misinterpreted it? Explain.

Assuming that the parameters can be changed.
Assuming that there is an entity that can change those parameters.
Assuming that the parameters were indeed changed and said entity did it.
Assuming the reason said deity changed the parameters was so that intelligent live could exist.

When a scientist says "fine tuned," it does not mean any of that.

 

[HitchSlap]

I haven't claimed they are saying anything but what they themselves are saying.

Lol.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Seems like anti-logic bias to me.

Of course.

Then let's see that actual quote from Paul Davies.

As much as I hate to do this I will have to retract that statement. I can't find that quote of Davies. I am working from memory and that sometimes gets me in trouble. But regardless, it takes an infinite number according to the majority of scientists so I have plenty of support for my comment.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Assuming that the parameters can be changed.
Assuming that there is an entity that can change those parameters.
Assuming that the parameters were indeed changed and said entity did it.
Assuming the reason said deity changed the parameters was so that intelligent live could exist.

When a scientist says "fine tuned," it does not mean any of that.

I've not claimed that scientists are claiming those things. I've never once implied it. I have not misrepresented them at all.

 

[AirPo]

Of course.



As much as I hate to do this I will have to retract that statement. I can't find that quote of Davies. I am working from memory and that sometimes gets me in trouble. But regardless, it takes an infinite number according to the majority of scientists so I have plenty of support for my comment.

Fine any quote that states "it takes an infinite number" will do.

 

[AirPo]

I've not claimed that scientists are claiming those things. I've never once implied it. I have not misrepresented them at all.

Does that mean you do not assume that the parameters can be changed?