The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

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

Well you see I don't "want" to say anything. I haven't claimed that the universe as we observe is unlikely. The experts in their fields have claimed the universe we observe is highly unlikely and improbable. How they determine that unlikeliness and improbability are actually scientifically determined by the mathematical equations that they feel bring about that conclusion. As you know with all peer-reviewed science, those equations and terms must be backed by scientific methodology and it is. If it were not, it would be thrown out. I personally am not arriving at any numbers, using any data or variables from any form of probability. I trust that based on considering scientists in all fields of study in this regard being represented by differing worldviews agree that the evidence provides substantiation for their conclusion that the universe is highly unlikely and improbable. The information is peer-reviewed and there is something like 200 papers that I am aware of that substantiate the fine tuning of the universe and the improbability of it.

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.

Of course we can not observe the actual universe but we know for instance that if the nuclear force was smaller or larger no atoms could exist and only hydrogen would be there. We can't "create" an actual alternate universe but we can do a model which really "exists" in for and structure by way of the changes.

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.

Ok, fair enough. So that leads us to two options:
1. The universe was created by chance.
2. The universe was created on purpose.

Scientists have claimed that the universe was not created by chance so it must have been on purpose. Do you agree?

 

[HitchSlap]

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.

Question: Have you ever read a book by Davies?

 

[bhsmte]

Lol.

Double LOL

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

If modern physics is to be believed, we shouldn’t be here. The meager dose of energy infusing empty space, which at higher levels would rip the cosmos apart, is a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times tinier than theory predicts. And the minuscule mass of the Higgs boson, whose relative smallness allows big structures such as galaxies and humans to form, falls roughly 100 quadrillion times short of expectations. Dialing up either of these constants even a little would render the universe unlivable.

To account for our incredible luck, leading cosmologists like Alan Guth andStephen Hawking envision our universe as one of countless bubbles in an eternally frothing sea. This infinite “multiverse” would contain universes with constants tuned to any and all possible values, including some outliers, like ours, that have just the right properties to support life. In this scenario, our good luck is inevitable: A peculiar, life-friendly bubble is all we could expect to observe. https://www.quantamagazine.org/20141103-in-a-multiverse-what-are-the-odds/

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

There is no reason to believe that they have to be what they are, they could have been different as far as we know.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Question: Have you ever read a book by Davies?

Yes, have you?

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes, have you?

Which books, BTW? I'm asking, because you're attempting to portray that these prominent scientists are somehow flummoxed, and are as incredulous as you are, which they're not. You are engaging in classic cdesign propoentsists tactics of quote mining, attempting to get us to accept a position they most assuredly don't hold. Why would you even try this? It makes you look dishonest, specifically, and Christianity in general.

Yes, I've read, "About Time" & "Cosmic Jacpot."

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which books, BTW? I'm asking, because you're attempting to portray that these prominent scientists are somehow flummoxed, and are as incredulous as you are, which they're not. You are engaging in classic cdesign propoentsists tactics of quote mining, attempting to get us to accept a position they most assuredly don't hold. Why would you even try this? It makes you look dishonest, specifically, and Christianity in general.

Yes, I've read, "About Time" & "Cosmic Jacpot."

"The Goldilocks Enigma".

Are you claiming that they are not somehow flummoxed?

http://www.bouchraouatik.com/wp-con...ur-physicists-ponder-why-we-are-here-CUPJ.pdf

In an attempt to shed some light on this enigma, four physics experts joined together at McGill University in Montreal on January 25th at the second annual Lorne Trottier Public Science Symposium, for a conference titled “A Cosmic Coincidence: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?” Moderated by McGill professor Victoria Kaspi, the panel included Paul Davies, physicist, author and director of Beyond: Institute for Fundamental Concepts in Science, George Efstathiou, astrophysicist and director of the Institute of Astronomy of Cambridge University, David Gross, winner of the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics and director of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, and Leonard Susskind, professor at Stanford University and father of string theory. After an introduction by Kaspi, each of the panelists were invited to present his point of view on the validity of the anthropic argument. Davies, who recently published the book The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life? on the topic, was the first to speak. He exposed the two basic questions physicists are currently asking concerning the anthropic principle, namely, whether the universe could have been different and why it is, as Davies put it, “so suspiciously bio-friendly.” He then presented two different attitudes that have been adopted regarding the issue: either life exists because the universe happened to be favourable to it—the opinion supported by Gross—or the universe is part of a greater “multiverse.” The multiverse hypothesis states that our universe is only one of a multitude of unique universes, each with their own specific physical laws. Susskind covered this hypothesis in more detail later on in the symposium.

Provide my quotes that I quote mine and where I am claiming they are agreeing with anything other than what they are saying.

 

[AirPo]

If modern physics is to be believed, we shouldn’t be here. The meager dose of energy infusing empty space, which at higher levels would rip the cosmos apart, is a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times tinier than theory predicts. And the minuscule mass of the Higgs boson, whose relative smallness allows big structures such as galaxies and humans to form, falls roughly 100 quadrillion times short of expectations. Dialing up either of these constants even a little would render the universe unlivable.

To account for our incredible luck, leading cosmologists like Alan Guth andStephen Hawking envision our universe as one of countless bubbles in an eternally frothing sea. This infinite “multiverse” would contain universes with constants tuned to any and all possible values, including some outliers, like ours, that have just the right properties to support life. In this scenario, our good luck is inevitable: A peculiar, life-friendly bubble is all we could expect to observe. https://www.quantamagazine.org/20141103-in-a-multiverse-what-are-the-odds/

First of all, those are not scientists, those are writers talking about scientists, so it's already once removed from the source.

Second, it's just as I thought. What's wrong is you interpretation of what they are saying. They are not saying there "needs" to be trillions upon trillions ..., They are "if" there are trillions upon trillions ... .Big difference.

 

[Oncedeceived]

First of all, those are not scientists, those are writers talking about scientists, so it's already once removed from the source.

With quotes...

Second, it's just as I thought. What's wrong is you interpretation of what they are saying. They are not saying there "needs" to be trillions upon trillions ..., They are "if" there are trillions upon trillions ... .Big difference.

What is this in reference to? Be specific.

 

[AirPo]

There is no reason to believe that they have to be what they are, they could have been different as far as we know.

There is no reason to believe that they could be different, or that they were different. But "fine tuning" requires both, which is why it falls to Occam's razor.

 

[AirPo]

With quotes...

“multiverse”

What is this in reference to? Be specific.

Your post that I responded to. Here, to be specific. -->

 

[Oncedeceived]

There is no reason to believe that they could be different, or that they were different. But "fine tuning" requires both, which is why it falls Occam's razor.

No, actually there is no reason that they couldn't be different and I don't know what you mean by or that they "were" different".

 

[Oncedeceived]

What is this in reference to? Be specific.

[/QUOTE]
No, I mean was that in reference to the earlier statement I made or about the reference in the material I linked to?

 

[HitchSlap]

"The Goldilocks Enigma".

Are you claiming that they are not somehow flummoxed?

http://www.bouchraouatik.com/wp-con...ur-physicists-ponder-why-we-are-here-CUPJ.pdf

In an attempt to shed some light on this enigma, four physics experts joined together at McGill University in Montreal on January 25th at the second annual Lorne Trottier Public Science Symposium, for a conference titled “A Cosmic Coincidence: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?” Moderated by McGill professor Victoria Kaspi, the panel included Paul Davies, physicist, author and director of Beyond: Institute for Fundamental Concepts in Science, George Efstathiou, astrophysicist and director of the Institute of Astronomy of Cambridge University, David Gross, winner of the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics and director of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, and Leonard Susskind, professor at Stanford University and father of string theory. After an introduction by Kaspi, each of the panelists were invited to present his point of view on the validity of the anthropic argument. Davies, who recently published the book The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life? on the topic, was the first to speak. He exposed the two basic questions physicists are currently asking concerning the anthropic principle, namely, whether the universe could have been different and why it is, as Davies put it, “so suspiciously bio-friendly.” He then presented two different attitudes that have been adopted regarding the issue: either life exists because the universe happened to be favourable to it—the opinion supported by Gross—or the universe is part of a greater “multiverse.” The multiverse hypothesis states that our universe is only one of a multitude of unique universes, each with their own specific physical laws. Susskind covered this hypothesis in more detail later on in the symposium.

Provide my quotes that I quote mine and where I am claiming they are agreeing with anything other than what they are saying.

You're deliberately misrepresenting what these scientists assert and believe.

Everyone here has called you on it, but in typical Once fashion, you double down and keep pushing that Trojan horse forward.

 

[AirPo]

No, actually there is no reason that they couldn't be different and I don't know what you mean by or that they "were" different".

In order to have been "tuned" they would have to have been different at some point. If they were always as they are now, they would have not been "tuned."

 

[AirPo]

No, I mean was that in reference to the earlier statement I made or about the reference in the material I linked to?

Sorry, I'm old and slow. Please see my edited post.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You're deliberately misrepresenting what these scientists assert and believe.

Everyone here has called you on it, but in typical Once fashion, you double down and keep pushing that Trojan horse forward.

Provide the quotes that show I am misrepresenting the scientists or retract.

 

[HitchSlap]

Provide the quotes that show I am misrepresenting the scientists or retract.

Nope.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In order to have been "tuned" they would have to have been different at some point. If they were always as they are now, they would have not been "tuned."

Now this to me is saying that you deny that the universe is fine tuned even though the consensus among scientists in the field claim it is. Why do you deny it?

The universe to come into existence needed very precise elements from the very beginning. So explain why you are denying this?