Well if you don't find it helpful feel free to disregard it
Upvote
0
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.
Well if you don't find it helpful feel free to disregard itI don't follow this, you are not unaware of what God is as far as Christian theology, so how does this make sense to you?
Plank units. Thats the explanation. Different units, different exponent.How would you explain then the 120 order of magnitude of the cosmological constant?
No, there do not "have to be", there do not "need to be" infinite universes for ours to be as it is. There does have to be at least one. If there are a hundred balls in a bag and only one is red, the probability is one in a hundred that any particular one of those balls is red. But there do not "have to be" a hundred balls for you to take a red ball out of a bag. If there are fifty balls, the probability is one in fifty. If there is one, the probability is one.I don't necessarily believe that there is more than one universe, there could be but nothing points to any others. Secular scientists have decided that due to our universe being so fine tuned the only feasible explanation is that there are other universes out there that make ours go from highly unlikely/improbable to not surprising. The kicker is that there has to be infinite universes for ours to have the life permitting parameters that ours does.
And they don't change. "They can change because they don't change," is not a sound argument.Except I have every reason to assume they can be and are. We call them laws of physics because they hold true every single time we check them. So which is it, are the laws of physics not valid or so fine tuned we can count on them every day? You can't have it both ways, regardless of how much you might wish it to be so.
Until there is a reason to show they can't be changed we have no reason to assume they can't be.
Stars dying,novas,supernovas,black holes,quasars...comets and asteroids smashing into other objects...is that orderly?
I have no problem with proposition (B), but if someone wants to claim there is more than one the evidence would be needed to show there could be more than one.
Here's a question, can pi be anything but 3.14...?
It seems that that's just what pi is and it can't be anything different. Could the rest of the natural constants likewise simply be the only value they can be?
But people who claim that constants could be different can fall back on "we don't know, therefore it is possible"? That doesn't sound particularly consistent.
Just like there's no evidence showing that these "finely tuned" constants could be anything other than what we currently observe them to be. Obviously a complete lack of evidence isn't really the deciding factor in what you're willing to accept.There is no evidence that shows that.
But we know many requirements that are absolutely necessary and that is what has been shown to be a very rare occurrence.
Actually it looks very designed and I don't know of any scientists that don't agree.
Back to that paper,
4.6 Cosmological constant
Ok, I've got to be honest, everytime this value comes up in a "fine tuning" argument, the author loses a good deal of credibility in my mind. Not so much because of relevance, but because they can't ever seem to restrain themselves from talking about quantum field theory predictions. It's an interesting subject, but not one that's relevant. First off, quantum field theory doesn't predict the measurable vacuum energy, but rather zero point energy. Second, we again only know it's order of magnitude experimentally. Lastly, if it were arbitrarily set to maximize the potential for life, it should be very slightly negative instead of very slightly positive.
Yet claim we can accurately date things because the constants are always constant, then choose to argue the exact opposite.
Get a deck of well shuffled cards. Lay them out, face up, one by one. When you're done, you'll have a sequence of cards, the probability of which is 1/8.07E+67. That's basically 8 followed 67 0s. I'm not sure there's even a word for a number that big. Excel can only calculate it to 15 digits precision. But it only took one try. So to claim something "needs" trillioin and trillions of trials just because of it's extreamly low probability is just plain wrong.
Right, I know this is what you are all saying but it is not accurately portraying fine tuning. 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.
Now add to this in regard to the universe that not only were all these cards coming in sequence in their appropriate place but they were not even known all at once. They were discovered as physicists did their work in their fields. This is just the tip of the ice berg.
We KNOW that it is special because of it wasn't we wouldn't be here and the unvierse wouldn't be either.
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?
Stephen Hawking is a proponent of Fine tuning.Meet mr Stephen Hawking: "Because there is such a thing as gravity, the universe doesn't require a creator".
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?