The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

Good I like this defense, you are saying that I don't know either. Which is true of course I don't but since we don't know which way it was we can't just assume one or the other. There is however some evidence that life was made for the universe and not the other way around. Chiefly if the uinverse were indeed made by a god for life you would expect to see more life, more hospitable areas.

Why?

Theread is really only one way for a universe to produce life by natural means (ancient, huge etc) and that is exactly what we observe.

Do you have a paper on this I could read?

I'll see what I can do.

Also I notice you didn't respond to my universe is fine tuned for pasta argument.

I think that if you had used books it might be more in line with evolution. Pasta? Not near as interesting.

 

[Oncedeceived]

1080
x1043
1126440

Are you claiming his mathematical skills are lacking?

 

[AirPo]

Are you claiming his mathematical skills are lacking?

No, Microsoft excel did that!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Conclusions are based on what evidence we have.

But calling bare assertions "conclusion", does not give those assertions more credibility.

So you are saying explanations must have evidence: The fine tuning of the universe which has the appearance of design is the evidence

"Fine tuning" being "the constants have specific values".
The "appearance of design" is not (repeat: NOT) actual valid data for anything, as that is a wholly subjective thing in the eye of the beholder. What might appear designed to you doesn't necessarily have the same effect on another.

and the best explanation for the appearance of design is actual design.

No, it's not.

Just like "the cloud has the appearance of a duck" is not best explained by "it is an actual duck".

Furthermore, subjective appearances don't require any explanation whatsoever.
Just like it doesn't require an explanation that I prefer apples of oranges. It's just my opinion and nothing else.

For example: I don't agree that the universe appears designed.

See how that works. The conclusion is based on the evidence.

Nope. Your assertion, rather, is based on your a priori religious belief.

What evidence do you have that it is false?

Stephen Hawking: "the universe doesn't require a designer".
I need just one example to refute the claim that "scientists think a fine tuner is back by a valid argument".

CLEARLY many scientists simply don't agree with that. ie, your claim is false.

No, you claimed that they did have evidence that would show God didn't do it.

Please quote me where I apparantly said that.
...or retract your claim.

The fine tuning is the evidence, the burden is met.

Constants having a certain value, no matter which value, doesn't say anything at all about how those values were obtained. As I have explained to you so many times.

So no, it most certainly is not met.

Now it comes down to conclusions and what best explains that evidence.

Which would be a model on how universes originate and how during that process laws and constants are determined (assuming they even CAN be different then what we observe in this universe - which is pure speculation).

Are you really so arrogant, that you are going to claim that you have stumbled upon such a model, which is almost considered like the holy grail in physics and cosmology? Hundreds, thousands of scientists are working on exactly that: a model that accurately explains how universes come about.

Yes, it is up to you to disprove my claims.

It's not.

The evidence supports my claims

It does not and I've explained countless times why it does not. You ignoring it everytime doesn't change anything.

, if you feel the evidence is better explained by something else

There currently is no explanation.
That's what I've been trying to tell you for all these pages.

All you are doing is SPECULATING through assumption after assumption, with a rather unhealthy dose of superstitious religious beliefs added to the mix.

Your "explanation" has exactly ZERO explanatory power.
Your "evidence" isn't evidence of anything.

Your claim is as empty as can be.
It is rooted in ignorance, religious faith and word plays.

There literally is nothing to refute.

or you feel you can counter my claims with your own then it is up to you to do it.

I don't need to have any counter claims to point out that your claims are empty assertions based on a priori religious beliefs.

I'm very happy saying that we currently don't know when we don't know.

Apparantly, you have an allergic reaction to those words.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Here is one:

Roger Penrose on entropy: How did he calculate that?



One of the fine-tuning arguments frequently used is the low entropy state of the universe at the Big Bang. This was calculated by Roger Penrose to be 1:1010123. How does he do this? He explains it in his book, The Emperor’s New Mind. Here is the section of the book that discusses it. Penrose uses the Bekenstein-Hawking formula for the entropy of a particle in a black hole to determine the entropy of a particle at the singularity of the Big Bang as if the entire universe were a giant black hole. He calculates this to be 1043. There are estimated to be 1080 particles in the observable universe.

1080 x 1043 = 10123 .
Entropy is on a logarithmic scale, so that is how he arrives at 1010123.

V = total phase-space volume available
W = original phase-space volume

V/W = 1010123



Therefore, the accuracy of the low entropy value was 1:1010123. Penrose says,

“This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in the ordinary denary notation: it would be `1' followed by 10123 successive `0 's! Even if we were to write a `0' on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe-and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure-we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is seen to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behaviour of things from moment to moment.”
If there are more particles in the universe than 1080 (like an infinite number), all the more extraordinary!!

Pi has an infinite number of decimals.

Therefor, the undetectable dragon in my garage designed the circle.

 

[bhsmte]

But calling bare assertions "conclusion", does not give those assertions more credibility.




"Fine tuning" being "the constants have specific values".
The "appearance of design" is not (repeat: NOT) actual valid data for anything, as that is a wholly subjective thing in the eye of the beholder. What might appear designed to you doesn't necessarily have the same effect on another.



No, it's not.

Just like "the cloud has the appearance of a duck" is not best explained by "it is an actual duck".

Furthermore, subjective appearances don't require any explanation whatsoever.
Just like it doesn't require an explanation that I prefer apples of oranges. It's just my opinion and nothing else.

For example: I don't agree that the universe appears designed.



Nope. Your assertion, rather, is based on your a priori religious belief.



Stephen Hawking: "the universe doesn't require a designer".
I need just one example to refute the claim that "scientists think a fine tuner is back by a valid argument".

CLEARLY many scientists simply don't agree with that. ie, your claim is false.



Please quote me where I apparantly said that.
...or retract your claim.



Constants having a certain value, no matter which value, doesn't say anything at all about how those values were obtained. As I have explained to you so many times.

So no, it most certainly is not met.



Which would be a model on how universes originate and how during that process laws and constants are determined (assuming they even CAN be different then what we observe in this universe - which is pure speculation).

Are you really so arrogant, that you are going to claim that you have stumbled upon such a model, which is almost considered like the holy grail in physics and cosmology? Hundreds, thousands of scientists are working on exactly that: a model that accurately explains how universes come about.



It's not.



It does not and I've explained countless times why it does not. You ignoring it everytime doesn't change anything.


There currently is no explanation.
That's what I've been trying to tell you for all these pages.

All you are doing is SPECULATING through assumption after assumption, with a rather unhealthy dose of superstitious religious beliefs added to the mix.

Your "explanation" has exactly ZERO explanatory power.
Your "evidence" isn't evidence of anything.

Your claim is as empty as can be.
It is rooted in ignorance, religious faith and word plays.

There literally is nothing to refute.



I don't need to have any counter claims to point out that your claims are empty assertions based on a priori religious beliefs.

I'm very happy saying that we currently don't know when we don't know.

Apparantly, you have an allergic reaction to those words.

Some folks, cant say they dont know, because their religious belief depends on them pretending to know.

 

[KCfromNC]

Why do numbers matter?

Said no one who actually has facts to back up their claims, ever.

 

[KCfromNC]

This paper is discussing Cosmic microwave background and how the fundamental constants are being used in a scientific way determined by their values to a very precise level using planck data. I thought there was some problem understanding how these constants values were determined and how they could be tweaked. I was wishing to show that these are very important elements in how we do science, and what different questions are studied in relationship to them.

Why? What does that have to do with the question at hand? You were going on and on about how we could use Bayesian probability to figure out how likely our universe is. Why do you think that showing how we can generate precise measurements of our universe is in any way related?

 

[KCfromNC]

The evidence is fine tuning.

Not if we're supposed to listen to many of the people you've referenced as experts.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why? What does that have to do with the question at hand? You were going on and on about how we could use Bayesian probability to figure out how likely our universe is. Why do you think that showing how we can generate precise measurements of our universe is in any way related?

Yes, I was talking about Bayesian probability and in doing so we use those precise measurements of our universe. WE USE what we KNOW in doing so. That was the point. We don't just do it in fine tuning but in all areas of physics.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not if we're supposed to listen to many of the people you've referenced as experts.

Again, you are confusing evidence with conclusion.

 

[KCfromNC]

Fine tuning is the phenomena of the fundamental constants being set so precisely that the universe exists and intelligent life is permitted.

No, fine tuning is the observation that life can only exist in universes with certain ranges of fundamental constants. There's nothing in there which implies they were set for any particular purpose. Or that they were set at all. That's begging the question.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes, I was talking about Bayesian probability and in doing so we use those precise measurements of our universe.

I don't believe you, but feel free to show your work.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But calling bare assertions "conclusion", does not give those assertions more credibility.

"Fine tuning" being "the constants have specific values".
The "appearance of design" is not (repeat: NOT) actual valid data for anything, as that is a wholly subjective thing in the eye of the beholder. What might appear designed to you doesn't necessarily have the same effect on another.

So are you claiming that we can't recognize design? What would the appearance of design then mean to you and what would it look like in your subjective opinion?

No, it's not.

Just like "the cloud has the appearance of a duck" is not best explained by "it is an actual duck".

Furthermore, subjective appearances don't require any explanation whatsoever.
Just like it doesn't require an explanation that I prefer apples of oranges. It's just my opinion and nothing else.

For example: I don't agree that the universe appears designed.

We understand that design has certain aspects that non-design doesn't. The universe has these certain aspects that design does.

Nope. Your assertion, rather, is based on your a priori religious belief.

Nope, it is your assertion based on your anti-religious belief.

Stephen Hawking: "the universe doesn't require a designer".
I need just one example to refute the claim that "scientists think a fine tuner is back by a valid argument".

CLEARLY many scientists simply don't agree with that. ie, your claim is false.

What evidence do they use to refute the claim?

Please quote me where I apparantly said that.
...or retract your claim.

You: What about physicists that went from christian to atheist?
Me: It wasn't due to a lack of evidence or evidence against God.

Me: It wasn't due to a lack of evidence or evidence against God.
You: Says who? You?

Now this lead me to believe you thought they had evidence. If not, fine. But then what did you mean?

Constants having a certain value, no matter which value, doesn't say anything at all about how those values were obtained. As I have explained to you so many times.

So no, it most certainly is not met.

We don't need to KNOW the origins to know that they are fine tuned for life on earth.

Which would be a model on how universes originate and how during that process laws and constants are determined (assuming they even CAN be different then what we observe in this universe - which is pure speculation).

There is no reason to believe at this time they couldn't be different.

Are you really so arrogant, that you are going to claim that you have stumbled upon such a model, which is almost considered like the holy grail in physics and cosmology? Hundreds, thousands of scientists are working on exactly that: a model that accurately explains how universes come about.

It's not.

It is.

It does not and I've explained countless times why it does not. You ignoring it everytime doesn't change anything.

It is, and it doesn't matter whether or not you agree. You might not like that fine tuning is evidence for a fine tuner but that doesn't make it less valid.

There currently is no explanation.
That's what I've been trying to tell you for all these pages.

And like I've been trying to tell you all these pages is that Design is just as valid as any of the other explanations being worked on presently. The fact that you don't like it really doesn't mean it isn't a valid conclusion.

All you are doing is SPECULATING through assumption after assumption, with a rather unhealthy dose of superstitious religious beliefs added to the mix.

Your "explanation" has exactly ZERO explanatory power.
Your "evidence" isn't evidence of anything.

Your claim is as empty as can be.
It is rooted in ignorance, religious faith and word plays.

There literally is nothing to refute.

Strange that the scientists who are working on this think it is a valid argument and so much so that they are considering multiverses to explain it away.

I don't need to have any counter claims to point out that your claims are empty assertions based on a priori religious beliefs.

I'm very happy saying that we currently don't know when we don't know.

Apparantly, you have an allergic reaction to those words.

I never claimed we know. I said that I think that design is the best explanation for the fine tuning we observe in the universe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't believe you, but feel free to show your work.

I don't have work.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, fine tuning is the observation that life can only exist in universes with certain ranges of fundamental constants. There's nothing in there which implies they were set for any particular purpose. Or that they were set at all. That's begging the question.

It doesn't have to show it was set for that particular purpose, and they have to be "set" as they are or we wouldn't be here discussing it.

 

[KCfromNC]

Again, you are confusing evidence with conclusion.

You seemed to place so much on their conclusions that certain events are unlikely. But no weight on their conclusions that gods are imaginary. Seems a bit selective to me.

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't have work.

Yes, that is plainly obvious.

Despite that you seem so sure you're able to correctly interpret the work of professionals in the field. And disagree with their conclusions when they don't suit you. There's psychology research which applies here.

 

[KCfromNC]

It doesn't have to show it was set for that particular purpose, and they have to be "set" as they are or we wouldn't be here discussing it.

No, they simply are as they are. You've presented no reason to think there was any possibility for them to be anything else.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, that is plainly obvious.

Despite that you seem so sure you're able to correctly interpret the work of professionals in the field. And disagree with their conclusions when they don't suit you. There's psychology research which applies here.

I am not a physicist. So I am not sure what you are saying. I didn't say I accept their conclusions, but the evidence is the evidence.