The fine tuning of the universe.

Oncedeceived · May 25, 2016

quatona said:
Well, each of these possible universes would have particular properties that would be equally improbable.
The fact that it was me who won the lottery doesn´t change the fact that all possible outcomes were equally improbable - despite my personal amazement about being the lucky one.

I'm sorry, perhaps I didn't make that clear enough. I'll use an example that I've heard in a debate: Say you have Millions and millions of white marbles in a pool and there is one black one. Pulling out a white marble is not that improbable but pulling out that one black one is astronomically low. Does that help make that argument clearer? Its not about pulling out a universe that might have different laws of physics and different chemistry or something like that but for that universe to permit life, it is like pulling out the black marble from millions and millions of white ones.

PsychoSarah · May 25, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
I'm sorry, perhaps I didn't make that clear enough. I'll use an example that I've heard in a debate: Say you have Millions and millions of white marbles in a pool and there is one black one. Pulling out a white marble is not that improbable but pulling out that one black one is astronomically low. Does that help make that argument clearer? Its not about pulling out a universe that might have different laws of physics and different chemistry or something like that but for that universe to permit life, it is like pulling out the black marble from millions and millions of white ones.

Assuming that our universe is, in fact, like the black marble, and not like a white marble. You are assuming that all combinations of physics are equally probable. There's no way to confirm that to be the case; it's just as probable, heck, maybe a little more, that the majority of universes are more like ours than not. It's even possible that ONLY the physics represented in our universe exist in any other, and that they all work the same (assuming the one we are in isn't the only one). Furthermore, statistics are notoriously useless on a cosmic scale; when placed on that scale, even the lowest probabilities have a chance of being expressed high enough to be worthy of consideration beyond what they would calculate as within more pedestrian events. Unless that probability is literally 0, it can be reasonably expected to happen on a cosmic scale, let alone an even more expansive multiverse scale.

Oncedeceived · May 25, 2016

PsychoSarah said:
Assuming that our universe is, in fact, like the black marble, and not like a white marble. You are assuming that all combinations of physics are equally probable. There's no way to confirm that to be the case; it's just as probable, heck, maybe a little more, that the majority of universes are more like ours than not. It's even possible that ONLY the physics represented in our universe exist in any other, and that they all work the same (assuming the one we are in isn't the only one). Furthermore, statistics are notoriously useless on a cosmic scale; when placed on that scale, even the lowest probabilities have a chance of being expressed high enough to be worthy of consideration beyond what they would calculate as within more pedestrian events. Unless that probability is literally 0, it can be reasonably expected to happen on a cosmic scale, let alone an even more expansive multiverse scale.

That of course has been considered and when relying on models and general knowledge of ours, and if life permitting universes is small amongst the universes that have been explored in this way, then it seems a rational conclusion to infer that it is most unlikely that those findings would be somehow magically shown to not be the case just outside of our knowledge.

PsychoSarah · May 25, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
That of course has been considered and when relying on models and general knowledge of ours, and if life permitting universes is small amongst the universes that have been explored in this way, then it seems a rational conclusion to infer that it is most unlikely that those findings would be somehow magically shown to not be the case just outside of our knowledge.

Our knowledge of universes beyond our own is too little to make a judgement call based on it. We aren't even confident other universes exist, let alone what sorts of physics they could or could not have. Seeing that we default on what we know, the most obvious conclusion based on what little we have is that our universe is a typical one, and we both know that conclusion doesn't exactly have a solid basis. There's too little here to try to apply statistics to, and as I have mentioned, on a cosmic level (let alone a multiverse one), standard statistics are useless.

It wouldn't matter if the white marbles were as numerous as the stars, and there was only 1 black marble, with enough tries, I would eventually grab the black one. And we know that the black marble exists, because we live in the item it's representing in your example.

Oncedeceived · May 25, 2016

PsychoSarah said:
Our knowledge of universes beyond our own is too little to make a judgement call based on it. We aren't even confident other universes exist, let alone what sorts of physics they could or could not have. Seeing that we default on what we know, the most obvious conclusion based on what little we have is that our universe is a typical one, and we both know that conclusion doesn't exactly have a solid basis. There's too little here to try to apply statistics to, and as I have mentioned, on a cosmic level (let alone a multiverse one), standard statistics are useless.

It wouldn't matter if the white marbles were as numerous as the stars, and there was only 1 black marble, with enough tries, I would eventually grab the black one. And we know that the black marble exists, because we live in the item it's representing in your example.

So on one hand you are arguing that we can't be confident that other universes exist (I agree) and on the other that so many exist that grabbing the "black marble one" is certain to be pulled out.

Do you believe that the physicists and cosmologists then are unaware of your argument against their conclusions that fine tuning is real and that they have considered what they can know and what they can't?

Subduction Zone · May 25, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
No, it is the physicists that gave it that name.

I know that the physicists gave it that name. Didn't you read what I wrote? You seem to think it means something that is different from what physicists mean.

Subduction Zone · May 25, 2016



Oncedeceived said:
I don't even know what you mean by this. How would other universes make them variable? That doesn't make sense to me.

Then you are simply in no position to debate this.

Oncedeceived · May 25, 2016

Subduction Zone said:
I know that the physicists gave it that name. Didn't you read what I wrote? You seem to think it means something that is different from what physicists mean.

So tell me, you do agree that fine tuning is real according to the majority of physicists and cosmologists?

Subduction Zone · May 25, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
That does make your position clearer but you are wrong. There are physicists that do think it is evidence for God and in fact, even those who don't believe that God exists still think it is a valid explanation.

No, seriously, just no.

How many creationists do you know? You do realize that there are prominent scientists that actually do believe in creation by God?

Quite a few, and it seems that you are guilty of a equivocation error again.

I missed it. Would you mind posting it again.

You could simply go back through some posts of mine. It was one that I offered independently without quoting you. I will probably have some time later and if you have not found it I will link it again.

Oncedeceived · May 25, 2016

Subduction Zone said:


Then you are simply in no position to debate this.

Because you make a statement that makes no sense I am not in a position to debate this?

Subduction Zone · May 25, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
So tell me, you do agree that fine tuning is real according to the majority of physicists and cosmologists?

First you need to define exactly what you mean by that term. Just because people are using the same terms does not necessarily mean that they are claiming the same thing.

Subduction Zone · May 25, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
Because you make a statement that makes no sense I am not in a position to debate this?

My post made sense. That you were not able to understand it tell me that you are in no position to debate this.

Oncedeceived · May 25, 2016

Subduction Zone said:
No, seriously, just no.

Yes.

There are scientists that are atheist, theist and some we don't know.

Quite a few, and it seems that you are guilty of a equivocation error again.

Why is it you are quick on claiming I'm wrong consistently without providing anything whatsoever in evidence to support your statements?

You could simply go back through some posts of mine. It was one that I offered independently without quoting you. I will probably have some time later and if you have not found it I will link it again.

Ok. I'll go through it tomorrow.

Oncedeceived · May 25, 2016

Subduction Zone said:
First you need to define exactly what you mean by that term. Just because people are using the same terms does not necessarily mean that they are claiming the same thing.

I am using it in the same way that the scientists use it.

Oncedeceived · May 25, 2016

Subduction Zone said:
My post made sense. That you were not able to understand it tell me that you are in no position to debate this.

If it makes sense provide something that supports it.

Subduction Zone · May 25, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
Yes.

There are scientists that are atheist, theist and some we don't know.

It does not matter, you are still wrong.

Why is it you are quick on claiming I'm wrong consistently without providing anything whatsoever in evidence to support your statements?

I have on some, you either paid no attention or did not understand. If you want to go over some claims of yours in more depth I am happy to do so.

Ok. I'll go through it tomorrow.

And if I have time later tonight I will post it if I come across it again. Or you could do what I did to find it. Simply Google search the quote you made at the start of this thread.

Subduction Zone · May 25, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
If it makes sense provide something that supports it.

What part did you not understand? It really was not that hard to follow.

Subduction Zone · May 25, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
I am using it in the same way that the scientists use it.

I don't think so. That is why I asked you more than once to define it in your own terms. It is rather apparent to me that you are not.

Subduction Zone · May 25, 2016

Here is the original Davies article again:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/jun/26/spaceexploration.comment

PsychoSarah · May 25, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
So on one hand you are arguing that we can't be confident that other universes exist (I agree) and on the other that so many exist that grabbing the "black marble one" is certain to be pulled out.

Your own example was like that. Neither of us view it as likely that, say, 5 universes other than our own exist, and that's it, right? So, why address it? Why address a position neither of us have? My personal view is that, if other universes do exist, the number is probably high. Even if it is not, statistics in practice don't even work on a cosmic scale, so they're useless for applying to a multiverse of any dynamic.

Oncedeceived said:
Do you believe that the physicists and cosmologists then are unaware of your argument against their conclusions that fine tuning is real and that they have considered what they can know and what they can't?

Automatically, no. I suppose some might not have heard the arguments I gave you, but here's the more important question: were they able to defeat my arguments without having logical flaws or biases? I won't assume they haven't heard my arguments, but that doesn't mean I should assume my arguments have been trashed.

Inevitable comment on my "hubris" addressed: If every time I debated, I assumed a smarter person on the opposing side had already defeated my argument, it wouldn't make much sense for me to bother with those arguments, now would it? Also, I am debating you, not hypothetical people that have already defeated my arguments. I would also say it's a tad presumptuous on your part that these smart people that share your position have a higher standard of evidence than you do, and thus must have an airtight defense of their position. From personal observation, a lot of people will admit that they can't scientifically defend their position, but that they have it anyways.

The fine tuning of the universe.

Senior Veteran

Chaotic Neutral

Senior Veteran

Chaotic Neutral

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Chaotic Neutral

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency