Let's see the math. Start with "what we've observed" about the probability distribution of the values of fundamental constants from all the universes "we've observed" coming into existence and go from there.
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.
This argument doesn't stand up well in this case. While it might be the case that the probability of Some universe coming into existence might be somewhat high, the life permitting universe is very low from what we've observed.
Nor is it shared by religious garbage men,
The analogy is with whether or not, out of an enormous number of possible outcomes
Since when have garbage men, religious or otherwise, been authorities on the physics of the very early universes?
The significance of this universe is that it is one of the extremely few where chemistry can happen, compared with the countless trillions upon trillions where that isn't possible.
This is a topic that another member, Athee, and I have determined would be a good one to explore in our opposing views.
Paul Davies, a British-born theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist and best-selling author has said of fine tuning:
“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics".
There is agreement between the majority of physicists, cosmologists and astrobiologists in regards to the fine tuning of the universe. The question is not whether or not fine tuning is real, it is, but why? Why is our universe the way it is and could it have been different?
What best explains the universe and its very narrow parameters that allow for intelligent life to exist?
My view as the theist is that God better explains the fine tuning of the universe than a purely atheistic naturalistic explanation.
It is from what we know that the fine tuning argument stems.
Not to mention that many of those quotes mention the appearance of fine tuning rather than evidence of actual fine tuning.
What support do you have for that statement?
To have chemistry you need the heavier elements. To have the heavier elements you need stars. To have stars you need gravity to be fine tuned by one part in 15 million.
Any more, and the universe would have collapsed back in on itself shortly after the big bang. Any less, and the universe would have expanded to quickly for stars to form.
About what? You just keep saying I'm wrong and I haven't even gone into my personal argument yet. This tells me that you have set yourself against whatever I say because I am a "Creationist" and you don't really care what I say because I am starting out wrong in your opinion.It does not matter, you are still wrong.
No, you haven't supported anything you've claimed other than link to the article that I quoted from.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.
Right.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.
I do, what is it that I think that they don't?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.
No it's not backwards. To spell it out even more explicitly, without fine tuning of the sort mentioned, the universe would be mostly hydrogen, some helium, and nothing else. Helium is inert, and hydrogen, although reactive, would have nothing to react with.
Well yes, that is obvious. That is what is at issue. The chemistry and many other elements were necessary to make it possible to come about.
How other universes would somehow make our fundamental constants not constants. Please explain.What part did you not understand? It really was not that hard to follow.
About what? You just keep saying I'm wrong and I haven't even gone into my personal argument yet. This tells me that you have set yourself against whatever I say because I am a "Creationist" and you don't really care what I say because I am starting out wrong in your opinion.
No, you haven't supported anything you've claimed other than link to the article that I quoted from.
Right.
How other universes would somehow make our fundamental constants not constants. Please explain.
There were many factors that allowed for stars to form. Those are the parameters that we are discussing when we are looking at the fine tuning in the universe to allow for intelligent life.
Ok. And your point for providing it? See the point for me providing it was to show that fine tuning exists and is a real phenomena and those who do not share my views about Intelligent origins nevertheless know fine tuning is real.Here is the original Davies article again:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/jun/26/spaceexploration.comment
That's the main point here. There's a difference between "lots of possible outcomes" and "all outcomes are equally likely.
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?