The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

Don't leave us in suspense - what's the answer?

Are you a mathematician?

 

[DogmaHunter]

My argument is based on the fine tuning of the universe.

And what exactly do you mean by that?
So same question... do you mean by that that the universe was meant for the purpose of bringing forward life?

Right now, I have been trying to establish that fine tuning is a real phenomena. I mean any argument about fine tuning must begin with the reality of the phenomena being discussed.

What "phenomena" would that be?
That constants have the value that they have? And that one could ask questions like "why these values and not some other values?" or "are other values even possible?"?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I used it to show that you seemed to be in error in use of your quote of his work. His quote did not support the concept of a fine tuned universe being evidence for God.

Which is not why I presented it and I clearly said why I did.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And what exactly do you mean by that?
So same question... do you mean by that that the universe was meant for the purpose of bringing forward life?

I mean that the universe is set to a very very narrow range which allows life to exist and if any of those elements were different life would not exist. I believe the best explanation for a universe that brings forth life by very necessary set parameters that permits life shows intent and purpose.

What "phenomena" would that be?
That constants have the value that they have? And that one could ask questions like "why these values and not some other values?" or "are other values even possible?"?

One should ask question like that. That is what scientists are doing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The problem with your analogy is twofold. The first is that if these different parameters and variables were different I could still exist.

False.

For example, if one of your ancestors would have died before having children, you would not exist.

Nothing would prohibit my existence.

One of your ancestors never being born, would pretty much prohibit the existence of his/her entire collection of off spring. That would include you.

The fine tuning phenomena isn't just that there might be a different outcome but that there are so many necessary parameters that had to be just right for not only the universe itself to exist but the galaxy to be just right, and the planets locations, and the earth having just the right ones and water having just the right ones.

Which is the exact same with your ancestry. The only difference is scale.
I'ld even go so far as stating that you owe your existence to an inumerable amount of causal links into the past, right up to the very start of the universe. Links both big and small.

For example, if that meteor would have hit Mexico some 65 million years ago, humans as a species might never have existed.

It's called the butterfly effect.

It is a chain of necessities for this universe to exist, for the galaxy, for the planets, for earth, for water and for chemistry for life to exist at all.

Yes. Just like there is a chain of necessities for you to exist at all.

Again, if things were different then things would be different.

Secondly, say that I had a genetic disorder that is inherited but no one in my long line of ancestry has had it. I am this one rare case in the long line of ancestors that didn't have it but I have it and it can only be passed on genetically. That is what we are talking about. We'd have to find an explanation for this rare and unlikely event.

Unlikely events happen all the time.

Having said that, the problem with your argument is that you are, obviously, trying to insert your god into answers that aren't available.

An explanation is lacking and you try to stuff that gap with a god.
This is not reasonable.
"god(s) dun it" has never been a satisfying explanation for everything.

In fact, in the history of the human species, not once did a supernatural "explanation" turn out to be demonstrably the correct one. What makes you think that this time it will be any different?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Don't blame others if you have not started your personal argument yet. And you should not take offense so easily.

No offense taken, just letting you know that you are repeatedly claiming I am wrong when I haven't even given any personal arguments as of yet and am only giving the scientific stand.

Now you are wrong again. I gave you a specific example, it is well known, I did not think that a link was needed, but if you need a link explaining how Newton's Law of Gravity explained Kepler's Laws I will be more than happy to give you one.

Except it wasn't an example of fundamental constants.

I actually searched for it again and found it and linked it. Then I noticed that I still had the article open on another tab all along

No problem. I found it too.

 

[KCfromNC]

You see I don't have to do the work myself. Its already been done.

Then you should have no problem linking us to a paper which runs through the calculations and has the answer.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is math, that is actually what measurements entail. We can't obviously view other universes but we can certainly model different ones mathematically and with computer programming.

How do you calculate the probability of this universe existing, if you don't even know how universes come into existence?

 

[KCfromNC]

Are you a mathematician?

Why do you ask? What level of math is needed to understand this result you keep avoiding giving us?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then you should have no problem linking us to a paper which runs through the calculations and has the answer.

The answer for what specifically?

 

[Oncedeceived]

How do you calculate the probability of this universe existing, if you don't even know how universes come into existence?

Its called physics?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I mean that the universe is set to a very very narrow range which allows life to exist

You are using very loaded language here.
The universe "is set to"?

You seem to be implying that this was one on purpose somehow?
Is that correct? If so, what is your evidence of this?

and if any of those elements were different life would not exist.

And if it didn't freeze at the north pole, there would be no ice there.
What can we conclude from such statements?

I believe the best explanation for a universe that brings forth life by very necessary set parameters that permits life shows intent and purpose.

Why?

One should ask question like that. That is what scientists are doing.

I have no issues with people asking question and doing the work to try and answer them.

I have issues with people pretending to have answers.

Which is what you are doing in this thread.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why do you ask? What level of math is needed to understand this result you keep avoiding giving us?

I am asking if you know how to understand the calculations?

 

[KCfromNC]

The answer for what specifically?

The question you keep making up excuses not to answer. See post 192.

That was only a half hour ago so it seems weird you'd respond to a post and then forget about it that quickly. Kind of a hint how little thought is put into any of these claims.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Its called physics?

Physicist don't know how universes come into existence either.

I repeat my question: how can you calculate the probability of this particular universe existing in its present form, if you don't even know how universes come into existence?

See... it's the same problem as with the origins of life...
Creationists just love to say that the "probability is against it"... but you can only calculate the probability of X happening if you actually know and understand how X CAN happen.

At this point, for all we know a phenomena like life might even be inevitable, probability-wise.

And the same might go for the universe.
For all we know, the very nature of the phenomena of universes coming into existence, it might be inevitable that a universe like this one is one of them. Perhaps other universe can't even exist at all.

This is the bottom line: we don't know.

Which, incidently, is exactly the reason why people call the "fine tuning argument" an argument from ignorance. Because you are drawing conclusions based on things that are not known.

 

[KCfromNC]

I am asking if you know how to understand the calculations?

Which calculations - the ones you claim exist but refuse to show us? How could I possibly know what level of math is involved if you won't tell us what math is involved?

I'm sure in some circles this sort of evasion is thought of as clever. I'm not impressed. If you actually had an answer you wouldn't be wasting everyone's time like this.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are using very loaded language here.
The universe "is set to"?

I am using the same language as Paul Davies for instance, as in the quote I used in the OP.

You seem to be implying that this was one on purpose somehow?
Is that correct? If so, what is your evidence of this?

I am implying that the universe in its make up permits life which which could not have happened by mere chance. So if not chance, either by necessity or by Intelligence. If by either of those there is purpose. There must be a "reason" for the universe to have permitted life to exist.

And if it didn't freeze at the north pole, there would be no ice there.
What can we conclude from such statements?

Seriously, if it were that simple why would the majority of scientists bother to even worry about it?

Why?

Do you think things happen for no reason?

I have no issues with people asking question and doing the work to try and answer them.

I have issues with people pretending to have answers.

Which is what you are doing in this thread.

What have neglected to answer?

 

[Oafman]

I'm a little disappointed to see another fine tuning thread, because it is a series of logical fallacies, and I thought this had been established long ago.

Arguments from ignorance always fall down, as ignorance is removed. 'There will never be an Isaac Newton for a blade of Grass' said Kant, implying that the diversity of life could never be explained in the way Newton explained the motion of the planets. Then along came Darwin, and made Kant look rather silly.

Fine tuning is just the latest God of the Gaps argument. In the past they were about things like thunder, disease, or how the sun travels across the sky. Each one eventually got explained in a way that didn't require God, and so the proponents moved on to the next one. And after centuries of that, here we are at fine tuning.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Physicist don't know how universes come into existence either.

I repeat my question: how can you calculate the probability of this particular universe existing in its present form, if you don't even know how universes come into existence?

See... it's the same problem as with the origins of life...
Creationists just love to say that the "probability is against it"... but you can only calculate the probability of X happening if you actually know and understand how X CAN happen.

At this point, for all we know a phenomena like life might even be inevitable, probability-wise.

And the same might go for the universe.
For all we know, the very nature of the phenomena of universes coming into existence, it might be inevitable that a universe like this one is one of them. Perhaps other universe can't even exist at all.

This is the bottom line: we don't know.

Which, incidently, is exactly the reason why people call the "fine tuning argument" an argument from ignorance. Because you are drawing conclusions based on things that are not known.

Ok, so are biologists unable to determine what happens with evolution just because they don't know how life originated? That is what you are claiming about physicists.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm a little disappointed to see another fine tuning thread, because it is a series of logical fallacies, and I thought this had been established long ago.

Arguments from ignorance always fall down, as ignorance is removed. 'There will never be an Isaac Newton for a blade of Grass' said Kant, implying that the diversity of life could never be explained in the way Newton explained the motion of the planets. Then along came Darwin, and made Kant look rather silly.

Fine tuning is just the latest God of the Gaps argument. In the past they were about things like thunder, disease, or how the sun travels across the sky. Each one eventually got explained in a way that didn't require God, and so the proponents moved on to the next one. And after centuries of that, here we are at fine tuning.

That is your opinion but physicists disagree. When ignorance has been removed only more ignorance comes about. Does that mean that what we know somehow is must be disregarded because we don't know more?