The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

Nobody here disagrees with the idea that if the physical constants would be different, things would be different.

What people disagree with, is all the other apologetic stuff you invent around that idea.

All the discussion has been on the science of fine tuning.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Here the point of it all: I'm not considering anything in particular, because there is nothing TO consider. Why? Because it is unknown.

What is unknown?

Yes, that could be the case.
It could also be the case that they couldn't be anything else.
It could also be the case that there's an infinite amount of universe, making this one (as well as any other possible configuration) inevitable.

So? That only shows that the universe is exactly the way it is. It only supports fine tuning all the more.

There's an inumerable amount of possible explanations of this which don't involve any (loaded argument) like "tuning" whatsoever.

They are tuned. The explanation would have to explain why.

But, again as said, we do not know.
See, this is why people are telling you that you are engaging in an argument from ignorance here and using unsupported premises.

Yet, scientists who know what they know think it is not an argument from ignorance but one of knowledge.

And their opinions are noted, but not in evidence.

Opinions based on what they know.

PS: that "early paper" doesn't say what you think it says.

Really? How would you know what I think it says?

 

[Athée]

OK so the premise under discussion is

Pa2. The chance that these values could occur by chance is highly unlikely.

I don't have a great memory so I need to keep going back to the source or I will forget. Those of you with good memories just skim over the recaps

Do you think that they hold that opinion due to bias or due to evidence that supports that opinion?

I don't know. I would like to give them the benifit of the doubt and say that they have good evidence for those beliefs. That said as far as I am aware, there is no compelling evidence. My guess is that these scientists are looking at the same data all the rest of us are and using a religious interpretive framework and appealing to an inference to the best explanation. But that means it is just a hypothesis, a speculation. I could be wrong though so if you have actual evidence from those scientists (not just a statement of their opinion) I am happy to look at it

Here is an analogy I thought was on point:

I have to disagree (surprise!) I think that analogy begs the question. We know that the intended purpose of a firing squad is to kill a person. This is why we are surprised in the scenario you presented. If we put a person in front of a bunch of objects without the specific purpose of killing the person, the fact of them living is less surprising. So if the "firing squad" consisted of a cloud, a duck, an orange and a pinecone, the person living through the experience is not unlikely.
The point is we can't assume from the beginning that the purpose of the universe is to create life ( or to not create life) we need to demonstrate these things with evidence or stick to the default position...we just don't know.

The same can be said of the universe. We can look at the fine tuning of the universe that permits life to exist and in spite of its probability now being 1, we can see just how remarkable it really is and how improbable

Probability arguments require a denominator. PA2 is about the universe. So as far as I can see the numerator in our equation, numerous of universes with the values we observe in our own is 1. I think the denominator (number of universes) should be 1 as well. But if you can provide evidence for a different denominator I am happy to consider it.

or we can dismiss the scientists "opinion" on this improbability by claiming it is really not that improbable, we are here after all and that is 1 in 1 odds.

I don't think we can do this either. We don't know if it is probable or not. We keen to stick to the default position, I don't know, until such time as we have evidence to move us in one direction or the other.

 

[Oncedeceived]

OK so the premise under discussion is
I don't have a great memory so I need to keep going back to the source or I will forget. Those of you with good memories just skim over the recaps

I can relate.

I don't know. I would like to give them the benifit of the doubt and say that they have good evidence for those beliefs. That said as far as I am aware, there is no compelling evidence. My guess is that these scientists are looking at the same data all the rest of us are and using a religious interpretive framework and appealing to an inference to the best explanation. But that means it is just a hypothesis, a speculation. I could be wrong though so if you have actual evidence from those scientists (not just a statement of their opinion) I am happy to look at it

I was being sneaky here and you did just what I predicted you would do. Since I used those with religious affirmations, I wanted to see if you too would discount their assessments due to bias. I really was hoping that you wouldn't but unfortunately you did. You might be surprised that secular scientists come to the same conclusion:

“can science explain the extraordinary fact that the universe appears to be uncannily, nay, spectacularly well-designed for our own existence? ….. to make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is almost certainly no accident.” Leonard Susskind

“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all….It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe….The impression of design is overwhelming” Paul Davis

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so over-whelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” Fred Hoyle

“Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229.” Lee Smolin

I find it interesting through the years that who you quote brings out personal biases. IF I bring out quotes that come from secular sources I am accused of not understanding that they don't hold the same view I do; equally if I choose quotes from those who have religious backgrounds someone will say they are being bias due to their backgrounds. Something to think about right? Regardless of background the majority of scientists believe that due to the knowledge we have about the universe it is improbable and unlikely for our universe such as ours.

I have to disagree (surprise!) I think that analogy begs the question. We know that the intended purpose of a firing squad is to kill a person. This is why we are surprised in the scenario you presented. If we put a person in front of a bunch of objects without the specific purpose of killing the person, the fact of them living is less surprising. So if the "firing squad" consisted of a cloud, a duck, an orange and a pinecone, the person living through the experience is not unlikely.
The point is we can't assume from the beginning that the purpose of the universe is to create life ( or to not create life) we need to demonstrate these things with evidence or stick to the default position...we just don't know.

But you see we already know life exists. Obviously if life exists, the requirements for that life must be relative to that outcome. You are disassociating the scenario by substituting unrelated items which then creates a straw man of the argument.

Probability arguments require a denominator. PA2 is about the universe. So as far as I can see the numerator in our equation, numerous of universes with the values we observe in our own is 1. I think the denominator (number of universes) should be 1 as well. But if you can provide evidence for a different denominator I am happy to consider it.

You are using an old method of probability called “frequentist” statistics.

The newer view of probability is called Bayesianism. Instead of looking at probability as the frequency of events in an experiment, Bayesians see probability in terms of degrees of plausibility. With Bayesian probability, we can compare how likely different theories are in the light of available evidence.

It is in using this method that we can determine what is probable and what is not using known factors. Here is a link so you know what I am referring to.

https://betterexplained.com/articles/an-intuitive-and-short-explanation-of-bayes-theorem/

I don't think we can do this either. We don't know if it is probable or not. We keen to stick to the default position, I don't know, until such time as we have evidence to move us in one direction or the other.

See above.

 

[AirPo]

The scientists disagree.

What "scientists?"

 

[Oncedeceived]

What "scientists?"

The scientists in the field.

 

[AirPo]

The scientists in the field.

What "field?"

 

[KCfromNC]

This makes me smile. From your responses you ask me that?

Yes. Considering how much effort you're going through not to answer obvious questions there's something going on here - just trying to figure out what.

It seems you have been responding with a lack of knowledge on the subject and then point to me claiming I don't. Paul Davies is a top scientist in his field. There is what is called peer-review in the world of science. There is a conclusion based on WHAT IS KNOWN about the fundamental constants of our universe. The information THAT IS KNOWN is what scientists in the field use to determine that they are fine tuned. It isn't taken on faith.

This has nothing to do with what I was asking. I was looking for examples of peer-reviewed publications saying that the goal of mulitverse theories was to disprove god. Seemed like a dumb claim, and given that you can't show any evidence, my feeling seemed to be right.

 

[KCfromNC]

Did you read it?

Read what?

If you actually had an answer you wouldn't need to resort to pointless games like this.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes, they have a very good idea about how they could be different.

Then why all the distraction and diversion? Why not just answer the question?

 

[Athée]

I was being sneaky here and you did just what I predicted you would do. Since I used those with religious affirmations, I wanted to see if you too would discount their assessments due to bias. I really was hoping that you wouldn't but unfortunately you did. You might be surprised that secular scientists come to the same conclusion:

I actually didn't. What I said was I want to see what evidence they base those views off, so that we can determine if their interpretation is a biased one or not. Anyway l, don't see that as sneaky, just good tactics That said it would be helpful if you could include the sources for those quotes so I know where to find them. The reason of course that it is possible to cherry pick quotes and present them as being that person'sopinion when it is not. I am not saying you have done this, but I would like to see the full context.
For instance:
Susskind

Says that he does not believe in intelligent design.
Davies ( who is of course an agnostic not an atheist as you implied ) said this:
Where do we human beings fit into this great cosmic scheme? Can we gaze out into the cosmos, as did our remote ancestors, and declare: “God made all this for us”? I think not. Are we then but an accident of nature, the freakish outcome of blind and purposeless forces, incidental by-product of a mindless, mechanistic universe? I reject that, too. The emergence of life and consciousness, I maintain, are written into the laws of the universe in a very basic way. True, the actual physical form and general mental make-up of Homo sapiens contain many accidental features of no particular significance. If the universe were rerun a second time, there would be no solar system, no Earth, and no people. But the emergence of life and consciousness somewhere and somewhen in the cosmos is, I believe, assured by the underlying laws of nature. The origin of life and consciousness were not interventionist miracles, but nor were they stupendously improbable accidents. They were, I believe, part of the natural outworking of the laws of nature, and as such our existence as conscious enquiring beings springs ultimately from the bedrock of physical existence-those ingenious, felicitous laws.
Source: http://www.firstthings.com/article/...he-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24

Hoyle of curse is know for flying in the face of consensus science and interestingly was the PHD supervisor of Davies so we can see where some of Davie's influence comes from.

And we could go down the list...

But think about it from another perpective. If I were to quote a bunch of scientists who said they don't think the universe was fine tuned for life, would you consider that a definitive argument and give up your position? Why or why not?

I also want to add that although you are suggesting that I am unfairly discounting the opinions of the scientists on your side of the issue, I also made sure to point out in my previous post that we also can't claim that the universe is likely and not fine tuned because there is a lack of evidence for that position as well.

But you see we already know life exists. Obviously if life exists, the requirements for that life must be relative to that outcome. You are disassociating the scenario by substituting unrelated items which then creates a straw man of the argument.

Well it certainly was not my intent to create a straw man. To avoid this why don't you explore your analogy to me. What element of our argument does the firing squad represent, the victim, the surprise of the surviving victim etc. Maybe I have misunderstood your point and this will help clarify it.

 

[KCfromNC]

The newer view of probability is called Bayesianism. Instead of looking at probability as the frequency of events in an experiment, Bayesians see probability in terms of degrees of plausibility. With Bayesian probability, we can compare how likely different theories are in the light of available evidence.

What evidence do we have of the conditions before the universe was created? Unless you have a working model of how universes form and some evidence of what the initial conditions were any sort of probability calculations would simply be garbage in, garbage out. That's probably why you can't find any actual science which tries to describe the range of values each constant could have had.

 

[Athée]

Oh shoot I forgot about the baysean probability bit. This method relies on prior probabilities to determine the consequent probabilities. The problem here is that we only have our universe to populate that prior. If you want to speculate about hypothetical alternate universes , you are going to get speculative and hypothetical results.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What "field?"

Physics. Astrophysics. Cosmology. Astronomy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes. Considering how much effort you're going through not to answer obvious questions there's something going on here - just trying to figure out what.



This has nothing to do with what I was asking. I was looking for examples of peer-reviewed publications saying that the goal of mulitverse theories was to disprove god. Seemed like a dumb claim, and given that you can't show any evidence, my feeling seemed to be right.

I said who made the comment, provided the link for it.

 

[AirPo]

Physics. Astrophysics. Cosmology. Astronomy.

I we were talking about the science of "fine tuning?"

 

[Oncedeceived]

I actually didn't. What I said was I want to see what evidence they base those views off, so that we can determine if their interpretation is a biased one or not. Anyway l, don't see that as sneaky, just good tactics That said it would be helpful if you could include the sources for those quotes so I know where to find them. The reason of course that it is possible to cherry pick quotes and present them as being that person'sopinion when it is not. I am not saying you have done this, but I would like to see the full context.
For instance:
Susskind

Says that he does not believe in intelligent design.

I hope you aren't trying to shift the goalpost here, I really believe it was a mistake on your part rather than you shifting it. The point I was making was not of intelligent design but providing support for PA2: The chance that these values could occur by chance is highly unlikely. Susskind doesn't believe it is by chance and highly unlikely for being so. I will make sure the links are included. Sorry about that.

Davies ( who is of course an agnostic not an atheist as you implied )

Actually I believe he has become something of a theist but he is very general about it. I never implied he was an atheist, what I said was secular and secular is I think reflective of his position.

said this:
Where do we human beings fit into this great cosmic scheme? Can we gaze out into the cosmos, as did our remote ancestors, and declare: “God made all this for us”? I think not. Are we then but an accident of nature, the freakish outcome of blind and purposeless forces, incidental by-product of a mindless, mechanistic universe? I reject that, too. The emergence of life and consciousness, I maintain, are written into the laws of the universe in a very basic way. True, the actual physical form and general mental make-up of Homo sapiens contain many accidental features of no particular significance. If the universe were rerun a second time, there would be no solar system, no Earth, and no people. But the emergence of life and consciousness somewhere and somewhen in the cosmos is, I believe, assured by the underlying laws of nature. The origin of life and consciousness were not interventionist miracles, but nor were they stupendously improbable accidents. They were, I believe, part of the natural outworking of the laws of nature, and as such our existence as conscious enquiring beings springs ultimately from the bedrock of physical existence-those ingenious, felicitous laws.
Source: http://www.firstthings.com/article/...he-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24

Here he is talking about life itself, not the universe. He doesn't believe the universe is a chance event.

Hoyle of curse is know for flying in the face of consensus science and interestingly was the PHD supervisor of Davies so we can see where some of Davie's influence comes from.

And we could go down the list...

All supporting my premise of PA2.

But think about it from another perpective. If I were to quote a bunch of scientists who said they don't think the universe was fine tuned for life, would you consider that a definitive argument and give up your position? Why or why not?

Again, that is not what I was providing. I provided support for PA2.

I also want to add that although you are suggesting that I am unfairly discounting the opinions of the scientists on your side of the issue, I also made sure to point out in my previous post that we also can't claim that the universe is likely and not fine tuned because there is a lack of evidence for that position as well.

Yet, the majority of the scientists coming in on the issue claim what I have that the universe is not a result of chance.

Well it certainly was not my intent to create a straw man. To avoid this why don't you explore your analogy to me. What element of our argument does the firing squad represent, the victim, the surprise of the surviving victim etc. Maybe I have misunderstood your point and this will help clarify it.

Perhaps, you didn't intend to but it is the outcome. The analogy is representing how the argument 1 out of 1 is not very convincing when faced with a whole regiment of marksmen firing straight at you and you left standing. Another example would be the royal flush 30 consecutive times would be remarkable and no one would believe that it was just by chance.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oh shoot I forgot about the baysean probability bit. This method relies on prior probabilities to determine the consequent probabilities. The problem here is that we only have our universe to populate that prior. If you want to speculate about hypothetical alternate universes , you are going to get speculative and hypothetical results.

We know what would happen if the constants were tweaked, which is what we need to know to get to the probability.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What evidence do we have of the conditions before the universe was created? Unless you have a working model of how universes form and some evidence of what the initial conditions were any sort of probability calculations would simply be garbage in, garbage out. That's probably why you can't find any actual science which tries to describe the range of values each constant could have had.

Why do we need to know what conditions would be present prior to the universe to determine fine tuning? We find the actual value they do have and we can tweak them in scientific models.

 

[bhsmte]

Read what?

If you actually had an answer you wouldn't need to resort to pointless games like this.

What you are seeing, is standard operating procedure for the poster in question. It has been pointed out by many on these boards.