The fine tuning of the universe.

[KCfromNC]

Ok, I am warning you and anyone else that decides that they wish to make this a bash Once thread that I am perfectly willing to report anyone that does it.

Threatening to report people is against the rules here.

Anyway, I'm still wondering if you can point to the term in Bayes' theorem which represents "what would happen if the constants were tweaked"? For some reason you didn't respond to that question a few pages back.

 

[Robert Palase]

Ok, I am warning you and anyone else that decides that they wish to make this a bash Once thread that I am perfectly willing to report anyone that does it. I'm just not going to tolerate your constant psycho-babble. Either keep it to my arguments and keep personal appraisals to yourself.

No one is bashing you, you're the one carrying the bashing sticks, you have them in both hands.
It's obvious that you want to believe something but you don't seem to know anything about what it is you want to believe, why don't you just stick to, there is a God and I am more than happy just to believe that? why try to complicate things?

 

[bhsmte]

No one is bashing you, you're the one carrying the bashing sticks, you have them in both hands.
It's obvious that you want to believe something but you don't seem to know anything about what it is you want to believe, why don't you just stick to, there is a God and I am more than happy just to believe that? why try to complicate things?

For many, that is where the problems begin.

It is not good enough for some to acknowledge they believe what they do on faith, they have to convince themselves they have all this evidence to support their personal faith belief.

Then, when they are asked to present this evidence and it is challenged, the games begin; ignoring simple questions, shifting the burden of proof, etc. etc.

As i said before, some of us have seen this movie before and it always ends the same.

 

[Davian]

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

When your position is untestable and unfalsifiable, almost anything can be claimed to support it.

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

What do you mean they are "tuned"? That "something" threw the universe together then fiddled with the virtual knobs until we have what we observe? Yet you don't know if there are other settings on those 'knobs', other than speculating that other settings might not work?

Or are you arguing that the constant are constant?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I notice you answered my question with a question ...

I believe you felt that we were confused as to what chance meant to each of us. In determining that I needed to ask you as well. I then answered by saying that Chance meant something that was by accident.

To answer yours I think there are two ways of thinking about chance in relation to our topic.

Does the term chance need a new definition in relation to our topic?

1) chance is the same as totally random, there is no connection between any of the values. Each one could have been any value at all with no restrictions.

Which we already know there are some with connections and some independent.

2) chance means there was no guiding purpose to the values we observe. Because they are interconnected the value of one necessarily limit's the possible values of others related to it, making the network of values not random but also not guided.

They are not all interconnected and not necessarily limited by the other's values...so what then?

I'm not sure which of those you mean which is why I asked.

To restate my question, do you agree with the following: if something does not happen by chance then it necessarily happened on purpose. Only concious beings can confer a purpose on something so to say something did not happen by chance is to day that it was the intended result of some conscious being.
Agreed?

I'm not sure if that it is that black and white. There are things that have purpose which are not necessarily a purpose by a conscious being, there can be consequences of some action that can be purposeful without consciousness. I think chance is best described as accidental.

Citation needed

What exactly do you want? I'm unsure of what you want to substantiate this.

This single sentence is the crux of the problem so far. I agree with the first part. Scientists do agree that "fine tuning" exists. Of course the term is loaded and when they say they agree that fine tuning exists they are not saying that the use we observe have been fine tuned for life.

Your typo makes this not make sense. Could you tell me again what you are saying?

Rather, they are saying that if the values were different by the smallest degree, then life as we know it would not exist (and in some cases the universe either). These are very different statements. Yes the vies are in very narrow ranges that allow for life as we know it, yes this could be the product of chance or it could be the expression of some more fundamental laws of physics that we don't currently know. Whatever the case you have not demonstrated that the scientific concensus agrees with the second half of your statement.

I've given you quotes that do say that so again you need to tell me what you think I need to produce to demonstrate it.

My apologies it was not a quasi analogy it was a flawed one.I have pointed out the problem with it a couple times now. The known purpose of a firing squad is to kill a human. That is why we are surprised if it does not happen. There is no known purpose to the universe (without begging the question ).
Thoughts

Ok, then go back to the Royal flush one. Poker is a game of chance, so this one is exactly spot on.

Observed by whatever life exists in that universe ,or maybe not observed at all (this is all hypothetical). Fine tuned for whatever happens to exist in that universe.
I agree that our life, as we know it would not exist in these other universes. ..so what? The fact that we value our lives does not make them special in a supra universal sense. In the scenario I gave you, our universe which gives rise to us is no more special than the gold planet universe or the, serpentine galaxy universe or the nothing but empty space and a couple of barren rocks universe.

So we are no more special than empty space and barren rocks? Am I understanding you correctly?

How does this relate to premise PA2?

The unlikeliness of it.

my position is that we don't know. If I had to guess I would guess there is a deeper law of physics at play but I would never claim to be able to demonstrate that. Lots of scientists seem to like the multiverse hypothesis but again that has not been demonstrated. In short we just don't know.

If it were a deeper law of physics at play, that law would have to be as fine tuned as the fine tuning we observe in the universe. The same is true of the multiverse, it just moves the fine tuning back. Your thoughts?

 

[Oncedeceived]

We measure their value. We can't "measure" how those values were obtained. We don't know how they are obtained.




We need to understand the process of how a universe comes into being, to understand how the laws and constants are set / obtained, as that is something that happens during the origination of the universe.

Once the universe exists, the values and laws are set and all we can do at that point is observe / measure them. This, however, tells us nothing about how they came to be.

Get it now?



What we can do is take the equations that reflect our current understanding of the universe, and inject other values in the constants, as some kind of hypothetical thought experiment.

However, that again tells us NOTHING about how the values are obtained. Nore does it tell us if they even CAN be different in reality. We simply don't know that.




Because it dismantles your premise that the values are "unlikely".

You don't understand that there is plenty that we know even if we don't have the origination principles of the universe. Just like we know a great deal about the evolution of life without knowing how life began.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Funny, as that is exactly what it does NOT support.
The article CLEARLY states that it is unknown.

If it is "unknown", how in the world can you conclude it to be "unlikely"?

Your link does not support your premise, it does the opposite.
It shows that your premise is not justified, not in evidence, unsupported, just an assertion.



The link you posted LITERALLY says otherwise.
Do I need to repeat the quotes??

Here:

These constants represent the edge of our knowledge

An innovative, elegant physical theory that actually predicts the values of these constants would be among the greatest achievements of twenty-first-century physics. Many have tried and failed




There is also no reason to believe that they can.
The point exactly. It is unknown.

You can, and should, ask the question "why these values and not some other values?".
But the answer to that question is currently not known.

Therefor, you can't make any assessment about the probability thereof.
It could be 1 in a gazitrillion and it could be 1 in 1.



Or why they could. It is unknown.
So no assessment can be made concerning the probability of them being what they are. So the premise in your "argument" is not justified.



And there is also nothing to inform us of the opposite.
Because it is unknown.




I never said I don't agree with computer models.
It's not about computer models in general. It's about what they represent and what the justification is for the data you feed into it and, by extension, how reflective of reality they are.

The same person that wrote this is claiming that physicists do know that this is not a chance thing and the fine tuning of the universe is considered unlikely. So you are not understanding his remarks.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Threatening to report people is against the rules here.

Anyway, I'm still wondering if you can point to the term in Bayes' theorem which represents "what would happen if the constants were tweaked"? For some reason you didn't respond to that question a few pages back.

I gave you a link.

 

[Davian]

Libertas, the Roman goddess

 

[HitchSlap]

Just think what Jesus had to put up with.

The reaction response that any human ever had to deal with when spouting nonsense, no?

 

[Davian]

Now there is a consensus among the scientists in the field that fine tuning is real and could not be by chance or luck. I've given quotes by a wide variety of scientists who you can see are confirming this. If you find fault in this consensus, since I have provided through these quotes confirmation of my position where is the support against it? I don't know what you mean by the scientists not agreeing with me, perhaps you can elaborate on that.

I searched this thread, and could not find the references to this consensus that you allude to. I know in the past you have mistakenly tried to pass off a consensus of opinion on the appearance of design as a scientific consensus on design, and that may be where what the scientist are actually saying disagrees what you claim in this thread.

 

[Davian]

Join the crowd, sis.

We're on the winning side, amen?

Just think what Jesus had to put up with.

Doesn't every religionist think he or she is on the 'winning' side?

 

[Davian]

No, I wouldn't and the scientists don't think so either.

<citation missing>

 

[HitchSlap]

No.

I said, "homeschool themselves."

Let's not bring children into the conversation.

For the most part, it's not hard to tell that some atheists are self-taught in their own philosophy.

1. Don't know even basic doctrine.
2. Will call themselves "agnostics" for whatever reason.
3. Will cherry-pick their science.
4. Willing to argue against something they know nothing about.
5. Good at converting good points into catch-22 requirements.

Like arguing against scientists, you'll NEVER see a light bulb come on in their heads, and they'll try their best to argue a point to its logical ... (not theological) ... conclusion which, of course, is one or more:

1. Antibiblical
2. Nonbiblical
3. Antisemitic
4. Antizionist
5. Antimoral
6. Antiestablishment
7. Countercultural

Except non-believers routinely score higher on religious tests/polls and non-believers write far better critical sholarship than believers.

 

[AV1611VET]

Libertas, the Roman goddess

 

[AV1611VET]

Doesn't every religionist think he or she is on the 'winning' side?

I suppose so.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except non-believers routinely score higher on religious tests/polls and non-believers write far better critical sholarship than believers.

Let's hear it for homeschooling, eh?

 

[HitchSlap]

Let's hear it for homeschooling, eh?

Eh?

 

[Davian]

On the latter quote, looking at the problems the US has with violence, debt, and healthcare, this "God" and the Bible do not appear to be very good help. Perhaps a new approach is advised.

On the former, will you be sad when it is removed?

 

[Davian]

Doesn't every religionist think he or she is on the 'winning' side?

I suppose so.

That is an awful lot of deceived people, given the mutually exclusive nature of religions.