The fine tuning of the universe.

[KCfromNC]

Simply state what you problem is please and put a argument out there that you feel explains where you think this information and data is incorrect.

Already answered this in previous posts that you've ignored - 785, 792, 798, 803, 819, and so on. If you didn't understand the question all you need to do is ask and I'll try to educate you a bit more on the problem.

 

[KCfromNC]

most of the top experts in the fields of physics, astrophysics, cosmology, and astronomy all agree that the universe is fine tuned for intelligent life

Citation needed.

 

[KCfromNC]

So if we observe OUR universe the terms of probability are special

The definition of fine tuning you agreed to says nothing about probability. It only says that differences in various constants would lead to a different universe than the one we observe.

 

[Athée]

Now are you going to stay in this universe or are you going to the many other universe possibility? See you continue to go back and forth it seems. So if we observe OUR universe the terms of probability are special because very minute changes make us non-existent in THIS universe. So what do you have that provides support that our values are no more less likely than any other set?

Every time I make use of the assumptions in your argument you accuse me of going outside the universe to make my point, but when I stay within the universe the probability is 1 because thereally is only one universe as far as we can observe. When you say, very minute changes would lead to us not being her, you are proposing a hypothetical alternate universe where those values are slightly different. As for support for that last item it is again the default position. We don't know if the set of value's in our universe are more or less likely than any other set and so we just say, I don't know, or in other words no particular set of values is more or less likely than any other.
I do want to point out that to some extent I am conceding PA2, in the sense that if thw probabilities of the varoous value sets are equal and if the values actually can take teillions of dofferent permutations, that is that they are not organzied by some principle we sont knw yet or if the observed values are not necessary somehow, then our universe is in fact very unlikely, it is just that it is no more likely or unlikely than any other possible universe. (I know it is bad debate maners to help out the other side but I see this more as a conversation and I don't want to be disengenuous about what I am thinking).

 

[AirPo]

No, actually. They factor in all those factors to determine why intelligent life such as ourselves would not exist if not for the way the universe is.

Back to if the universe was different, it would be different. You don't need scientists to figure that out.

 

[bhsmte]

Already answered this in previous posts that you've ignored - 785, 792, 798, 803, 819, and so on. If you didn't understand the question all you need to do is ask and I'll try to educate you a bit more on the problem.

Ignoring posts?

I am shocked.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Maybe they're fine tuning their science to eventually say the universe wasn't created fine tuned?

The evidence indicates that if the universe was not fine tuned then the universe would not be able to exist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Already answered this in previous posts that you've ignored - 785, 792, 798, 803, 819, and so on. If you didn't understand the question all you need to do is ask and I'll try to educate you a bit more on the problem.

I haven't ignored them. I've answered them each time but you change the question.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Back to if the universe was different, it would be different. You don't need scientists to figure that out.

Simplistic and totally off point. Have you researched this topic?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Citation needed.

There are a great many scientists, of varying religious persuasions, who accept that the universe is fine-tuned for life, e.g. Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Dawkins, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Hawking, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, Wilczek. They differ, of course, on what conclusion we should draw from this fact. Stenger, on the other hand, claims that the universe is not fine-tuned.

That is a very diverse list. I know that Sandage, Ellis, Page, Tipler and Polkinghorne are theists. But I also know that Weinberg, Rees, Hawking, Greene, and Dawkins are atheists. So scientists all across the spectrum of worldview admit that the fine-tuning is real.

https://winteryknight.com/2015/11/1...or-stengers-critique-of-cosmic-fine-tuning-4/

 

[Oncedeceived]

Every time I make use of the assumptions in your argument you accuse me of going outside the universe to make my point, but when I stay within the universe the probability is 1 because thereally is only one universe as far as we can observe. When you say, very minute changes would lead to us not being her, you are proposing a hypothetical alternate universe where those values are slightly different. As for support for that last item it is again the default position. We don't know if the set of value's in our universe are more or less likely than any other set and so we just say, I don't know, or in other words no particular set of values is more or less likely than any other.

The probability is not one as I've shown you with the link I provided. Yet, lets look at this for a moment. Even if the probability is one, how does that diminish any of the fine tuning? Would you like to explain how you view that?

I do want to point out that to some extent I am conceding PA2, in the sense that if thw probabilities of the varoous value sets are equal and if the values actually can take teillions of dofferent permutations, that is that they are not organzied by some principle we sont knw yet or if the observed values are not necessary somehow, then our universe is in fact very unlikely, it is just that it is no more likely or unlikely than any other possible universe. (I know it is bad debate maners to help out the other side but I see this more as a conversation and I don't want to be disengenuous about what I am thinking).

This is really hard to read but I'll try. Here you go again, you claim if all those factors are what they are...and they are and there is no law to organize it all together then it is unlikely they should fall as precisely as they do; then you go outside once again and claim it is no more likely or unlikely than any other possible universe? So why "other universes"?

So do you think knowing what we know now that our universe is improbable or highly unlikely in its life permitting structure?

I do appreciate your manners and congenial attitude even within the disagreement. You are very intelligent and rational and I appreciate it.

 

[Athée]

The probability is not one as I've shown you with the link I provided. Yet, lets look at this for a moment. Even if the probability is one, how does that diminish any of the fine tuning? Would you like to explain how you view that?

The link I assume you mean is the one about Bayesean probability. If so I am still hoping you will tell us what data you are putting in the various fields so that we can see where you are getting your probability numbers from. Until I know that I can't see how the probability could be anything other than 1.
How does this change the fine tuning? ...it doesn't at all, whether our universe was a probable one, a necessary one or an unlikely one the fact does remain that for life as we know it to exist it has to have the valyes it does and there is a narrow range of life permitting values.

This is really hard to read but I'll try. Here you go again, you claim i

Yah sorry about that, when I try to go back and insert phrases into my text the phone does this strange autocorrect of the whole paragraph and gets it all wrong. Thank you for not making a big deal out of it, I will try to do better

then you go outside once again and claim it is no more likely or unlikely than any other possible universe? So why "other universes"

Because we are talking about probabilities and unless there are other possible universes then we are stuck necessarily with a probability of one.

So do you think knowing what we know now that our universe is improbable or highly unlikely in its life permitting structure?

Based on what we know today I think I would agree. There may be an organizing principle but we don't know that yet. There may be a multiverse solution, a mega verse solution, a selfish biocosm solution and many more hypotheses but at this point we can't confirm or reject any of those models. I will still maintain that our universe is no less likely or more likely than any other though, until we have a reason to move from this default position. This speaks to the second part of PA2, that this all happened by chance vs on purpose.

 

[AirPo]

Simplistic and totally off point. Have you researched this topic?

What's to research. It's an obviously flawed argument.

Is it an ineresting thought expierment? Sure if your a phyisist or comologist.
Does it mean anything? Obsolutly not.

 

[HitchSlap]

Simplistic and totally off point. Have you researched this topic?

That is the point. Things are as we find them, and who's to say it couldn't have been any other way? That we are able to measure certain data, in no way suggests whether something is improbable. It proves nothing of your god/s.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The link I assume you mean is the one about Bayesean probability. If so I am still hoping you will tell us what data you are putting in the various fields so that we can see where you are getting your probability numbers from. Until I know that I can't see how the probability could be anything other than 1.
How does this change the fine tuning? ...it doesn't at all, whether our universe was a probable one, a necessary one or an unlikely one the fact does remain that for life as we know it to exist it has to have the valyes it does and there is a narrow range of life permitting values.

I guess I don't know what you mean by probability numbers? Could you perhaps explain what you mean by that?

Yah sorry about that, when I try to go back and insert phrases into my text the phone does this strange autocorrect of the whole paragraph and gets it all wrong. Thank you for not making a big deal out of it, I will try to do better

I'm not criticizing you at all. I just really honestly couldn't understand the paragraph that well. Like I said before, to do this on a phone is impressive auto-correct or not.

Because we are talking about probabilities and unless there are other possible universes then we are stuck necessarily with a probability of one.

One is what we have and it is not me that injects other universes but what I am showing is how the changing of parameters would do according to this one.

Based on what we know today I think I would agree. There may be an organizing principle but we don't know that yet. There may be a multiverse solution, a mega verse solution, a selfish biocosm solution and many more hypotheses but at this point we can't confirm or reject any of those models. I will still maintain that our universe is no less likely or more likely than any other though, until we have a reason to move from this default position. This speaks to the second part of PA2, that this all happened by chance vs on purpose.

No, stop that. PA2 was not about chance vs purpose. It was strictly about whether or not this universe and its life permitting parameters was considered highly unlikely to come about by chance or accidentally. All this premise is concerned with is whether this could happen by chance and it doesn't consider anything more; nothing about mega-verses or multiverses or God. Just simply the universe is highly unlikely to be life permitting and fine tuned by chance or accidentally.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What's to research. It's an obviously flawed argument.

Do you understand the argument?

Is it an ineresting thought expierment? Sure if your a phyisist or comologist.
Does it mean anything? Obsolutly not.

Well you certainly are free to have your own opinion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is the point. Things are as we find them, and who's to say it couldn't have been any other way? That we are able to measure certain data, in no way suggests whether something is improbable. It proves nothing of your god/s.

Well you have two elements here, one is the fine tuning and why the universe IS the way it is and the other why?

 

[[serious]]

You are making to assumptions:
1. That the universe had no special way to be. Perhaps, but if it were another way intelligent life would not exist here.
2. The assumption that life can just happen in any ol' universe, but besides begging the question, we know that universes are not that "easy" to make. Life permitting ones, rare.

1. Only if you assume intelligent life must be similar to us.
2. That depends really. Some models suggest universes are rare, some would suggest there are infinite universes. We currently have no way of knowing which is the case.

 

[Oncedeceived]

1. Only if you assume intelligent life must be similar to us.
2. That depends really. Some models suggest universes are rare, some would suggest there are infinite universes. We currently have no way of knowing which is the case.

Thank you for not pointing out that I said to for two Just realized that reading my quote.

1. What type would you suggest? Intelligence takes fine tuning elements in and of itself.
2. If we look at the universe we reside in, and the galaxy that we are part of it seems to be very rare.

If intelligent life existed in the universe with us, where are they? We are in a young part of the universe, it would seem most likely that intelligent life would be far more advanced and older than we are and yet...nothing.

 

[Abraxos]

Wow this is still going?

Theist: Here are the numbers and they're incredibly precise to support life
Atheist:What numbers?
Theist: *Shows numbers*
Atheist: That's not real!
Theist: *Shows scientists confirmations*
Atheist: That's not real!
Theist: Why not?
Atheist:Because it's not real!
Theist: It's scientific fact
Atheist: No it's not!
Theist: Uh yeah it is. *Shows scientists confirmations*
Atheist:NO! Who's to say no life will form out of those numbers being off?!
Theist: I suppose we could imagine, but that's not science.
Atheist: IT COULD HAPPEN! THOSE NUMBERS DON'T EXIST!!

*repeat

thread