The fine tuning of the universe.

[AirPo]

I am saying that there is no known physical law or restraint that would prohibit them from being something other than what they are.

That's nice, but that doesn't answere the question. It's actually a really easy yes or no question.

Also, there is no known physical law that says they can be changed. That said, I'm saying that it has to be assumed that the parameters can be changed for the fine tuning argument to work. So I'll ask again, do you conceed the point that it must be assumed that the parameters can be changed?

 

[[serious]]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647v2.pdf

77 pages for a book review?

One thing I pull out of the abstract is the following though: "I do not attempt to defend any conclusion based on the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life."

I notice under the tuning for inflation segment, he says that models indicate that the inflationary period may explain why the universe if roughly flat.

I'll read more later. If there's anything particularly noteworthy you'd like me to address, let me know.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's nice, but that doesn't answere the question. It's actually a really easy yes or no question.

Also, there is no known physical law that says they can be changed. That said, I'm saying that it has to be assumed that the parameters can be changed for the fine tuning argument to work. So I'll ask again, do you conceed the point that it must be assumed that the parameters can be changed?

No. Based on evidence we do have there is nothing that necessitates them being as they are.

 

[Oncedeceived]

77 pages for a book review?

One thing I pull out of the abstract is the following though: "I do not attempt to defend any conclusion based on the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life."

I notice under the tuning for inflation segment, he says that models indicate that the inflationary period may explain why the universe if roughly flat.

I'll read more later. If there's anything particularly noteworthy you'd like me to address, let me know.

Great let me know what you think.

 

[Davian]

So are you granting these as well?

Yahweh claims (granting his existence)that He created the universe for intelligent beings He wished to create who could comprehend the "heavens" declare His glory. If Yahweh exists the universe should appear designed and we should be able to recognize that design. Thoughts?

By what testable criteria do you determine "design"?

 

[Davian]

If you are asking how I come personally to that conclusion, it quite simple. The God of the Bible exists, He says HE created the universe and everything in it. He is the law giver of the laws of the universe. The appearance of design is confirmation of a designed universe.

No, the perception of design is only confirmation of the perception of design. I don't see this "design" that you allude to.

If you are talking about how I relate that to others, then we have to show the explanation under theism is more probable than an atheistic one.

Theism, by the mutually exclusive nature of religions, is going to be virtually all wrong, if not all wrong.

The "atheistic" position is not a truth claim, and even if it were, you are presenting a fallacious false dichotomy; your worldview does in no way become 'more accurate' even if someone else's is shown to be faulty (and you failed at that).

 

[[serious]]

What "fine tuning"???? 96% of cosmology is Fairie Dust and can't be seen, detected in any laboratory or reproduced in any experiment. If you call ad-hoc theory "fine tuning", which wouldn't even be required if they used plasma physics in a universe 99% plasma, I'm not sure there is any hope for the future of cosmology.

Ok, you win. It's all fine tuned to plasma. Can we get back to the topic at hand now?

 

[KCfromNC]

I've been gone for the weekend. Has anyone seen an answer to my request for any actual numbers to plug into Bayes' Theorem to show how unlikely it is that out universe exists? I'd have figured for an idea which obviously has huge widespread support from the scientific community it would be straightforward to just quote some numbers on exactly how unlikely our universe is.

 

[[serious]]

Great let me know what you think.

Obviously this will take a while, but next point:

4.5 seems to be saying that the amplitude of primordial fluctuations is only "tuned" to an order of magnitude. That doesn't seem to fine.

You may be more familiar with the paper, which values does he say are actually finely tuned?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ok, you win. It's all fine tuned to plasma. Can we get back to the topic at hand now?

We never left the topic. Since the universe is 99% plasma, would not plasma physics be important in a discussion about cosmology?????

 

[[serious]]

We never left the topic. Since the universe is 99% plasma, would not plasma physics be important in a discussion about cosmology?????

Yup, absolutely. It's all electricity and magnets. Now back the the cosmological constant...

Seriously though, every thread even tangentially related to cosmology you come in with this pet theory. This thread is not about EU stuff. Unless you want to make a case for or against fine tuning, could you please just leave it alone?

 

[Picky Picky]

This question was answered by Paul Davies who claimed it would take trillions and trillions of universes to get just one like ours.

And how many universes are there?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yup, absolutely. It's all electricity and magnets. Now back the the cosmological constant...

Seriously though, every thread even tangentially related to cosmology you come in with this pet theory. This thread is not about EU stuff. Unless you want to make a case for or against fine tuning, could you please just leave it alone?

You mean the same cosmological constant they now want to impose that they declared was the biggest mistake of Einstein's career?

Hawking states "that the addition of a cosmological constant L is: ". . . the biggest mistake of his (Einstein's) life.""

S. W. Hawking, "A brief History of Time", Bantam Books, p. 151, 127, 128, 129. 1988.

Then goes on to say: "In order to find a model of the universe in which many different initial configurations could have evolved to something like the present universe, a scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Alan Guth, suggested that the early universe might have gone through a period of very rapid expansion. This expansion is said to be inflationary."

Hawking goes on writing that the inflationary model requires special extra energy and writes:
"This special extra energy can be shown to have an antigravitational effect: it would have acted just like the cosmological constant that Einstein introduced into general gravity when he was trying to construct a static model of the universe".

Hawking then discusses that force, and writes: ". . . the repulsion of (matter due to) the effective cosmological constant". This clearly shows that a repulsive force, acting just like the cosmological constant L, is absolutely necessary in the Big Bang model.

So am I to understand that what was the biggest blunder of Einstein's life - is now to be accepted as necessary, but is not a blunder because it is needed to "fine tune" their beliefs?????? So yes, let's discuss this cosmological constant which apparently was the biggest mistake of E's life, but is now reinserted but is no longer a mistake at all. As long as we apply it only to expansion theory of course......

But then if you used the correct physics for the correct states of matter - none of that Fairie Dust would be needed. But since you don't want to discuss plasma in a universe 99% plasma, I guess we are stuck with Fairie Dust and the biggest blunder of all time. Ooops, I guess it's no longer a blunder, but then does that mean E's initial use of it is no longer a blunder too?

So let's see if we got this straight. The cosmological constant was a blunder because it didn't allow for expansion, but now to get expansion they need a cosmological constant. And this is what you call "fine tuning"? I would certainly call it something, but it's not reproducible here on this forum....

 

[AirPo]

No. Based on evidence we do have there is nothing that necessitates them being as they are.

But there is no evidence that supporting the assertion that they can be changed. So you have to assume they can be. The only way around that is to actually show they can be change. Until that happens, it's just an assumption.

 

[bhsmte]

But there is no evidence that supporting the assertion that they can be changed. So you have to assume they can be. The only way around that is to actually show they can be change. Until that happens, it's just an assumption.

Some, really, really need to assume.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And how many universes are there?

Evidence says one.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But there is no evidence that supporting the assertion that they can be changed. So you have to assume they can be. The only way around that is to actually show they can be change. Until that happens, it's just an assumption.

Until there is a reason to show they can't be changed we have no reason to assume they can't be.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You mean the same cosmological constant they now want to impose that they declared was the biggest mistake of Einstein's career?

Hawking states "that the addition of a cosmological constant L is: ". . . the biggest mistake of his (Einstein's) life.""

S. W. Hawking, "A brief History of Time", Bantam Books, p. 151, 127, 128, 129. 1988.

Then goes on to say: "In order to find a model of the universe in which many different initial configurations could have evolved to something like the present universe, a scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Alan Guth, suggested that the early universe might have gone through a period of very rapid expansion. This expansion is said to be inflationary."

Hawking goes on writing that the inflationary model requires special extra energy and writes:
"This special extra energy can be shown to have an antigravitational effect: it would have acted just like the cosmological constant that Einstein introduced into general gravity when he was trying to construct a static model of the universe".

Hawking then discusses that force, and writes: ". . . the repulsion of (matter due to) the effective cosmological constant". This clearly shows that a repulsive force, acting just like the cosmological constant L, is absolutely necessary in the Big Bang model.

So am I to understand that what was the biggest blunder of Einstein's life - is now to be accepted as necessary, but is not a blunder because it is needed to "fine tune" their beliefs?????? So yes, let's discuss this cosmological constant which apparently was the biggest mistake of E's life, but is now reinserted but is no longer a mistake at all. As long as we apply it only to expansion theory of course......

But then if you used the correct physics for the correct states of matter - none of that Fairie Dust would be needed. But since you don't want to discuss plasma in a universe 99% plasma, I guess we are stuck with Fairie Dust and the biggest blunder of all time. Ooops, I guess it's no longer a blunder, but then does that mean E's initial use of it is no longer a blunder too?

So let's see if we got this straight. The cosmological constant was a blunder because it didn't allow for expansion, but now to get expansion they need a cosmological constant. And this is what you call "fine tuning"? I would certainly call it something, but it's not reproducible here on this forum....

Ok, so you don't believe the universe is fine tuned but those who actually know the universe is 99% plasma still believe it is fine tuned. Why do you suppose they do?

 

[Picky Picky]

Evidence says one.

Now that's not quite true, is it? What scientific techniques could one employ to determine that there are no others? The truth is that evidence says there is at least one.

 

[Athée]

I believe I stated in the beginning that this thread was not to prove God exists or prove the identity of the Intelligent Designer. I don't mind if you don't accept the Bible as reliable, in fact, you don't have to "believe" it at all. I might use it to determine certain points of reference to the design argument I will be using but obviously I am a Christian and that will be my view.

This is actually fairly important. Of you are arguing for some undefined creative force and giving it the label "God" then we have a very different set of premeses than if you are arguing that the specific deity Yaweh did it. Which one did you want to go with?

Our reasoning should be that there are differing hypotheses that are put forth to explain the fine tuning of the universe. H1, H2 ...O is the observation which is counted as evidence in favor of H1 or H2 and which is more probable under that hypothesis. For instance if you want to claim that the fine tuning is more probable with an atheistic single-universe or atheistic multi-verse or mega verse which you choose as most probable would be H2. H1 would be the universe is more probable with theism.

I think you are saying we look at the data and compare the explanatory models. Is that right?

Premise 1. The existence of the fine-tuning is not improbable under theism.

If you are arguing for a undefined creative force then we would have no reason to expect it to grate a universe of any kind so we can't say that fine tuning is probable or improbable. If you are arguing specifically for Yaweh then you are assuming that what the Bible says about his existence and his intent to create is correct and that has yet to be demonstrated.

Premise 2. The existence of the fine-tuning is very improbable under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis or which ever you choose.

This is just plain false. Under the multiverse hypothesis or the mega verse hypothesis, the fine tubing we observe has a probability approaching 1.0 and this doesn't even take into account future possible models.