The fine tuning of the universe.

[Justatruthseeker]

Hey man you are singing to the choir.

Then why the previous post stating there must be infinite universes? Or did you mean an infinite universe?

 

[Picky Picky]

I'm not sure what you mean. If it can "exist" we know that it couldn't exist at all if certain elements were not precisely the way they are. So I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with?

Then I'll retrace. You say it would require trillions of trillions of universes to make it possible for our universe to exist. (Leaving aside the fact that that statement is logically nonsense) how do you know that there are not trillions of trillions of universes, and that the existence of our universe is not therefore simply a logical likelihood?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Then I'll retrace. You say it would require trillions of trillions of universes to make it possible for our universe to exist. (Leaving aside the fact that that statement is logically nonsense) how do you know that there are not trillions of trillions of universes, and that the existence of our universe is not therefore simply a logical likelihood?

What reason is there to believe there is more than one, besides perhaps wishful thinking?

 

[AirPo]

Let me see if I can clear this up once and for all. Fine Tuning is not a term made up by the theists.

No it's not.

It is a term created by scientists, a label they created for the phenomena they observe.

Then co opted by creationists.

My idea of fine tuning is not any different than any of the scientists that have provided the data about it. Fine tuning is the phenomena, the facts that we know about the universe.

Sure it is.

They themselves believe there is no reason to believe that the fine tuned constants could not be something different. This is not something I or any other theist "made up". Ok?

Yes it is.

Fine tuning is a scientific term for a real phenomena.

No it's not.

Now there are explanations that scientist, theists and the unreligious have to explain said phenomena. Evidence vs. Explanation. Do we have it straight now?

I've had it straight sinice my first post.

 

[Athée]

Alright then.

Previous tactics of others merits the sad face. Sorry I jumped to conclusions. So yes, when we say Intelligent Designer we are implying conscious sentient Being with intelligence such as ours but of course much more intelligent than we are.

OK so where to next?

 

[AirPo]

Except I have every reason to assume they can be and are. We call them laws of physics because they hold true every single time we check them. So which is it, are the laws of physics not valid or so fine tuned we can count on them every day? You can't have it both ways, regardless of how much you might wish it to be so.

Not real reasons. Nothing it this post supports the assumption the those laws can be changed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then why the previous post stating there must be infinite universes? Or did you mean an infinite universe?

Sorry?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No it's not.

Then co opted by creationists.

Sure it is.

Yes it is.

No it's not.


I've had it straight sinice my first post.

I give up.

 

[bhsmte]

OK so where to next?

I think we all know.

 

[Oncedeceived]

OK so where to next?

Lets see here:
1. You agree that fine tuning is a real phenomena.
2. You agree that chance is not a factor unless one adds the multiverse/mega verse.
3. You agree that there is no known law of nature that explains the fine tuning phenomena.
4. You hold a default position.
Are these correct?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think we all know.

bhsmte could you please just stop. Please. Take your snide remarks somewhere else.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then I'll retrace. You say it would require trillions of trillions of universes to make it possible for our universe to exist. (Leaving aside the fact that that statement is logically nonsense) how do you know that there are not trillions of trillions of universes, and that the existence of our universe is not therefore simply a logical likelihood?

There is no evidence that shows that.

 

[Athée]

1. You agree that fine tuning is a real phenomena.

With the caveat of the "life as we know it objection "

2. You agree that chance is not a factor unless one adds the multiverse/mega verse.

Yes, or some yet to be considered hypothesis that similarly makes the probability likely.

You agree that there is no known law of nature that explains the fine tuning phenomena.

Agreed

You hold a default position

Agreed

 

[AirPo]

I give up.

It's one thing to be stubborn when you're right, it another when you're wrong. The many probelms of fine tuning have been pointed out again and again. But I do agree, giving up on fine tuning is a good idea.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's one thing to be stubborn when you're right, it another when you're wrong. The many probelms of fine tuning have been pointed out again and again. But I do agree, giving up on fine tuning is a good idea.

I'm sorry but you really just are so confusing.

 

[Oncedeceived]

With the caveat of the "life as we know it objection "

Yes, or some yet to be considered hypothesis that similarly makes the probability likely.


Agreed


Agreed

Life as we know it objection? Explain what you mean exactly. Thanks.

 

[Athée]

Life as we know it objection? Explain what you mean exactly. Thanks.

Sure. When you say that fine tuning is a real thing it assumes life as we know it. We don't know what conditions are required for life generally and so it could be the case that a different universe would be life permitting to a different form of life. It takes away some of the force of the fine tuning argument because it opens the door to the possibility that any universe could be life permitting...we just don't know.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sure. When you say that fine tuning is a real thing it assumes life as we know it. We don't know what conditions are required for life generally and so it could be the case that a different universe would be life permitting to a different form of life. It takes away some of the force of the fine tuning argument because it opens the door to the possibility that any universe could be life permitting...we just don't know.

So you are going to argue that other universes explain fine tuning then?

 

[Athée]

So you are going to argue that other universes explain fine tuning then?

I think models that include other universes can account for the fine tuning in our own yes. But what I am getting st with the life as we know it objecton is a bit different. When you say our universe exibits fine tuning what do you mean, fine tuned for what? I presume you mean for intelligent life. The issue is that we don't know what conditions are required for life generally. We do know what life as we know it requires but not life generally. It is possible that any universe that exists would also allow for life, just that the life would be different from the life as we know it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sure. When you say that fine tuning is a real thing it assumes life as we know it. We don't know what conditions are required for life generally and so it could be the case that a different universe would be life permitting to a different form of life. It takes away some of the force of the fine tuning argument because it opens the door to the possibility that any universe could be life permitting...we just don't know.

We should start here maybe then:

We touched on this earlier and you seemed to agree that we by tweaking the constants CAN actually determine if life of any kind could exist. For instance I gave you the nuclear force example. Here are a few more from Luke Barnes which if you will remember is the physicist I provided for your review.

“There are changes we can make to the laws of nature that result in a universe so simple, so barren, that by any definition of life, this isn’t it. The cosmological constant is a good example: we have a 120 orders of magnitude to play with, but after even 10 or 20, the universe contains nothing but an expanding hydrogen soup. Such a universe is very easy to predict – the universe never leaves the “linear regime”. We can solve the equations of cosmological structure formation. Compared to calculating the behaviour of our universe, this one is a doddle.

“If the strong force were weaker, the periodic table would consist of only hydrogen. We do not need a rigorous definition of life to reasonably conclude that a universe with one chemical reaction (2H → H2) would not be able to create and sustain the complexity necessary for life.”)

Life requires order and a multitude of hypothetical arrangements do not allow for life of any kind due to a complete lack of order. That is why most scientists agree that other life forms would be exceedingly rare if any existed at all.

Edited to add: Not only is it fine tuned for intelligent life but also fine tuned to exist at all.