The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

Worse than that, she admitted she hadn't read the paper after i found a link that included a section of the conclusion that explicitly refuted Once's argument. http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe.7948420/page-49#post-69733677

I admitted it because I hadn't read it. It also didn't refute what I was saying.

 

[[serious]]

From your link:

During the past several decades, physics has uncovered basic features of the cosmos that seem, upon first glance, like lucky accidents. Theories now suggest that the most general structural elements of the universe — the stars and planets, and the galaxies that contain them — are the products of finely calibrated laws and conditions that seem too good to be true. What if our most fundamental questions, our late-at-night-wonderings about why we are here, have no more satisfying answer than an exasperated shrug and a meekly muttered ‘Things just seem to have turned out that way’?

That is not slamming fine tuning that is admitting it.

Also from the link:
If the origin of the inflaton field is unknown, how can one judge whether its form is somehow ‘unusual’ and ‘fine-tuned’ rather than ‘completely unsurprising’? As we have seen, the phenomena themselves do not wear such a designation on their sleeves. What is merely due to coincidence under one physical theory becomes the typical case under another and, where the physics itself is unclear, judgments about how ‘likely’ or ‘unlikely’ a phenomenon is become unclear as well. This problem gets even worse when you consider certain ‘constants of nature’.

 

[[serious]]

I admitted it because I hadn't read it. It also didn't refute what I was saying.

Have you now gone back and read it?

 

[bhsmte]

Worse than that, she admitted she hadn't read the paper after i found a link that included a section of the conclusion that explicitly refuted Once's argument. http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe.7948420/page-49#post-69733677

And, this should surprise no one.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Also from the link:
If the origin of the inflaton field is unknown, how can one judge whether its form is somehow ‘unusual’ and ‘fine-tuned’ rather than ‘completely unsurprising’? As we have seen, the phenomena themselves do not wear such a designation on their sleeves. What is merely due to coincidence under one physical theory becomes the typical case under another and, where the physics itself is unclear, judgments about how ‘likely’ or ‘unlikely’ a phenomenon is become unclear as well. This problem gets even worse when you consider certain ‘constants of nature’.

So? Your point?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Have you now gone back and read it?

Nope.

 

[Athée]

Gottcha.

In my feed this shows as your response to my previous comment. Obviously it is missing the context so I can't tell if you are saying " gotcha, I understand your life as we know it objection and concede that it doe's lessen the force of the fine tuning argument" Or if you meant gotcha! Followed by an evil cackle or something
?

 

[Oncedeceived]

In my feed this shows as your response to my previous comment. Obviously it is missing the context so I can't tell if you are saying " gotcha, I understand your life as we know it objection and concede that it doe's lessen the force of the fine tuning argument" Or if you meant gotcha! Followed by an evil cackle or something
?

Just communicating that I knew where you were coming from.

 

[Athée]

Just communicating that I knew where you were coming from.

That's what I figured

 

[[serious]]

Nope.

Yet you are confident that it didn't refute what you were saying?

 

[KCfromNC]

From that paper, which I had already said I had not read.

Then you're in no position to question my interpretation of the contents of it, are you?

 

[KCfromNC]

I gave you a link of all the scientists that agree with it.

Agree with what? Not that it matters - if your list of a dozen or so people is "all the scientists that agree with it" you're way off base claiming a scientific consensus.

And what does any of this have to do with the fact you tried to sneak a neuroscientist in as a supposed expert on how universes form? I can see you're having trouble finding more than a handful of scientists to quote-mine from, but that was a pretty obvious bit of spin. And what are we going to find if we dig further into these quotes? What other tricks are hiding in there?

 

[KCfromNC]

Nope.

Despite not reading the paper you're confident it doesn't contain anything which might hurt your argument? Interesting.

 

[KCfromNC]

From that paper, which I had already said I had not read.

Then you probably should leave the discussion to people who have.

The basic features of galaxies, stars, planets and the everyday world are essentially determined by a few microphysical constants and by the effects of gravitation. Many interrelations between different scales that at first sight seem surprising are straightforward consequences of simple physical arguments. But several aspects of our Universe—some of which seem to be prerequisites for the evolution of any form of life—depend rather delicately on apparent ‘coincidences’ among the physical constants.

None of that contradicts what I've said. The middle sentence is explicitly agreeing with my interpretation and the last sentence is talking about apparent coincidences, with coincidences in quotes, which should tell an observant reader that there's more to the story. Of course, to have a chance at being an observant reader you'd have to have read the paper in the first place...

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am not the one drawing the conclusions. In fact:

https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S33/52/89I01/index.xml?section=science

I don't see how that article is related to the point at hand.
I invite you to explain it, instead of leaving me guessing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In a naturalistic world, do you?

I don't pretend to have the required knowledge to be able to answer that question with "yes" or "no".

 

[KCfromNC]

So? Your point?

The point is that even your own references say that your claims about the unlikelihood of our universe developing as it has are unfounded.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So far I am the only one providing support for their claims.

No. You're taking quotes and making claims about it yourself.

It is very obvious to people unhindered by blind confirmation bias.

Projection.

This is nonsensical.

How is that nonsensical? For crying out loud, it's even one of your premises.....
That the universe is the way it is, because the constants have the values that they have. Change the constants = change the universe.
Right? How is that nonsensical?

And the universe might not exist nor life. Right.

Yes, you successfully repeated what I said.

That is the simplistic shadow of the argument.

No, it's what the quotes mean. They don't mean what you pretend they mean.

Yes...so?

so..... that completely destroys your conclusion. Because for your conclusion to be supported by evidence, we need such a model. But we don't have such a model at this time.

What explanatory power does it neglect?

All of it. It explains nothing. It only asserts stuff.
"god-dun-it" has the same explanatory power as "the magical undetectable dragon dun it".

It's not usefull, it doesn't make predictions, it's not testable, it doesn't teach us anything about anything.

As a model of reality, it is entirely useless.

Models that are not verifiable, don't make predictions, aren't falsifiable are infinite in number and they explain exactly nothing.

What explanation?

Funny question to ask in response to my prediction that you will ignore my explanation and pretend it was never given.

That is simply false. the conclusions are supported and that is the point.

There is exactly zero data that any entity turned knobs to "fine tune" this universe for the purpose of bringing forward life. Let alone any data that identifies this unsupported entity as being the god of the religion you happen to be following.

The only thing supported by science is that there are physical constants that have a certain value. And that's it. You don't know why those values and not some other values. You don't know if they can even have any other value.
If they can, you don't know what the probabilities of the range distribution is.
You don't know if there is just this universe or several dozen or an infinite number.

Nothing about your conclusions is supported by the data.

There are few scientists that claim design is not a valid explanation even while they don't agree it is the explanation.

I don't care what scientists believe

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yet you are confident that it didn't refute what you were saying?

Yes, I've read enough from both authors to know what they would be saying in the article. They may not have fleshed out there views as fully since it was an earlier paper but the main focus would be the same.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then you're in no position to question my interpretation of the contents of it, are you?

I am. I've read numerous papers from both authors and I know where they stand on fine tuning.