The fine tuning of the universe.

[DogmaHunter]

So, after 71 pages people still deny the fine tuning of the universe?

No. Rather, after 71 pages, oncedeceived still argues a gigantic strawman.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not a thousand times in a row

More then a thousand people have one the lottery.

 

[AirPo]

It is what it is no matter , right ?

If you don't have a problem being wrong, then more power to you.

 

[4x4toy]

nm

 

[Oncedeceived]

So, these particular scientists don't know what they are talking about, because they have opinions that you don't agree with?

That's certainly interesting.

They have opinions that the majority of their peers don't agree with.

No, he did not.
Einstein wasn't religious at all.
Not that it matters, though.

That is simply not true. He believed in a spirit force behind the universe.

Behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force is my religion. To that extent, I am in point of fact, religious.” H.G. Kessler, The Diary of a Cosmopolitan (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971), p.322, quoted in Max Jammer, Einstein and Religion (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1999), p.40.

“I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist.” G.S. Viereck, Glimpses of the Great (Macaulay, New York 1936) p.186; Jammer, p.48.

“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.” Einstein to an unidentified addressee dated 7th August 1941. Einstein archive reel 54-927; Jammer p.97.

"There is harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, yet there are people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me to support such views." Towards the Further Shore (London Victor Gollancz 1968), p.156; Jammer, p.97.

My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit, …That superior reasoning power forms my idea of God.” Albert Einstein, The Quotable Einstein, ed. Alice Calaprice (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), pp.195-6.

Interestingly enough, the laws of the universe was a very integral aspect to Einstein's view of God.

“Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.” A. Einstein to P. Wright 24 January 1936, Einstein Archive reel 52-337; Jammer, p.93.

“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man.” Quoted in H. Dukas and B. Hoffman, Albert Einstein – The Human Side (USA Princeton University Press 1981); Jammer, p.144.

My God created laws… His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws.” Einstein in conversation with W. Hermann in Hermann’s book Einstein and the Poet (USA Branden Press, 1983), p.132; Jammer, p.123.

Now I think I am in pretty good company when I claim that the laws and fine tuning of the universe is better explained by Theism when Einstein himself, who recognized that they were not ruled by wishful thinking.

 

[DogmaHunter]

They have opinions that the majority of their peers don't agree with.

First, it doesn't matter. Because "opinions" are just that: opinions.

Having said that... atheism is a lot more common among scientists as opposed to the general population. But it's specifically more common among physicists.

Again, not that it matters.

That is simply not true. He believed in a spirit force behind the universe.

Behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force is my religion. To that extent, I am in point of fact, religious.” H.G. Kessler, The Diary of a Cosmopolitan (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971), p.322, quoted in Max Jammer, Einstein and Religion (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1999), p.40.

“I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist.” G.S. Viereck, Glimpses of the Great (Macaulay, New York 1936) p.186; Jammer, p.48.

“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.” Einstein to an unidentified addressee dated 7th August 1941. Einstein archive reel 54-927; Jammer p.97.

"There is harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, yet there are people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me to support such views." Towards the Further Shore (London Victor Gollancz 1968), p.156; Jammer, p.97.

My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit, …That superior reasoning power forms my idea of God.” Albert Einstein, The Quotable Einstein, ed. Alice Calaprice (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), pp.195-6.

Interestingly enough, the laws of the universe was a very integral aspect to Einstein's view of God.

“Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.” A. Einstein to P. Wright 24 January 1936, Einstein Archive reel 52-337; Jammer, p.93.

“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man.” Quoted in H. Dukas and B. Hoffman, Albert Einstein – The Human Side (USA Princeton University Press 1981); Jammer, p.144.

My God created laws… His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws.” Einstein in conversation with W. Hermann in Hermann’s book Einstein and the Poet (USA Branden Press, 1983), p.132; Jammer, p.123.

I'm aware of his ideas.

However, this is not "religious" as understood by common folks.
Actual "religion", as in theism, is something Einstein called ridiculous and child-like.

But once again: not that it matters....
For every Einstein-ish person who expresses a religious beliefs, there is another Einstein-ish person who expresses the opposite.

In science, "beliefs" and "opinions" are irrelevant.

Now I think I am in pretty good company when I claim that the laws and fine tuning of the universe is better explained by Theism when Einstein himself, who recognized that they were not ruled by wishful thinking.

See? This is why it is important to understand what people say.

Einstein explicitly expressed his opinion on theism. He calls it ridiculous and childish.

You feel like you are in good company because you can find a scientist that is a christian or something, but apparantly it doesn't work in the other direction... apparantly you don't consider the same when it comes to people like Hawking and Krauss.

See, how picky you are in your "evidence"?


ps: opinions and beliefs of people aren't evidence for anything, except for the fact that these people have opinions and beliefs...

 

[Oncedeceived]

My rejection of your claims is entirely based on the contents of those specific claims. It has nothing to do with whatever else you believe about anything.

What content specifically?

I just told you that a genious like Hawking doesn't agree with your fine tuning nonsense at all, and you simply dissmissed it.

Clearly you don't care about what scientists say, as long as they don't agree with your a priori beliefs. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so quick to simply reject Hawking's statements at face value.

That is because you are wrong, Hawking does believe in fine tuning. Do you mean to say that he doesn't believe that there is a fine tuner? If that is what you are referring to, then yes, Hawking doesn't believe in a fine tuner. He does believe fine tuning of the universe is real.

The papers you yourself posted, talking about "seemingly" and "apparant".
Not one paper says that there is a "tuner".

As so many people have tried to tell you.... the scientists you love to quote don't imply a tuner when they talk about fine tuning. But you do.

Yes, the majority of scientists do not believe in a fine tuner but they do however believe that it is a valid argument.

Says who? You?

If you have evidence that there is no God bring it forward.

 

[Oncedeceived]

First, it doesn't matter. Because "opinions" are just that: opinions.

Having said that... atheism is a lot more common among scientists as opposed to the general population. But it's specifically more common among physicists.

Again, not that it matters.

Yet, there are equally educated physicists that are Theists. You know what the difference is? More evidence. These Theists have evidence of God in their lives and the atheist physicists don't.

I'm aware of his ideas.

However, this is not "religious" as understood by common folks.
Actual "religion", as in theism, is something Einstein called ridiculous and child-like.

But once again: not that it matters....
For every Einstein-ish person who expresses a religious beliefs, there is another Einstein-ish person who expresses the opposite.

He himself said he was. He did believe a personal God was ridiculous and child-like but He hadn't met Him personally so He wouldn't have realized that the personal God was one in the same.

In science, "beliefs" and "opinions" are irrelevant.

That is why the fine tuning is real. Regardless of belief or opinion it is agreed upon by the majority of scientists.

See? This is why it is important to understand what people say.

Einstein explicitly expressed his opinion on theism. He calls it ridiculous and childish.

You feel like you are in good company because you can find a scientist that is a christian or something, but apparantly it doesn't work in the other direction... apparantly you don't consider the same when it comes to people like Hawking and Krauss.

See, how picky you are in your "evidence"?

I see you grasping on to Krauss and Hawking because of their worldview rather than evidence. You deny anyone that claims that fine tuning points to God. Krauss is being dismissed by his peers because the peer review that is within the scientific realm renders his theory incorrect. So it isn't me that is dismissing something due to what I believe, but what peer reviewed science is telling me. Krauss lets his personal opinions and beliefs bias his science, and it is not only me but his peers that disagree with him.

ps: opinions and beliefs of people aren't evidence for anything, except for the fact that these people have opinions and beliefs...

True, and theists have more evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What content specifically?

The content in this thread, obviously.

That is because you are wrong, Hawking does believe in fine tuning.

Clearly not in the way you are expressing it here.
This is the 7th time I'm explaining it to you.

When YOU talk about fine-tuning then you are invoking and implying a TUNER.
When physicists talk about fine-tuning in context of their jobs, they are not.

Do you mean to say that he doesn't believe that there is a fine tuner? If that is what you are referring to, then yes, Hawking doesn't believe in a fine tuner. He does believe fine tuning of the universe is real.

Meaning: he accepts that the universe is the way it is and works the way it works, at least in part because of the values that the constants have. And, by extension, changing these values would change the way the universe is and works.

And that's about it.

Yes, the majority of scientists do not believe in a fine tuner but they do however believe that it is a valid argument.

A valid argument for what?

If you have evidence that there is no God bring it forward.

I will as soon as you bring evidence that there is no undetectable pink dragon following you everywhere.

Meet your own burden of proof.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yet, there are equally educated physicists that are Theists. You know what the difference is? More evidence. These Theists have evidence of God in their lives and the atheist physicists don't.

No. Religious beliefs aren't based on evidence. They are based on faith.
How many times must it be repeated that it doesn't matter what people believe?

He himself said he was. He did believe a personal God was ridiculous and child-like but He hadn't met Him personally so He wouldn't have realized that the personal God was one in the same.

It's amazing how your defense mechanisms constantly drive you into believing whatever you wish to believe...

So, if an Einstein-ish person claims belief in god(s), you happily hold that up as "evidence" for you side of the fence. But when such people call theism childish, or simply express full-blown atheism, then there suddenly all kinds of reasons for why they aren't theists (yet) - and none of those reasons can be "because there are no gods" or "because there is no evidence for gods".

Your nitpicking is really becoming a bit embarassing.

That is why the fine tuning is real. Regardless of belief or opinion it is agreed upon by the majority of scientists.

Just not in the way you like to pretend.

I see you grasping on to Krauss and Hawking because of their worldview rather than evidence.

No. I'm using them to show that that is exactly what YOU are doing. You happily quote everyone that you THINK supports your point, but handwave away quotes by anyone that doesn't.

I'm not the one who is trying to make an argument from authority here.....

I'm merely holding them up as examples to counter your (strawmanning) arguments from authority. And you're handwaving it away. Just like I expected.


For the record, I have included every time that beliefs and opinions are irrelevant, no matter who's opinions and beliefs they are. Hawking, Dawkins, Shroeder, Einstein, Captain Kirk.... it's irrelevant.

Verifiable evidence is what matters.
Their scientific work is what matters. Not their non-scientific, unverifiable opinions or beliefs.

You deny anyone that claims that fine tuning points to God.

Obviously.

Krauss is being dismissed by his peers because the peer review that is within the scientific realm renders his theory incorrect.

His theory, being the theory of how a universe could come about through quantum fluctations etc. So? How is his particular hypothesis (one of MANY) relevant to this discussion?

So it isn't me that is dismissing something due to what I believe, but what peer reviewed science is telling me.

Funny. You think Krauss' work is about "god didn't do it"?
That is so cute. And sad.

True, and theists have more evidence.

Of what?

 

[KCfromNC]

I've supplied numerous examples of scientists who claim it is highly unlikely and improbable that the universe is as it is due to chance or by accident.

Despite that you still can't manage to come up with a consensus number for how unlikely it is. People having feelings isn't science, even when the people having them are scientists.

And not to burst your bubble, but a half dozen quote-mined examples isn't numerous.

 

[KCfromNC]

2.2. Parameter choices 2.2.1. Base parameters The first section of Table 1 lists our base parameters that have flat priors when they are varied, along with their default values in the baseline model. When parameters are varied, unless otherwise stated, prior ranges are chosen to be much larger than the posterior, and hence do not affect the results of parameter estimation. In addition to these priors, we impose a “hard” prior on the Hubble constant of [20, 100] km s−1 Mpc−1 . 2.2.2. Derived parameters Matter-radiation equality zeq is defined as the redshift at which ργ + ρν = ρc + ρb (where ρν approximates massive neutrinos as massless). The redshift of last-scattering, z∗, is defined so that the optical depth to Thomson scattering from z = 0 (conformal time η = η0) to z = z∗ is unity, assuming no reionization. The optical depth is given by τ(η) ≡ Z η η0 τ˙ dη 0 , (5) where ˙τ = −aneσT (and ne is the density of free electrons and σT is the Thomson cross section). We define the angular scale of the sound horizon at last-scattering, θ∗ = rs(z∗)/DA(z∗), where rs is the sound horizon rs(z) = Z η(z) 0 dη 0 √ 3(1 + R) , (6) with R ≡ 3ρb/(4ργ). Baryon velocities decouple from the photon dipole when Compton drag balances the gravitational force, which happens at τd ∼ 1, where (Hu & Sugiyama 1996) τd(η) ≡ Z η η0 τ˙ dη 0 /R. (7) Here, again, τ is from recombination only, without reionization contributions. We define a drag redshift zdrag, so that τd(η(zdrag)) = 1. The sound horizon at the drag epoch is an important scale that is often used in studies of baryon acoustic oscillations; we denote this as rdrag = rs(zdrag). We compute zdrag and rdrag numerically from camb (see Sect. 5.2 for details of application to BAO data).

Can you explain in your own words how you think this answers the question? I wasn't asking anything about the uncertainty in the values of various constants here in our universe and yet you seem to somehow think that's relevant. Go ahead, tell us how error bars in measurements of our universe have anything to do with telling us that they could be different in other hypothetical ones - and how they use them to conclude how unlikely our particular universe is.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The content in this thread, obviously.

The content has been the fine tuning of the universe.

Clearly not in the way you are expressing it here.
This is the 7th time I'm explaining it to you.

When YOU talk about fine-tuning then you are invoking and implying a TUNER.
When physicists talk about fine-tuning in context of their jobs, they are not.

No, when I am talking about fine tuning I am talking about the phenomena of fine tuning. Fine tuning is the phenomena of the fundamental constants being set so precisely that the universe exists and intelligent life is permitted. My explanation is a fine tuner. You really need to understand the difference between evidence and conclusions.

Meaning: he accepts that the universe is the way it is and works the way it works, at least in part because of the values that the constants have. And, by extension, changing these values would change the way the universe is and works.

And that's about it.

It isn't only that the universe would be different there are many factors that would eliminate any universe at all and life would not be able to exist.

A valid argument for what?

A fine tuner.

I will as soon as you bring evidence that there is no undetectable pink dragon following you everywhere.

Meet your own burden of proof.

Did you remember what this was in regard to? You were making the statement that I was unaware of evidence I presume that they have to eliminate a fine tuner?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No. Religious beliefs aren't based on evidence. They are based on faith.
How many times must it be repeated that it doesn't matter what people believe?

And you are wrong. We have evidence of God. We have evidence of a fine tuner which is the fine tuned fundamental constants. That is the whole point to this thread.

It's amazing how your defense mechanisms constantly drive you into believing whatever you wish to believe...

Ok there is physical evidence that has the appearance of design. What does appearance of design mean? It means that the way the universe is set up so precisely as to what it needs to be to exist itself and for life to exist in it and there are so many of them that it seems to be designed in the way we recognize design in intelligent forms. Now this is not wishful thinking this is fact. Now one can put it off and claim the appearance of design is an illusion or it is actual design, but it takes more wishing to believe I feel for the atheist to claim illusion than the for the theist to acknowledge design.

So, if an Einstein-ish person claims belief in god(s), you happily hold that up as "evidence" for you side of the fence. But when such people call theism childish, or simply express full-blown atheism, then there suddenly all kinds of reasons for why they aren't theists (yet) - and none of those reasons can be "because there are no gods" or "because there is no evidence for gods".

Your nitpicking is really becoming a bit embarassing.

I can see your point, but coming from a person who has no evidence in his life for God that would explain it. Einstein felt that the fine tuning was evidence of intelligence. Period. Now if he felt the Biblical God was ridiculous or childish has no bearing on the evidence. The evidence is the fine tuning which even he concluded came from an intelligent spirit or mind.

Just not in the way you like to pretend.

Again, you are confusing evidence and conclusions.

No. I'm using them to show that that is exactly what YOU are doing. You happily quote everyone that you THINK supports your point, but handwave away quotes by anyone that doesn't.

That simply is not true. I quote atheists, Christians, Deists, agnostics, secular unbelievers who supports fine tuning as a real phenomena. They support that the evidence is real. That you don't like my conclusions on what that evidence supports is your problem. Please understand the difference between evidence (which is supported by the quotes I have provided) and conclusions.

I'm not the one who is trying to make an argument from authority here.....

I'm merely holding them up as examples to counter your (strawmanning) arguments from authority. And you're handwaving it away. Just like I expected.

You are using someone who is discounted by his peers. That is the difference, not that he is countering "my" argument but he is countering known science and is being critiqued for it.

For the record, I have included every time that beliefs and opinions are irrelevant, no matter who's opinions and beliefs they are. Hawking, Dawkins, Shroeder, Einstein, Captain Kirk.... it's irrelevant.

Verifiable evidence is what matters.
Their scientific work is what matters. Not their non-scientific, unverifiable opinions or beliefs.

What you don't understand is that the fine tuning is the scientific verifiable evidence. Conclusions are what one concludes from that evidence. Much of that is determined by worldview.

Obviously.

So you deny any evidence for a fine tuner then out of hand. You are not using reason but your biases to decide.

His theory, being the theory of how a universe could come about through quantum fluctations etc. So? How is his particular hypothesis (one of MANY) relevant to this discussion?

You are the one that brought him in, did you forget why?

Funny. You think Krauss' work is about "god didn't do it"?
That is so cute. And sad.

Have you read his material? He voices that belief in his science.

Of what?

A fine tuner.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Despite that you still can't manage to come up with a consensus number for how unlikely it is. People having feelings isn't science, even when the people having them are scientists.

And not to burst your bubble, but a half dozen quote-mined examples isn't numerous.

Why do numbers matter? You wouldn't believe them anyway.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Can you explain in your own words how you think this answers the question? I wasn't asking anything about the uncertainty in the values of various constants here in our universe and yet you seem to somehow think that's relevant. Go ahead, tell us how error bars in measurements of our universe have anything to do with telling us that they could be different in other hypothetical ones - and how they use them to conclude how unlikely our particular universe is.

This paper is discussing Cosmic microwave background and how the fundamental constants are being used in a scientific way determined by their values to a very precise level using planck data. I thought there was some problem understanding how these constants values were determined and how they could be tweaked. I was wishing to show that these are very important elements in how we do science, and what different questions are studied in relationship to them.

 

[AirPo]

You really need to understand the difference between evidence and conclusions.

Since ther is no evidence for your conclusions, you might what to take your own advice.

 

[AirPo]

Why do numbers matter? You wouldn't believe them anyway.

Actually, that the beauty of numbers, there is a right and wrong answer. It's not up to belief.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I agree up to this part
The reason we were talking about other forms of life and other possible universes was because the idea of how probable or improbable our universe might be was introduced. I see that you didn't include that here though so we can ignore all that for now.
The first challenge I would offer is about the word "for". It is one thing to say that the valuse in the universe allow life to exist, and a very different thing to say that they exist for life to arise. Now we all speak in this kind of loose language all the time so maybe that is not what you meant but in any case I don't think the evidence supports the idea that the values have the specific purpose of bringing about life. Here is a reduction ad absurdum to make the point. The existence of pasta requires a more finely tuned universe than life does. Not only must the values and constants be right to bring about life generally, they must be further precise so that the life that exists will evolve the desire to eat pasta and the technological competence to make pasta, therfore the universe is fine tuned for the existence not of life but of pasta.

The second quibble I have is your use of "intelligent life " What evidence do we have that the values allow for intelligent life vs life in general?

For the first challenge: how would you determine whether the universe allows life to exist or that the universe exists for life to exist?

The second challenge: There are different requirements for different life forms even on earth. Some forms are unicellular that have a low metabolism and only exist for a brief period of time and they have their own requirements. Then there unicellular, low metabolism life that exists for a longer period of time. There are too the unicellular life forms that have a high metabolism which still only last a brief time and then some that last a longer period of time. There are requirements for advanced life that only survives a brief time and advanced life that exists and survives a long period of time.

Obviously those less advanced forms still take a great deal of required elements to be just so, but for advanced life like us, those requirements are more specific.

For instance we talked about those constants that are required for chemistry to exist, for stars to exist and such as that which all life requires here on earth; but for advanced life there are more than just the specific ones for all life. Advanced life is timed just right to exist in relation to the sun. If the sun wasn't where it was in its cycle intelligent life could not have evolved. If the ratio in the atmosphere of oxygen to nitrogen was not what it is advanced life functions would proceed to quickly if larger and too slowly if smaller. The oxygen in the atmosphere if greater plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily and if less advanced life would have too little to breath. There are numerous elements and factors like these that are required for advanced life that if different only simple life forms would be here.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Since ther is no evidence for your conclusions, you might what to take your own advice.

The evidence is fine tuning.