The fine tuning of the universe.

[quatona]

How do you differentiate between they are fine tuned and they have been fine tuned?

I (and Athee - better than I did) explained the difference in the meanings. Which part did you not understand?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I (and Athee - better than I did) explained the difference in the meanings. Which part did you not understand?

I know the differences between what you are providing, how do you differentiate between the two?

 

[Athée]

Just because there is only one universe doesn't mean that it could be easily life permitting. There are nearly 30 fundamental constants that permit complex life and most are independent and many are necessary to be precisely what they are to work with others.

Just a slight correction because this often ends up getting picked on later. ..I think you meant that allows "a complex form of life" but that is just a semantic clarification.

I see that I was not clear enough in my analogy. What I was trying to say was that if we imagine the ace of spades represents the 30 constants we have here and each other card represents a different set of constant, if we shuffle those cards up it will take some active intervention to get the clack of spades to the top. This would be analogous to the second sense of fine tuning I mentioned. Conversely if the deck only has a single card, only the ace of spades it takes no fine tuning in the second sense at all to arrive at that selection.
Any clearer?

 

[KCfromNC]

How does that eliminate the fine tuning in this one? You have no evidence that they could or couldn't be different we have only the evidence of fine tuning in this universe.

So basically it is somewhere between wildly unlikely and a dead certainty that the universal constants would be compatible with life as we know it. And no matter what range along that continuum, it is certainly evidence for gods. And definitely not an argument from ignorance in any way.

Uh huh. Sure it is.

When you come to the same conclusion no matter what the facts might be, is it really the facts leading to a that conclusion?

 

[KCfromNC]

The fact that they are what they are and can't be different does not eliminate the fine tuning

But it sure does eliminate a vital step of the fine tuning argument for god.

 

[KCfromNC]

I know the differences between what you are providing, how do you differentiate between the two?

No one knows.

But the important thing to remember is that the fine tuning argument for god is in no way whatsoever an argument from ignorance. I have it on very good authority from very respected scientifical researchingers that it isn't.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Just a slight correction because this often ends up getting picked on later. ..I think you meant that allows "a complex form of life" but that is just a semantic clarification.

No, complex life takes more for a universe to provide; there is nothing semantic about it.

I see that I was not clear enough in my analogy. What I was trying to say was that if we imagine the ace of spades represents the 30 constants we have here and each other card represents a different set of constant, if we shuffle those cards up it will take some active intervention to get the clack of spades to the top. This would be analogous to the second sense of fine tuning I mentioned. Conversely if the deck only has a single card, only the ace of spades it takes no fine tuning in the second sense at all to arrive at that selection.
Any clearer?[/QUOTE]I totally understand your point, I just disagree with it. If a deck (universe) has only a single card (30 constants), it would still need to be fine tuned to allow for complex life. It would just mean that the universe was specifically fine tuned to permit complex life and could do nothing but permit complex life. It would even make a better argument for God as it would show that not only did God create the universe it was specifically created for us to arise and no other group of constants were used because of that purpose. That is why the multiverse is being promoted.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So basically it is somewhere between wildly unlikely and a dead certainty that the universal constants would be compatible with life as we know it. And no matter what range along that continuum, it is certainly evidence for gods. And definitely not an argument from ignorance in any way.

Uh huh. Sure it is.

When you come to the same conclusion no matter what the facts might be, is it really the facts leading to a that conclusion?

Fine tuning is consistent with a Fine Tuner. Unless fine tuning is eliminated in some way it stands as evidence of a Fine Tuner. IF the fundamental constants had been found to vary or if they were not responsible for allowing the universe to permit complex life there would be no fine tuning argument and no evidence for an Intelligent Designer but as it stands it is evidence for an Intelligent Designer.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No one knows.

But the important thing to remember is that the fine tuning argument for god is in no way whatsoever an argument from ignorance. I have it on very good authority from very respected scientifical researchingers that it isn't.

No one knows how to differentiate between being fine tuned or having been fine tuned but everyone wishes to dismiss the possibility of having been fine tuned.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But it sure does eliminate a vital step of the fine tuning argument for god.

No, it actually doesn't.

 

[Athée]

No, complex life takes more for a universe to provide; there is nothing semantic about it.

I see that I was not clear enough in my analogy. What I was trying to say was that if we imagine the ace of spades represents the 30 constants we have here and each other card represents a different set of constant, if we shuffle those cards up it will take some active intervention to get the clack of spades to the top. This would be analogous to the second sense of fine tuning I mentioned. Conversely if the deck only has a single card, only the ace of spades it takes no fine tuning in the second sense at all to arrive at that selection.
Any clearer?

I totally understand your point, I just disagree with it. If a deck (universe) has only a single card (30 constants), it would still need to be fine tuned to allow for complex life. It would just mean that the universe was specifically fine tuned to permit complex life and could do nothing but permit complex life. It would even make a better argument for God as it would show that not only did God create the universe it was specifically created for us to arise and no other group of constants were used because of that purpose. That is why the multiverse is being promoted.[/QUOTE]
If it wasn't a semantic misstep then it borders on intellectual dishonesty which is why I assumed the former. It has repeatedly been pointed out that we are only talking about life as we know it and so to say that complex life (instead of "our form of complex life") requires the constants we observe is speculative at best.
I think I see your pint with regard to my analogy. You are saying that even if there is only one card in the deck that your God made that card. In your worldview that makes sense although it is of course not demonstrable in any way.
I think in all honesty I am getting pretty close to the end of my interstate in this paricular topic. It has been a great discussion and I have very much enjoyed being exposed to the best Christian apologetics has to offer on the subject even if I remain unconvinced

It still seems to me like an argument from ignorance although I know you disagree. Essentially we don't know how our universe came to be or how it is or if there is any reason it has the features it does. We don't know of the constants could be different or not. There is no answer to the life as we know it objection or to the multiverse or mega verse possibilities. There is no demonstrable link between the features of our universe and any specific deity. And into this sea of unknown elements you are asserting that your God did it. You are of course welcome to speculate to this effect but I have not seen any evidence that this is the case and some to the contrary.

In any case we have a long list of topics to choose from for our next discussion and I look forward to sharing our views

Since this is more or less my wrap up I will leave it to you to respond and have the last word in the subject...it is as later all your thread.

Thanks again

 

[quatona]

I know the differences between what you are providing, how do you differentiate between the two?

That would be your job - because you are the one who concludes from (1) on (2).
I am just pointing out that those scientific source say (1).

 

[[serious]]

The fact that they are what they are and can't be different does not eliminate the fine tuning and there is no physical law that provides explanation for them to be what they are so fine tuning remains unexplained. That is why the multiverse is being proposed. We know from experimentation in computer modeling that if the fundamental constants were not what they are life would not exist, so the question remains that why is our universe so fine tuned to permit life?

We know of only one universe. While there could possibly be other universes the original universe would have to have the fine tuned parameters that allow for our universe to permit life. And actually there are not an infinite number of universes that permit complex life, the opposite is actually true.

Not at all. Consider, GPS satellites depend on light traveling at a very precise speed. What are the odds that the signal from that satilite will match up with the speed of light? 100%

Is the speed of light tuned for GPS satellites? No, of course not.

Same thing here. If the constants and laws cannot be other than they are, the odds of them being what they are is 100%. Nothing is tuned because nothing can be other than it is.

 

[Moral Orel]

That is why the multiverse is being promoted.

Actually, it's because inflation theory predicts multiple universes, and inflation theory seems to be on the right track in describing how our universe works.

It isn't because the Fine Tuning argument is so persuasive that scientists just have to find some way to explain it.

 

[KCfromNC]

Fine tuning is consistent with a Fine Tuner.

It is also consistent with no fine tuner, a lot of fine tuners, me being the fine tuner (you're welcome, by the way), or an infinitive chain of fine tuners all causing each other. Since no one can provide any explanation for how universes form it is all just a guessing game.

Unless fine tuning is eliminated in some way it stands as evidence of a Fine Tuner.

Nope. See above. An observation which is consistent with mutually contradictory explanations is evidence for none of them.

 

[KCfromNC]

No one knows how to differentiate between being fine tuned or having been fine tuned but everyone wishes to dismiss the possibility of having been fine tuned.

Names and posts of anyone who says it is impossible that the Invisible Pink Unicorn fine tuned the universe to that My Little Pony would be made, please.

No one is saying that it is impossible there's some sort of fine tuner responsible. It is just that there's no reason to think there is.

 

[KCfromNC]

No, it actually doesn't.

"Nuh huh!" A compelling and convincing argument that will certainly change people's minds. Lol.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Actually, it's because inflation theory predicts multiple universes, and inflation theory seems to be on the right track in describing how our universe works.

It isn't because the Fine Tuning argument is so persuasive that scientists just have to find some way to explain it.

Actually that is not true. Bernard Carr actually said: “If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator

FROM THE DECEMBER 2008 ISSUE
Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory
Our universe is perfectly tailored for life. That may be the work of God or the result of our universe being one of many.
By Tim Folger|Monday, November 10, 2008
RELATED TAGS: COSMOLOGY, DARK MATTER, STRING THEORY
576

Physicists don’t like coincidences. They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea. Life, it seems, is not an incidental component of the universe, burped up out of a random chemical brew on a lonely planet to endure for a few fleeting ticks of the cosmic clock. In some strange sense, it appears that we are not adapted to the universe; the universe is adapted to us.

Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.

The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable nonreligious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not at all. Consider, GPS satellites depend on light traveling at a very precise speed. What are the odds that the signal from that satilite will match up with the speed of light? 100%

Is the speed of light tuned for GPS satellites? No, of course not.

Same thing here. If the constants and laws cannot be other than they are, the odds of them being what they are is 100%. Nothing is tuned because nothing can be other than it is.

If an Intelligent Being wished to create a universe specifically for created intelligent beings making certain the universe would give rise to these intelligent beings would be evident by the necessary elements for their existence be present in that universe. If the universe has those properties that allow for those life forms to exist whether they could or could not be different would not affect the outcome. If God provided the needed calculations for the universe to permit complex life and set them so that they could not be different so as to quarantee their arrival it would be 100% certainty that they would, it would still be fine tuned to allow for complex life to exist. The same is true if He took all the possible combinations and tweaked them just right with all the possibilities to allow for complex life to exist...fine tuned still shown. The only way to eliminate the fine tuning of the universe is show that complex life such as ours could exist in another universe in a different set of fundamental constants. That would show that complex life could arise with different fundamental constants and still give rise to intelligent beings.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is also consistent with no fine tuner, a lot of fine tuners, me being the fine tuner (you're welcome, by the way), or an infinitive chain of fine tuners all causing each other. Since no one can provide any explanation for how universes form it is all just a guessing game.



Nope. See above. An observation which is consistent with mutually contradictory explanations is evidence for none of them.

As with any explanation it is what best explains the data. I believe that theism best explains the data. It makes no sense for a lot of fine tuners, you could not be the fine tuner you have not always existed, and there is no evidence for a chain of fine tuners all causing each other and it is not consistent with theism.