The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

Huh??

Rather: we shouldn't be concerned with "explanations" that explain exactly nothing.

You haven't shown a better explanation, do you have one?

 

[RickG]

Demonstrated or exercised?

shown to be the cause.

 

[RickG]

You haven't shown a better explanation, do you have one?

From the Wiki article on a fine-tuned universe: (note: you should be able to click on the citation link numbers to access reference.)

Counter arguments
Mark Colyvan, Jay Garfield and Graham Priest (2005) have argued that a theistic explanation for fine tuning is faulted due to fallacious probabilistic reasoning.[45]

Mathematician Michael Ikeda and astronomer William H. Jefferys have argued that the anthropic principle and selection effect are not properly taken into account in the fine tuning argument for a designer, and that in taking them into account, fine tuning does not support the designer hypothesis.[46][47] Philosopher of science Elliott Sober makes a similar argument.[48]

Richard Carrier utilized the work of Ikeda, Jefferys, and Sober, in a Bayesian analysis. He concludes that fine tuning is strong evidence against the existence of God.[49]

Physicist Robert L. Park has also criticized the theistic interpretation of fine-tuning:

If the universe was designed for life, it must be said that it is a shockingly inefficient design. There are vast reaches of the universe in which life as we know it is clearly impossible: gravitational forces would be crushing, or radiation levels are too high for complex molecules to exist, or temperatures would make the formation of stable chemical bonds impossible... Fine-tuned for life? It would make more sense to ask why God designed a universe so inhospitable to life.[50]

Victor Stenger argues that "The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God-of-the-gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon".[23] Stenger argues that science may provide an explanation if a Theory of Everything is formulated, which he says may reveal connections between the physical constants. A change in one physical constant may be compensated by a change in another, suggesting that the apparent fine-tuning of the universe is a fallacy because, in hypothesizing the apparent fine-tuning, it is mistaken to vary one physical parameter while keeping the others constant.[51]

 

[In situ]

The question is not whether or not fine tuning is real, it is, but why?

IF "fine tuning is real" THEN IT FOLLOWS YEC criticism against radioactive dating methods is incorrect SINCE the YEC criticisms against radioactive dating methods is based on the idea that "fine tuning is NOT real" and can be manipulated with and still sustain the universe (as we know it).

the universe looks suspiciously like a fix.

No it does not, it is an opinion it does look like a fix. To me the universe looks like it looks. To say it is a fix, is like saying a stone you find on the ground is fixed to look like it looks. It is a nonsense claim. Why things looks the way they do may or may not be something we can explain. Why the universe "looks like it looks" nobody knows and therefore we cannot say it is fine tuned. In addition the "fine tuning" claim is hardly the only attempt to try explain its "looks".

Do the universe have special "configuration values"? Yes.
Are these values fine tuned? We do not know.
Do we have sufficient reason to believe these values must be fine tuned? No.

 

[quatona]

We know about fine tuning as well.

To be precise, we know that if the constants were different, there wouldn´t be life as we know it -yes.

And we don't have an explanation on how gravity works.

Sure we know how gravity works.

Rick is trying to claim that we have to demonstrate the cause of something to allow it to be evidence to support a hypothesis when that is simple not true and Gravity is an example.

Rick, as far as I can tell, claims that you have to demonstrate how causation works, if you claim that it is the cause of something.
We do can explain how gravity causes its effects. Nobody, however, has claimed that gravity has a single cause or something. (That´s btw. another absurdity about the alleged axiom "everything needs a cause").

 

[In situ]

Sure we know how gravity works.

If we truly understood how gravity works then we would be able to tell everything there is to know about, say, black holes, but we cannot.

 

[quatona]

If we truly understood how gravity works then we would be able to tell everything there is to know about, say, black holes, but we cannot.

That´s why I didn´t say we "truly" understand "everything" about it.
We do understand enough about it so not to feel the need to evade to "Goddidit" as a replacement for an actual explanation.
From what´s been presented so far, there is no explanation whatsoever as to how God fine-tuned the universe.

 

[[serious]]

While he makes it clear that much of his ideas are speculation he views the universe unlike anyone else. His theory is a cosmological evolution. A universe somehow sticks and evolves and becomes the parent universe to its offspring which will have the original parameters with modification. He feels this would explain the fine tuning. He is a deep thinker and of course I see problems with his theory scientifically as well as personally but he is interesting to read and I believe quite honest and forthright in his openness to his theory being speculative. He does grant that God is a valid option just not scientific and that is why his theory he feels is more scientific because it can be tested and falsified.

So one universe gives rise to other universes. I got that from the synopsis already. I'm looking for something a bit deeper. Does he go with the black hole idea, the quantum fluctuations idea, or something else?

 

[[serious]]

Oh, I found the actual probability calculation. As a fun critical thinking exercise, see what flaws you can spot:

"I now sketch the calculation of the probability that a universe with randomly chosen values of the parameters of the standard model will have stars that live for billions of years. We may begin with the six masses involved-the Planck mass, the masses of the four stable particles, and the mass associated with the cosmological constant. To ask how probable they are we must consider their ratios. To do this we will consider the largest, which is the Planck mass, to be fixed, and express the others in terms of units of that mass. Each of the others is then some number between zero and one. Let us assume God created the universe by throwing dice, and so chose these numbers randomly"

I'll even give a hint by giving an analogous "calculation". Look at the ratios between the central black hole of our galaxy, the sun, the earth, and a rock I'm holding. As he did, assume the largest is fixed, Now, for me to be holding the rock, the ratio between the roc and the milkyway black hole must be less than ~1^-38. For me to be able to support my own weight, to support my own body weight i can't very well be bigger than the other of ~ 1^-33, and so on. See the issue?

 

[In situ]

That´s why I didn´t say we "truly" understand "everything" about it. We do understand enough about it so not to feel the need to evade to "Goddidit" as a replacement for an actual explanation.

I fully agree with this statement. However, I wanted to point out that when we say we (do not) understand something we may mean different things. In discussion with theists, an understanding often implies getting answers to "why" or "what" questions. Such as "why do gravity exists" or "what is gravity" these question can be formulated as "how" questions, such as "how is gravity caused". Answer such question might give the impression we understand gravity, and for some people such answer is good enough and it feels not fruitful to ask further questions - but for other it is not.

Others might have a lingering feeling the questions is not fully answered in the respect that the answer only address causes and effects but it does not actually explain what the essence of gravity is. In that respect it is correct to say we do not understand gravity, and imo, it is that lack of understanding of the essence of things (which we probably also never will understand) that some people feel uneasy with and likes to fill in with something - anything - like a deity.

So maybe, your statement that we understand gravity does not actually address the actually questions the person might have. And by just saying "you are incorrect", you may miss the finer details in what they try to convey.

From what´s been presented so far, there is no explanation whatsoever as to how God fine-tuned the universe.

If you don't have a mechanism (a cause, such a force, the finger of god, leprechauns or whatever) then you don't have an explanation. If you don't have an explanation then you cannot say you know. So based on what you say they said, it means they do not know if the universe is fine-tuned by God or not, but not only that, it also implies they do not know if the universe is fine tuned in the first place (since it is not known from where the claimed fine-tuning is caused by - if exists at all - and claiming it is caused by a force, the finger of god, leprechauns, random chance, "it must be" so or whatever is just that; a claim). And that is pretty much where the actual knowledge about the "fine tuned" universe is right now; nobody knows what the case is.

Imo, trying to explain things we don't even know happen or exists is just mental gymnastic in the higher athletic school, i.e. not science but philosophy. And anyone can be a philosopher - that is any one can make up things.

 

[Oncedeceived]

From the Wiki article on a fine-tuned universe: (note: you should be able to click on the citation link numbers to access reference.)

Counter arguments
Mark Colyvan, Jay Garfield and Graham Priest (2005) have argued that a theistic explanation for fine tuning is faulted due to fallacious probabilistic reasoning.[45]

Priest says that if the constants could not have been different then fine tuning fails; fails because it makes the probability 1. Ok, but even if that is true, he nor anyone else knows if they could not have been different thus fine tuning until proven to not being able to be anything but what they are stands.

Mathematician Michael Ikeda and astronomer William H. Jefferys have argued that the anthropic principle and selection effect are not properly taken into account in the fine tuning argument for a designer, and that in taking them into account, fine tuning does not support the designer hypothesis.[46][47] Philosopher of science Elliott Sober makes a similar argument.[48]

First of all the Anthropic Principal doesn't discount fine tuning or explain it.

Richard Carrier utilized the work of Ikeda, Jefferys, and Sober, in a Bayesian analysis. He concludes that fine tuning is strong evidence against the existence of God.[49]

Richard Carrier is wrong and has been critiqued by Luke Barnes.

Physicist Robert L. Park has also criticized the theistic interpretation of fine-tuning:

If the universe was designed for life, it must be said that it is a shockingly inefficient design. There are vast reaches of the universe in which life as we know it is clearly impossible: gravitational forces would be crushing, or radiation levels are too high for complex molecules to exist, or temperatures would make the formation of stable chemical bonds impossible... Fine-tuned for life? It would make more sense to ask why God designed a universe so inhospitable to life.[50]

Dr. Robin Collins has argued, the laws of our universe are extremely elegant, from a mathematical perspective. If there is an Intelligent Designer, He presumably favors mathematical elegance. Accordingly, the most likely reason why most of the universe is inhospitable to life is the recipe for making a big universe with a few tiny islands of life is mathematically simpler and more elegant than the the recipe for making a universe with life everywhere, given the laws as we know them.

Victor Stenger argues that "The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God-of-the-gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon".[23] Stenger argues that science may provide an explanation if a Theory of Everything is formulated, which he says may reveal connections between the physical constants. A change in one physical constant may be compensated by a change in another, suggesting that the apparent fine-tuning of the universe is a fallacy because, in hypothesizing the apparent fine-tuning, it is mistaken to vary one physical parameter while keeping the others constant.[51]

Stenger has had his arguments refuted by other physicists as well.

 

[Oncedeceived]

IF "fine tuning is real" THEN IT FOLLOWS YEC criticism against radioactive dating methods is incorrect SINCE the YEC criticisms against radioactive dating methods is based on the idea that "fine tuning is NOT real" and can be manipulated with and still sustain the universe (as we know it).

So? What does that have to do with the scientific phenomena of fine tuning?

No it does not, it is an opinion it does look like a fix. To me the universe looks like it looks.

How do you personally determine how the universe looks?

To say it is a fix, is like saying a stone you find on the ground is fixed to look like it looks. It is a nonsense claim. Why things looks the way they do may or may not be something we can explain. Why the universe "looks like it looks" nobody knows and therefore we cannot say it is fine tuned. In addition the "fine tuning" claim is hardly the only attempt to try explain its "looks".

Forgive me for not finding this argument convincing when the majority of astrophysicists, physicists, and cosmologists have more to go on than what you are pretending they are going on.

Do the universe have special "configuration values"? Yes.
Are these values fine tuned? We do not know.
Do we have sufficient reason to believe these values must be fine tuned? No.

1. Does the universe have special "configuration values"? Yes....what are configuration values?
2. Are these values fine tuned? We do not know. ... We do know, otherwise we would be here discussing it.
3. Do we have sufficient reason to believe these values must be fine tuned? No.....Yes.

The majority of scientists in this field agree the universe is fine tuned.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oh, I found the actual probability calculation. As a fun critical thinking exercise, see what flaws you can spot:

"I now sketch the calculation of the probability that a universe with randomly chosen values of the parameters of the standard model will have stars that live for billions of years. We may begin with the six masses involved-the Planck mass, the masses of the four stable particles, and the mass associated with the cosmological constant. To ask how probable they are we must consider their ratios. To do this we will consider the largest, which is the Planck mass, to be fixed, and express the others in terms of units of that mass. Each of the others is then some number between zero and one. Let us assume God created the universe by throwing dice, and so chose these numbers randomly"

I'll even give a hint by giving an analogous "calculation". Look at the ratios between the central black hole of our galaxy, the sun, the earth, and a rock I'm holding. As he did, assume the largest is fixed, Now, for me to be holding the rock, the ratio between the roc and the milkyway black hole must be less than ~1^-38. For me to be able to support my own weight, to support my own body weight i can't very well be bigger than the other of ~ 1^-33, and so on. See the issue?

Citation?

 

[Oncedeceived]

So one universe gives rise to other universes. I got that from the synopsis already. I'm looking for something a bit deeper. Does he go with the black hole idea, the quantum fluctuations idea, or something else?

Black holes, his ideas do differ from others however.

 

[Oncedeceived]

To be precise, we know that if the constants were different, there wouldn´t be life as we know it -yes.

Right.

Sure we know how gravity works.

We observe how gravity behaves and affects other things.

Rick, as far as I can tell, claims that you have to demonstrate how causation works, if you claim that it is the cause of something.
We do can explain how gravity causes its effects. Nobody, however, has claimed that gravity has a single cause or something. (That´s btw. another absurdity about the alleged axiom "everything needs a cause").

What doesn't need a cause?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You haven't shown a better explanation, do you have one?

Why would I need to?

 

[quatona]

We observe how gravity behaves and affects other things.

Exactly.

What doesn't need a cause?

Well, e.g. when I grab my guitar and play, that usually doesn´t have a cause. It´s the result of a complex process.

 

[quatona]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply!

I fully agree with this statement. However, I wanted to point out that when we say we (do not) understand something we may mean different things. In discussion with theists, an understanding often implies getting answers to "why" or "what" questions. Such as "why do gravity exists" or "what is gravity" these question can be formulated as "how" questions, such as "how is gravity caused". Answer such question might give the impression we understand gravity, and for some people such answer is good enough and it feels not fruitful to ask further questions - but for other it is not.

Others might have a lingering feeling the questions is not fully answered in the respect that the answer only address causes and effects but it does not actually explain what the essence of gravity is. In that respect it is correct to say we do not understand gravity, and imo, it is that lack of understanding of the essence of things (which we probably also never will understand) that some people feel uneasy with and likes to fill in with something - anything - like a deity.

I understand that. However, when I posited "God" as the "correct" answer to "What caused gravity" the religionist I was talking to called that a joke and pointed out that this assertion didn´t explain anything about gravity.
This doesn´t seem to conform to your analysis.

So maybe, your statement that we understand gravity does not actually address the actually questions the person might have. And by just saying "you are incorrect", you may miss the finer details in what they try to convey.

So what are those finer details of gravity they are looking for, and how´s that relevant to the "fine-tuning" thing?

If you don't have a mechanism (a cause, such a force, the finger of god, leprechauns or whatever) then you don't have an explanation.

Sorry, gotta disagree. Just positing there´s a cause and giving it a fancy name isn´t the description of a mechanism, nor is it an explanation.

If you don't have an explanation then you cannot say you know. So based on what you say they said, it means they do not know if the universe is fine-tuned by God or not, but not only that, it also implies they do not know if the universe is fine tuned in the first place (since it is not known from where the claimed fine-tuning is caused by - if exists at all - and claiming it is caused by a force, the finger of god, leprechauns, random chance, "it must be" so or whatever is just that; a claim). And that is pretty much where the actual knowledge about the "fine tuned" universe is right now; nobody knows what the case is.

That I agree with - except that Oncedeceived starts by pretending to use "fine-tuned" in a way that doesn´t imply a cause, but is just an observation ("if the constants were slightly different, there wouldn´t be life as we know it"), and then miraculously moves on to postulate the need for a "fine-tuner". That´s the gap (actually caused by false equivocation) that renders her argument void.
The interesting part, however, is that she calls it a joke and a non-explanation when we do the same with gravity.

Imo, trying to explain things we don't even know happen or exists is just mental gymnastic in the higher athletic school, i.e. not science but philosophy. And anyone can be a philosopher - that is any one can make up things.

Sure, that´s the beauty of metaphysics: You can dream up stuff without the risk of it being falsified.
It´s the ideal field to explore our creativity.

 

[In situ]

So? What does that have to do with the scientific phenomena of fine tuning?

Nothing. I just like to point it out to remind every YEC about the inconsistenty in their argumentation (since YEC tend to only discuss a single issues one at the time and tend to ignore everything else claimed elsewhere).

How do you personally determine how the universe looks?

I guess like everyone else. I have a look at things and then I form an opinion based on what I already know. Frankly, I find your question a bit strange to ask.

Forgive me for not finding this argument convincing when the majority of astrophysicists, physicists, and cosmologists have more to go on than what you are pretending they are going on.

What is it you think I pretend they don't have?

1. Does the universe have special "configuration values"? Yes....what are configuration values?
2. Are these values fine tuned? We do not know. ... We do know, otherwise we would be here discussing it.
3. Do we have sufficient reason to believe these values must be fine tuned? No.....Yes.

With the configuration values I refer to all fundamental constant in physics. You say we "know" the universe is fine tuned. If that is the case, then you should be able refer to the evidence that it is fine tuned - that is show me the evidence that rules out every other explanations as impossible.

Only if you can falsify all other tentative explanations then I am prepared to concede we have sufficient scientific reason to believe the universe is fine tuned, but until then I wont.

Meanwhile, consider the "fine tuning" of the atom: the electron and the protons charge match up precisely with each others. If there was a measurable difference between their charges then the universe would not look like it does. Since the proton is a hadron and the electrons is a lepton there exists no particular reason for why the electrons charge should match the protons charge so precisely.

Is this fine tuning? Well, it "looks like it", and it looks like it been "fixed" to match each others. Yet, the observation that the charges match up is still not sufficient to tell if the electron and proton been fine tuned to each others.

When you understand why that is, then you will understand why we cannot say we "know" the universe is fine tuned.

The majority of scientists in this field agree the universe is fine tuned.

I doubt the majority of the scientist "agree" the universe is fine tuned. On the contrary most scientist would say, with the scientist that on, "we do not know yet" or "probably not" or "maybe" depending on their personal beliefs. My point is, there is one thing to maintain an idea (among others), which scientist often do when they cant tell ideas apart, but a complete and utter different things to claim "this is the case" and that we know something.

In summary, people argue about a possible fine tuning of the universe, however this is not to say we in any way or form know the universe is fine tuned. For that you require evidence that rules out every other ideas - and to my knowledge such evidence does not exists. Therefore whatever people, scientist or not, agree about in this issue is not a scientific conclusions but an opinion.

Now I don't have much more to say on this issue, and looking forward to see the evidence presented that rules out ever other reasonable explanation - because that is how it is determine if we "know" something in science.

 

[[serious]]

Citation?

You said you read the book. It should be at least familiar enough to you to recognize the actual math you are citing.

To refresh your memory of the book you totally read, page 45 simply asserts the number, and says the math is in the notes. The notes of the book begin on page 324 and that section is from page 325.