The fine tuning of the universe.

[In situ]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply!

I dunno if they are thought full, it is just my current opinions in the matter.

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.

An explanation is no necessary correct. There are infinite many explanation to any observation, most of them are both incorrect or inconsistent with other things we know.

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

Like I wrote, a desire to have an explanation for "everything". It lies in the human nature to try explain anythign we observe.

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.

Like I said, not all explanation are correct. However, it is still an explanation, even if incorrect. You need to consider that explanations fall in more than one category. Further more an explanation is an mechanism (i.e. a cause).

Oncedeceived starts by pretending to use "fine-tuned" in a way that doesn´t imply a cause, but is just an observation

Which is nonsense. The "fine tuned universe" is a judgment about the observations made.

 

[quatona]

An explanation is no necessary correct. There are infinite many explanation to any observation, most of them are both incorrect or inconsistent with other things we know.

My point wasn´t that an explanation must be correct, my point was that it needs to explain something.

Like I wrote, a desire to have an explanation for "everything". It lies in the human nature to try explain anythign we observe.

Personally, I am not a natural human then.
I am well aware that at some point we have to go with "that´s just the way it is".

Like I said, not all explanation are correct. However, it is still an explanation, even if incorrect.

...but that wasn´t the point, anyway.

You need to consider that explanations fall in more than one category. Further more an explanation is an mechanism (i.e. a cause).

...but not all assertions of a cause are necessarily explanations (as in: descriptions of a mechanism).
E.g. when the answer to "How does grass grow?" is "It´s done by invisible elves", no mechanism is explained. Now, maybe, if the answer is "On each single blade of grass sits an invisible elve pulling it out of the ground manually" that would be closer to an explanation (i.e. description of a mechanism).

 

[RickG]

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

I disagree, what is your source for such a claim?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why would I need to?

If you are claiming my conclusions are wrong, you need to show me how they are wrong.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Exactly.

Which is not the 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.

You are the cause.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you are claiming my conclusions are wrong, you need to show me how they are wrong.

Which I did, by pointing out the fallacies in your reasoning.

That's all I'm required to do.

Mistakes only need pointing out.

 

[AV1611VET]

I disagree, what is your source for such a claim?

Probably in the trash can at Diablo's Peer Review Emporium.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

I don't have a photographic mind and I don't remember things from at least a decade or more ago. I don't own the book, so page numbers are meaningless to me. However, If I remember correctly, Smolin used papers from Carr, Carter, Rees and others in his calculations.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which I did, by pointing out the fallacies in your reasoning.

That's all I'm required to do.

Mistakes only need pointing out.

You haven't done that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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).

If you find yourself in a discussion with one then feel free.

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.

Why is it strange? You said that the universe doesn't look to you fine tuned, so asking how you personally observe the universe is relevant.

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

Evidence perhaps?

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.

You seem to be confused. The fine tuning is the evidence and explanations are explanations that explain the evidence. Multiverse is a supposed explanation for fine tuning...the fine tuning will still be fine tuning but it would be explained how those fine tuned parameters are not remarkable. If everything and anything proposed has to be shown impossible your argument is an argument from ignorance.

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.

Suit yourself, but for me and the majority of scientists in the field feel they have sufficient evidence to claim that the universe is fine tuned for intelligent life.

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.

We know it is fine tuned, there might be a naturally physical explanation for that fine tuning but it will remain fine tuned because if it were not we would not be here to discuss it.

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.

Again, you are confused. They may believe different explanations for the fine tuning but there is a consensus according to Paul Davies and Luke Barnes, prominent scientists in the field of agreement that fine tuning is a real phenomena in need of explanation.

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.

Every other idea? I think that valid arguments are being explored but that does not mean that fine tuning will be found not a real phenomena, it will only explain why our universe is fine tuned for intelligent life.

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.

WE know what is in evidence and fine tuning is in evidence. What we don't "know" is the explanation (at least some of us)

 

[Oncedeceived]

I disagree, what is your source for such a claim?

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." He also states that "'anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because abiogenesis occurs frequently".[17] Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of explanations have been proposed, such as theanthropic principle along with multiple universes. George F. R. Ellis states "that no possible astronomical observations can ever see those other universes. The arguments are indirect at best. And even if the multiverse exists, it leaves the deep mysteries of nature unexplained."[18] Emphasis mine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

 

[RickG]

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." He also states that "'anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because abiogenesis occurs frequently".[17] Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of explanations have been proposed, such as theanthropic principle along with multiple universes. George F. R. Ellis states "that no possible astronomical observations can ever see those other universes. The arguments are indirect at best. And even if the multiverse exists, it leaves the deep mysteries of nature unexplained."[18] Emphasis mine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

What is your definition of a Fine-tuned-Universe, as you perceive it, in your own words.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What is your definition of a Fine-tuned-Universe, as you perceive it, in your own words.

Why in my own words?

Fine tuned universe: The universal phenomena of the fundamental constants having precise values which are values necessary for complex life and the universe itself to exist, (the universe would not have the structure necessary to exist as we know it or at all).

 

[RickG]

Why in my own words?

Fine tuned universe: The universal phenomena of the fundamental constants having precise values which are values necessary for complex life and the universe itself to exist, (the universe would not have the structure necessary to exist as we know it or at all).

Thanks Oncedeceived. I don't have an argument with that definition, keeping in mind that my background is not in Astrophysics or Theoretical Physics and there may well be some concepts that I am not aware of that could change my mind. What I am curious about is why young earth creationists and ID proponents seem to be latching onto it. Universal fundamental constants flies in their face.

 

[[serious]]

I don't have a photographic mind and I don't remember things from at least a decade or more ago. I don't own the book, so page numbers are meaningless to me. However, If I remember correctly, Smolin used papers from Carr, Carter, Rees and others in his calculations.

Nope, not that I'm seeing. Thus far it's just asserting the largest of an arbitrary set is fixed, and all others are a random distribution between 0 and that number.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Thanks Oncedeceived. I don't have an argument with that definition, keeping in mind that my background is not in Astrophysics or Theoretical Physics and there may well be some concepts that I am not aware of that could change my mind. What I am curious about is why young earth creationists and ID proponents seem to be latching onto it. Universal fundamental constants flies in their face.

Your welcome Rick. I don't know that YEC's do latch onto it, I've not encountered them. Why do you feel that it flies in the face of ID proponents?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nope, not that I'm seeing. Thus far it's just asserting the largest of an arbitrary set is fixed, and all others are a random distribution between 0 and that number.

I wish I had the book with me, because the way I remember it he used the values that scientists use to do physics all the time.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nope, not that I'm seeing. Thus far it's just asserting the largest of an arbitrary set is fixed, and all others are a random distribution between 0 and that number.

I've been looking for any corrections to Smolin's calculations or critiques that would call into question his calculations and there is nothing but praise for his book.

 

[RickG]

Your welcome Rick. I don't know that YEC's do latch onto it, I've not encountered them. Why do you feel that it flies in the face of ID proponents?

Fundamental constants having precise values excludes a designer.

 

[[serious]]

I wish I had the book with me, because the way I remember it he used the values that scientists use to do physics all the time.

Carr's name only appears twice in the book, once in a further reading type list, and then in this section of the notes:

"Most of the arguments I employ for the specialness of the parameters were invented by advocates of the anthropic principle, particularly Brandon Carter, Bernard Carr, and Martin Rees. Concern about the smallness of several of the parameters began with works by Herman Weyl, Paul Dirac and Robert Dicke."

I don't see any citations of any numbers they got or any math or methodology by them presented.