• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The fine tuning of the universe.

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟95,346.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Unless you can show that this criticism is something that physicists agree to be a problem I don't know if your criticism is valid.
You can't use your own logic?

EDIT: Perhaps I'm being too harsh. If you are saying you don't understand the arguments being made well enough to address my criticisms, I should laud you for knowing your limits. In that case, it would be entirely appropriate for you to defer to experts in the field.

However, if this is your position, you should be looking at how the bulk of physicists view fine tuning arguments.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,598
52,508
Guam
✟5,127,487.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Argument from ignorance.
Argument from incredulity.
Assumed conclusion.
God is beyond our reasoning.
God is incredible.
Faith in action.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That doesn't follow.

Please, describe what a non-designed universe would look like. And explain why.
Life could arise no matter what the values were. It would be like Peter van Inwagen said:

Peter van Inwagen (Philosophy professor at Notre Dame): “Most [naturally possible universes] will last only a few seconds or will contain no protons or will contain no atoms or will contain only hydrogen and helium atoms or will be composed entirely of violently radioactive matter or will be devoid of stars or will contain only stars of a kind that would burn out before evolution could get started on their planets.” [Metaphysics 3rd ed. (Westview, 2008), 199
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You can't use your own logic?
Yes, but I am not a mathematician.

EDIT: Perhaps I'm being too harsh. If you are saying you don't understand the arguments being made well enough to address my criticisms, I should laud you for knowing your limits. In that case, it would be entirely appropriate for you to defer to experts in the field.
That is why I asked for other physicists critique on his calculations. You may be spot on but unless I can determine scientists in the field agree with you it is not convincing.

However, if this is your position, you should be looking at how the bulk of physicists view fine tuning arguments.
I do, it is you who seems to be not. The majority of physicists do agree that fine tuning is a real phenomena in need of explanation.
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟95,346.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes, but I am not a mathematician.

That is why I asked for other physicists critique on his calculations. You may be spot on but unless I can determine scientists in the field agree with you it is not convincing.

I do, it is you who seems to be not. The majority of physicists do agree that fine tuning is a real phenomena in need of explanation.
That's why i gave you the parallel analogies. Such logic fails spectacularly when applied to other estimations, so unless it can be shown to be appropriate here, it cannot be assumed to be more reliable.

To spell out the specific failings:
1. The inclusion of planck mass as a "fundamental value" none the less, is entirely arbitrary. Plank mass is the largest mass that could theoretically carry a single charge. There is no applicable tuning of planck units that make it relevant to tuning arguments that I am aware of or that were presented in the paper. It's simply an arbitrary large unit chosen to pad the values he wants.
2. There is no reason to suppose his chosen distribution is applicable to values of the masses of these particles. It's an arbitrary assumption to provide his chosen conclusion.

Now, if you have any more knowledgeable sources that address these points, by all means, present them. Perhaps there is some reason for these apparently arbitrary assumptions that i don't see. However, if you don't have anyone who addresses these concerns, perhaps you should entertain my arguments.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's why i gave you the parallel analogies. Such logic fails spectacularly when applied to other estimations, so unless it can be shown to be appropriate here, it cannot be assumed to be more reliable.

To spell out the specific failings:
1. The inclusion of planck mass as a "fundamental value" none the less, is entirely arbitrary. Plank mass is the largest mass that could theoretically carry a single charge. There is no applicable tuning of planck units that make it relevant to tuning arguments that I am aware of or that were presented in the paper. It's simply an arbitrary large unit chosen to pad the values he wants.
2. There is no reason to suppose his chosen distribution is applicable to values of the masses of these particles. It's an arbitrary assumption to provide his chosen conclusion.

Now, if you have any more knowledgeable sources that address these points, by all means, present them. Perhaps there is some reason for these apparently arbitrary assumptions that i don't see. However, if you don't have anyone who addresses these concerns, perhaps you should entertain my arguments.
Planck's constant is very important to the fine tuning argument and very important to the star formation that Smolin was concerned with.
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟95,346.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Planck's constant is very important to the fine tuning argument and very important to the star formation that Smolin was concerned with.
Planck constant and planks mass are two different things
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Planck constant and planks mass are two different things


Planck's mass is constructed completely out of these three fundamental constants, The Planck Constant, the velocity of light and the gravitational constant.
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟95,346.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Planck's mass is constructed completely out of these three fundamental constants, The Planck Constant, the velocity of light and the gravitational constant.
Planck mass is the theoretical limit to the mass a particle with a single charge can have.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Planck mass is the theoretical limit to the mass a particle with a single charge can have.
In physics, the Planck mass, denoted by mP, is the unit of mass in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is defined so that (Equation is not copying)



where c is the speed of light in a vacuum, G is the gravitational constant, and ħ is the reduced Planck constant.

http://functionspace.com/topic/3341/What-is-Planck-Mass--
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟95,346.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
In physics, the Planck mass, denoted by mP, is the unit of mass in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is defined so that (Equation is not copying)



where c is the speed of light in a vacuum, G is the gravitational constant, and ħ is the reduced Planck constant.

http://functionspace.com/topic/3341/What-is-Planck-Mass--
Yes, I know what Planck mass is and how they arrived at it. I'm explaining to you what it describes.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I really couldn't say. Do you have anything from any other physicist that criticizes Smolin's calculations?
Other physicists come up with wildly different numbers. You should know - you've posted those numbers many times.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You can't use your own logic?

EDIT: Perhaps I'm being too harsh. If you are saying you don't understand the arguments being made well enough to address my criticisms, I should laud you for knowing your limits. In that case, it would be entirely appropriate for you to defer to experts in the field.

However, if this is your position, you should be looking at how the bulk of physicists view fine tuning arguments.

Considering the majority of them are not Christian, deferring to the consensus of the experts isn't an option here.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Other physicists come up with wildly different numbers. You should know - you've posted those numbers many times.
The numbers are for different things. I told you that but of course you continue to make the same arguments and ignore the facts.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Considering the majority of them are not Christian, deferring to the consensus of the experts isn't an option here.
Which should give you pause when denying fine tuning. The majority of scientists in the field agree that fine tuning is real and in need of an explanation.
 
Upvote 0