It gives mass to fundamental particles. Without it none of this (gestures around himself expansively) would be possible - all would be fundamental particles zooming around at the speed of light.
Upvote
0
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.
It gives mass to fundamental particles. Without it none of this (gestures around himself expansively) would be possible - all would be fundamental particles zooming around at the speed of light.I am still not sure about what the Higgs boson is good for.
If it is not too dificult in mathematical terms I will try to understand your argument better but you need to give more information.
That's the thing with arguments - some people propose them and some people reject them. I just suggested it as a simple argument for discussion.
The weak anthropic principle is a tautology - it can't be rejected as such, but arguments based on it can. Perhaps you'd like to summarise Dawkin's objections, or provide a link or reference? otherwise you're telling me nothing useful.
Probability requires random processes where the paremeters are known.
I am a bit unorganized sorry: Dawkins gives in this video a rather mixed opinion:
Can you give me exapmles on arguments that are build on a tautology of WAP which can be rejected? I just want to understand the concept better.
You said he rejected the principle, but in this video he doesn't reject it at all. He says he thinks it 'elegant but unsatisfying' - and I agree with him. It's unsatisfying because it has no explanatory depth - it just asks, 'what did you expect?'.I am a bit unorganized sorry: Dawkins gives in this video a rather mixed opinion:
The WAP is tautological. The generic multiverse argument builds on the WAP in terms of explanation, but as above, feels somewhat unsatisfying.Can you give me exapmles on arguments that are build on a tautology of WAP which can be rejected? I just want to understand the concept better.
My favorite argument is that if physics weren't "preprogrammed", we wouldn't have this discussion in the first place.Some of the physics of this universe seems to be preprogrammed to create life. What is your favourite argument against such a line of thought? You can mention several arguments of course but I would like to know which one you prefere.
He says he like a lottery winner rejecting the fact that her win was a chance event and thinking there ought to be some special reason why she won with that particular number.
A very early example would be Kepler's Laws. When it was first formed the "why" of those finely tuned laws was unknown. Newton solved that question. I need to bookmark some specific examples, but some of the more recent ones have been solved in the last decade or so. Science continues to move on regardless of those that say "You can't know that".
There have also been some examples of 'sloppy' mathematics that over-exaggerated the 'fineness' of the tuning of certain parameters by several orders of magnitude (i.e. they could vary far more that was asserted).Some of the "fine tuned" constants have been found not to be "fine tuned" but dictated by other laws of physics.
You said he rejected the principle, but in this video he doesn't reject it at all. He says he thinks it 'elegant but unsatisfying'.
there is also the counter argument that many features of the universe are totally unnecessary for the existence of the Earth, or the solar system, or even the galaxy we're in.
It gives mass to fundamental particles. Without it none of this (gestures around himself expansively) would be possible - all would be fundamental particles zooming around at the speed of light.
It's a common cognitive bias known as 'hindsight bias'I just read an article about a lottery winner that "new" he would win, it seems to be a common problem.
Yers... oddly enough, that's exactly what I said in the post you're replying to. I rest my case.I find WAP a fascinating position to think through but ultimately it does not satisfy my curiosity. Ultimately it is like saying: some things are and have no deeper explanation.
Aesthetics isn't a particularly reliable guide - what seems aesthetically pleasing can change considerably with time and familiarity - as the history of science (and art, especially) shows.... I crave for new things to discover and think about, especially if there is something aesthetic behind them or their logic.
The concept did not exist at that time, and since they were explained long before the term came up it is a non-issue. The point is that that is the what many of the "fine tuned" constants could very easily be. It is just a catch all for values that we do not know the reason of right now.I am not aware of them being called finally tuned. Upon what basis would they have been thought finely tuned?
It's one artist's interpretation of a Bandersnatch.Off topic: Bandersnatch, what the heck is your avatar showing? Is that a bandersnatch?
Aesthetics isn't a particularly reliable guide - what seems aesthetically pleasing can change considerably with time and familiarity - as the history of science (and art, especially) shows.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?