The same way it relates to the lottery. You have to find out how many are playing before you can determine the chances of someone winning.
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.
How does that relate?
What are the numbers of the universe and how did you get these numbers?
What are the numbers of the universe and how did you get these numbers?
The mathematical equations for the universal constants in physics.
Did you see the example I gave You?
The odds of winning the Powerball are 1 in 175 million. So that means that in order to win the Powerball has to be fine tuned for just that winner, correct?
Winning the lottery is 100% possible and the odds are that someone wins. The odds are only specific for you or me.
This is a horrible analogy and one called the lottery fallacy. Seems reasonable until you realize that the numbers of the lottery and the universe are not comparable.
So why doesn't the same apply to universes?
Why aren't they comparable?
I guess if you want to apply an intelligently designed game of chance to that of the universe, you are free to do so. However, it makes a better argument for me. Without the intelligent design of the game of powerball there would be no winners at all. In fact, the existence of the powerball game rests on the intelligent designers.
Although the above is true, it is unrelated to the numerous elements that show precise calculations that are required for the system of the universe to even exist let alone continue after the first few seconds of its birth.
The variables and non-constants of the powerball game in no way represents the constants and consistency of the universe.
The many facets of the universe and the measurements involved are so precise and exact that it is impossible not to see the difference.
Although the above is true, it is unrelated to the numerous elements that show precise calculations that are required for the system of the universe to even exist let alone continue after the first few seconds of its birth.
Yes, that was Loudmouth's point.
Why are the not comparable?
In any case, consider a game where I toss a coin ten times. The odds are 1023:1 (probability would be 1023/1024) against flipping ten heads. If I play again, the odds are still 1023:1 against. In both cases the probabilty for flipping ten heads is 1/1024
Since they are independent events, you would assume that the probability for getting ten heads in a row after two games would be 1/(1024*1024). But you would be wrong. That is the odds of getting 20 heads in a row, a perfect score in both games. The actual probality of getting ten heads in a row in either game (including the outcome where I win both games) is found by squaring the 1023/1024 chance of losing and then subtracting from 1. This is greater than the 1/1024 for one game, not less as the previous calculation produced.
If I add a third game, the chance of winning a game goes up again. If I play enough games, the chances become great enough that it is virtually certain I'll play a winning game.
If I only look at that winning game, it still looks like I beat theoriginal odds. We only see this universe. We do not know how many others there were.
With the universe we have 26 fundamental constants which interact with other particles.
How do you know what would happen if these measurements were altered? How do you know they can be altered at all? It's not like you can experiment with some other universe to know these things, so I don't see how you or anyone can go around saying what would or would not happen if the constants of the universe were altered.
Never mind that this whole argument seems to assume that we have some perfect understanding of the way the universe works. I remember, in another discussion, you were talking about how little of the fossil record we have and how radically our knowledge of it can change. The same could be said here - given how vast the universe is and how much we're constantly learning about it, how can you or anyone reasonably calculate such things?
In fact that is exactly how we calculate the precision of the system. By altering any of the constants by even the smallest measure makes even the existence of the universe impossible.
That is what is incredible about the constants and the fact that we can in fact measure to exact numbers that measure them. That is how we can determine where to send spacecraft to other bodies in the universe. Do you think we just somehow imagine how long it takes and how much fuel and all the incredible elements it takes to explore the universe? If it were not for those constants (meaning actually constant) we could not go outside of our atmosphere safely.
Actually it is not the same at all. Mankind has learned that the universe is very mathematical in its nature. Which means that we as intelligent creatures have a way to measure and study the universe for the very reason that it is mathematical and constant. It is with this uniformity that Science works at all. The calculations are in themselves incredible and extraordinary. We can really and reasonably calculate such things.
By altering any of the constants by even the smallest measure makes even the existence of the universe impossible.
That is what is incredible about the constants and the fact that we can in fact measure to exact numbers that measure them.
Which means that we as intelligent creatures have a way to measure and study the universe for the very reason that it is mathematical and constant.
How many combinations of those constants results in a universe that produces life?
The premise of the fine-tuned Universe assertion is that a small change in several of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the Universe radically different. As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[9]
If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium.[10] This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth. The existence of the di-proton would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all of the Universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.[10] However, some of the fundamental constants describe the properties of the unstable strange, charmed, bottom and top quarks and mu and tau leptons that seem to play little part in the Universe or the structure of matter.[citation needed]
The precise formulation of the idea is made difficult by the fact that physicists do not yet know how many independent physical constants there are. The current standard model of particle physics has 25 freely adjustable parameters with an additional parameter, the cosmological constant, for gravitation. However, because the standard model is not mathematically self-consistent under certain conditions (e.g., at very high energies, at which both quantum mechanics and general relativity are relevant), physicists believe that it is underlaid by some other theory, such as a grand unified theory, string theory, or loop quantum gravity. In some candidate theories, the actual number of independent physical constants may be as small as one. For example, the cosmological constant may be a fundamental constant, but attempts have also been made to calculate it from other constants, and according to the author of one such calculation, "the small value of the cosmological constant is telling us that a remarkably precise and totally unexpected relation exists among all the parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics, the bare cosmological constant and unknown physics."[11]
Martin Rees[12] formulates the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six dimensionless constants:
Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- N = ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism;
- Epsilon (ε) = strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei;
- Omega (ω) = relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe;
- Lambda (λ) = cosmological constant;
- Q = ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass;
- D = number of spatial dimensions in spacetime.
Can those constants be different to begin with?
I don't know what you mean?
How many universes have there been?
Well considering we have no evidence for anymore than the one we have what do you say?
Until you supply these numbers, there is no reason to accept your claims about anything being improbable.
The book has been reviewed by Physicists that would most certainly make known if the numbers Smolin used were not accurate.
And you know this...how? Have you tried this with some other universe?
So, in some other universe, we wouldn't be able to measure things? How do you know this?
How do you know it can be anything BUT mathematical and constant? What non-mathematical, non-constant universe have you ever known to exist?
Oh, missed that post, I see.
How do you know these constant are even capable of changing, though?
If the bouncing of the balls in the Powerball machine were just a little different then we wouldn't have the same winner. That doesn't mean that the Powerball lottery is fine tuned so that a specific person wins.
I didn't say they could?Also, you have not shown that the constants can change.
They are not mere accidents or coincidence.How does this indicate that the universe was designed by a deity?
Why does this require a deity?
This is specific for our universe. It doesn't rely on the hypothesis that it is one of many or only one. It is the nature of this universe.
What would it matter?
It doesn't matter really. We are only measuring this one.
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?