Why ... (2)

[Loudmouth]

You have empirical knowledge of the constants of this universe and this one alone. You have no empirical knowledge of any other universes. You have no empirical knowledge that universes other than our own exist.

Why would other universes not have constants?

You must see that the conclusion that you come to is based solely on opinion and presuppositions which self refute your own belief system.

Your claims of self refutation are nonsense.

You are claiming that my position of fine tuning is worthless (something that you have no empirical evidence to support) you are claiming we don't know how many universe there may be (although we can only empirically show there is one) and that this has to be taken into account when determining if the constants arose from chance (which by their vary nature would seem so unlikely that it is absurd to think they came about by chance).

I am saying that we do not have evidence for the following:

1. That the universe was fine tuned for humans.

2. The total number of universes.

3. The probability that a universe like ours would exist.

If you think I am wrong, the please show me evidence for any of these.

It must be said that even if there were other universes, this doesn't mean that it explains the fine tuning in this one. If there are more universes and the multiverse is meant to explain the cosmic fine tuning, how do we limit the number of possible worlds and if we can't, we have no apparent limit on the number of possible mutiverses. Some would contain a universe like ours but many, maybe even most will not. So we still remain with the fine tuning in ours and must explain why our multiverse contains the ability to produce at least one universe that supports intelligent life rather than none and how that the constants within it are fine tuned in such a way as to produce it and why this multiverse exists rather than another.

If you are going to claim that it is impossible for a universe like ours to emerge by chance then you need to know how many universes there are. That is how probabilities work. If you can't supply the number of universes, then your claims about the improbability of our universe emerging by chance is baseless.

I keep saying that there is evidence to support that God designed the universe.

You say it, but never show us that evidence.

If you don't see the immense difference between even the simplest cell to the weathered worn geological features on another planet there is really no point.

If you can't see that both require fine tuning then you don't understand your own argument.

While I understand the point you are trying to make, and in very unrelated way is true; the simplest form of life is immensely more complicated than the weathered result of geology on mars in comparison.

No, it isn't. Both are very complicated, and both rely on a very narrow range of constants.

Science has not determined any natural reason for the fine tuning of the constants of our universe. You claim they are by chance and natural means. How do you supp

You are making an argument from ignorance which is a logical fallacy.

There is no possible reason to believe that another universe if it did indeed exist would have any relationship in material make up as ours.

Right, it would have a different make up, and that make up would require a very narrow range of constants. It would be fine tuned. No matter what the outcome is it will fit your description of fine tuning because every outcome will require a very narrow set of values for the constants in that universe.

But you are. Anything that can not be observed in the natural world is supernatural in nature.

No it isn't. Things from deities are supernatural.

We once defined the Earth as the natural world, and everything outside of the Earth as outside the natural world. Is that really so? If we are able to use evidence to determine what existed prior to our universe then it is part of nature.

You just refuse to accept it.

You refuse, once again, to present it. How can I reject what you won't present?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

I was assuming that he meant if God exists the constants and the universe would be under constant "messing" with by God. Which is totally not the case but the exact opposite. God make the universe uniform and constant for man to observe and gain knowledge which points to His existence.



I don't disagree with any of that.



We do indeed come to the methodology at the same point, however, theists know the universe has been intelligently designed which makes it comprehensible and atheist/agnostics must accept it all the while denying that the metaphysical is the foundation on which they work.

There's no real metaphysical foundation to scientific work if we get the same methods no matter which metaphysics we have. The base assumption is that no supernatural beings are influencing our results in any way.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why would other universes not have constants?

Why would they? We certainly could imagine one that had nothing constant and that had no order at all.

Your claims of self refutation are nonsense.

How can you say that? You are claiming that other universes have to be considered in determining fine tuning which comes from the presumption that other universes exist which is not empirically known to exist. That is self refuting of your claim that everything must be empirically proven and tested.

I am saying that we do not have evidence for the following:

1. That the universe was fine tuned for humans.

Do you feel that the fine tuning element is lacking evidence or that the fine tuning to allow the formation of intelligent life is lacking. Please specify.

2. The total number of universes.

I've shown how this is irrelevant to the fine tuning problem.

3. The probability that a universe like ours would exist.

I don't think I've provided that as a claim. IF I am wrong you will have to post the quote that would provide evidence that I have.

If you think I am wrong, the please show me evidence for any of these.

Please answer my questions and then we can see what evidence you are needing.

If you are going to claim that it is impossible for a universe like ours to emerge by chance then you need to know how many universes there are.

I said:
(which by their vary nature would seem so unlikely that it is absurd to think they came about by chance). I didn't claim it was impossible.

That is how probabilities work. If you can't supply the number of universes, then your claims about the improbability of our universe emerging by chance is baseless.

If you can't supply the number of universe then your claims that the universe emerged by chance is baseless. It works both ways. You can't just simply through in other universes that you don't even know exist to determine that the fine tuning claim is false. It isn't even false if there are other universe.

You say it, but never show us that evidence.

If you can't see that both require fine tuning then you don't understand your own argument.

I said that I understand what you mean, it just isn't at the same level we are talking about.

No, it isn't. Both are very complicated, and both rely on a very narrow range of constants.

Fine. It is not something that makes a difference, the fine tuning is the principle argument anyway.

You are making an argument from ignorance which is a logical fallacy.

What? I ask you to support your belief that they are naturally caused and I am making an argument from ignorance? So I take it, you know that you don't have any such evidence.

Right, it would have a different make up, and that make up would require a very narrow range of constants. It would be fine tuned. No matter what the outcome is it will fit your description of fine tuning because every outcome will require a very narrow set of values for the constants in that universe.

Total bunk. You have nothing to base this on other than our universe which in no way exemplifies what or even what could constitute for another universe or multiverse for that matter. You can claim you can imagine that it would be the way you have provided but that is all you have.

No it isn't. Things from deities are supernatural.

Supernatural:
: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2
a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

We once defined the Earth as the natural world, and everything outside of the Earth as outside the natural world. Is that really so? If we are able to use evidence to determine what existed prior to our universe then it is part of nature.

We are not able to see what was prior to our universe. We see back to its singularity. That is it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There's no real metaphysical foundation to scientific work if we get the same methods no matter which metaphysics we have. The base assumption is that no supernatural beings are influencing our results in any way.

I'm sorry, what?

 

[EternalDragon]

There's no real metaphysical foundation to scientific work if we get the same methods no matter which metaphysics we have. The base assumption is that no supernatural beings are influencing our results in any way.

Again, please explain how you know you are not seeing and testing supernatural events or processes? How do you know this?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why would they?

Because that is what we observe in universes. We observe constants.

How can you say that?

Because they are nonsense.

You are claiming that other universes have to be considered in determining fine tuning which comes from the presumption that other universes exist which is not empirically known to exist. That is self refuting of your claim that everything must be empirically proven and tested.

No, I am saying that we have to know the absolute number of universes. This does not require that other universes exist. The number could be 1, but we need to know that it is just one before you can claim that it is improbable that it is improbable for our universe to have the constants that it has.

Do you feel that the fine tuning element is lacking evidence or that the fine tuning to allow the formation of intelligent life is lacking. Please specify.

You lack the evidence that the universe was fine tuned for the purpose of producing intelligent life.

I've shown how this is irrelevant to the fine tuning problem.

I have shown why it is relevant.

I don't think I've provided that as a claim. IF I am wrong you will have to post the quote that would provide evidence that I have.

So you have never claimed that it is improbable that our universe would have the constants it has by chance?

Please answer my questions and then we can see what evidence you are needing.
I said:
(which by their vary nature would seem so unlikely that it is absurd to think they came about by chance). I didn't claim it was impossible.

So what makes it so unlikely? How are you calculating this probability?

Let's use the planets as an example. It may very well be that the conditions needed for life to emerge on a planet come in a very narrow range. If Earth were the only planet in the Universe then the odds of that single planet having just the right conditions would be unlikely. However, we see that the universe could contain trillions of planets, so the odds of one of them having just the right conditions are actually not that unlikely.

That is why you need to know the absolute number of universes. Saying we know of just one does not change the need to know just how many there really are.

If you can't supply the number of universe then your claims that the universe emerged by chance is baseless.

If you can't supply the number then your claims of it being unlikely are baseless. It is like pretending that the winner of the lottery is the only person who played, and being stunned by how unlikely it is that this person won.

What? I ask you to support your belief that they are naturally caused and I am making an argument from ignorance?

You are pointing to our ignorance of how universes are made as the basis of your argument.

Total bunk. You have nothing to base this on other than our universe which in no way exemplifies what or even what could constitute for another universe or multiverse for that matter. You can claim you can imagine that it would be the way you have provided but that is all you have.

I am saying that no matter what the universe is like you will conclude that it is finely tuned.

Supernatural:
: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2
a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

Notice how ghosts, spirits, and deities are mentioned?

We are not able to see what was prior to our universe. We see back to its singularity. That is it.

They used to say that there were no other galaxies because we couldn't see any.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because that is what we observe in universes. We observe constants.

Loudmouth........ that is only what what we observe in ours. You can't make that plural because you can't claim that other universes exist.

Because they are nonsense.

You said you are an Empiricist. When you claim that other universes must be considered without empirical knowledge that they do, that self refutes your position. It is common sense, not nonsense.

No, I am saying that we have to know the absolute number of universes. This does not require that other universes exist.

Read what you just wrote. IF other universes do not exist then we do not have to know the number because the number is zero. Yet, I still don't even know what you are trying to refute. Do you feel there is sufficient evidence to claim that the universe is fine tuned?

The number could be 1, but we need to know that it is just one before you can claim that it is improbable that it is improbable for our universe to have the constants that it has.

Our universe is fine tuned and so it can't be improbable for it to be so. This universe is fine tuned to the life it supports. Plain and simple. Either you believe that is true or you don't. It doesn't matter whether that is due to the fact that other universes exist or not.

You lack the evidence that the universe was fine tuned for the purpose of producing intelligent life.

True. I didn't claim that. I said that the fact that the universe is fine tuned and produced intelligent life due to the fine tuning supports my claims.

I have shown why it is relevant.

No you haven't.

So you have never claimed that it is improbable that our universe would have the constants it has by chance?

Improbable yes, impossible no.

So what makes it so unlikely? How are you calculating this probability?

I didn't. Scientists have.

Let's use the planets as an example. It may very well be that the conditions needed for life to emerge on a planet come in a very narrow range. If Earth were the only planet in the Universe then the odds of that single planet having just the right conditions would be unlikely. However, we see that the universe could contain trillions of planets, so the odds of one of them having just the right conditions are actually not that unlikely.

It doesn't mean that they are not which is the point. It may make the probability less but the fine tuned universe is still there. We might bring that value down from what Smolin had but it remains just the same. Perhaps not as great in the number but still too great to ignore. Regardless, the fact that the universe is fine tuned, and without that fine tuning life as we know it could not have arose; means that it is evidence (scientifically calculated) supports my claim.

That is why you need to know the absolute number of universes. Saying we know of just one does not change the need to know just how many there really are.

You need to know this for the probability value, you don't need it to determine the fine tuning argument. It is fine tuned to support the life on earth. That is true. Why that is can be debated, but the fact of it being fine tuned can not.

If you can't supply the number then your claims of it being unlikely are baseless. It is like pretending that the winner of the lottery is the only person who played, and being stunned by how unlikely it is that this person won.

I hope we have settled this now.

You are pointing to our ignorance of how universes are made as the basis of your argument.

No, I said that you don't have evidence on the basis of your argument. IF you can't prove whether or not the universe is by chance without knowing the number of universes, it stands to reason that you can't show it was by chance without knowing the same.

I am saying that no matter what the universe is like you will conclude that it is finely tuned.

We have one universe that is fine tuned and we have no other. Period. We can never have another. We could at sometime in the future have indirect supportive evidence of other universes but you will be in the same spot as I am now. All we can show is that it support our claims. It is outside of our narrow window of experience.

Notice how ghosts, spirits, and deities are mentioned?

Can I read, I posted it. Did you even read the part that I highlighted?


T

hey used to say that there were no other galaxies because we couldn't see any.

Well for now we have what we have.

 

[Loudmouth]

Loudmouth........ that is only what what we observe in ours.

Then I have observed evidence that universes contain constants.

You said you are an Empiricist. When you claim that other universes must be considered without empirical knowledge that they do, that self refutes your position. It is common sense, not nonsense.

I am saying that you don't have the empirical knowledge to claim that our universe is improbable. The empirical knowledge you need is the exactly the empirical knowledge you claim we don't have. We don't know if there are other universes or not, and that is exactly the knowledge you need in order to claim that our universe is improbable.

Our universe is fine tuned . . .

Under your rules, any universe would be fine tuned.

True. I didn't claim that. I said that the fact that the universe is fine tuned and produced intelligent life due to the fine tuning supports my claims.

Supports what claim?

No you haven't.

Then please show me the probability calculations you are using. Prove me wrong.

Improbable yes, impossible no.

Please show me your calculations.

I didn't. Scientists have.

Where?

You need to know this for the probability value, you don't need it to determine the fine tuning argument. It is fine tuned to support the life on earth. That is true.

You have never shown that the universe was fine tuned so that there would be life.

No, I said that you don't have evidence on the basis of your argument. IF you can't prove whether or not the universe is by chance without knowing the number of universes, it stands to reason that you can't show it was by chance without knowing the same.

Then how can you claim that it was not by chance? If we lack the evidence as to whether it was by chance or not, how can you claim that it is improbable?

We have one universe that is fine tuned and we have no other.

Using your definition of fine tuned any universe would be fine tuned.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Again, please explain how you know you are not seeing and testing supernatural events or processes? How do you know this?

You assume this in order to do science. That's my point.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

I'm sorry, what?

In short, leave your metaphysics at the lab door since the method stays the same no matter what your private beliefs.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You assume this in order to do science. That's my point.

That is my point.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In short, leave your metaphysics at the lab door since the method stays the same no matter what your private beliefs.

True and it must. However, you can't eliminate the problem that you can't know if you have measured the supernatural or not. You can't make that claim.

 

[TLK Valentine]

True and it must. However, you can't eliminate the problem that you can't know if you have measured the supernatural or not. You can't make that claim.

So when has the supernatural been used as anything besides an excuse to deny results that didn't go your way?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

True and it must. However, you can't eliminate the problem that you can't know if you have measured the supernatural or not. You can't make that claim.

It's a bit like worrying about eliminating the problem of invisible Mosquitos that leave no bite mark. It's not really a problem if it makes no difference if you run it exists or not.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So when has the supernatural been used as anything besides an excuse to deny results that didn't go your way?

When science is done at anytime or anywhere.

What have I denied that didn't go my way?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's a bit like worrying about eliminating the problem of invisible Mosquitos that leave no bite mark. It's not really a problem if it makes no difference if you run it exists or not.

It is not a matter of eliminating anything. Science depends on the uniformity and consistency of the universe to be able to do science at all. If you were to eliminate that you would have no ability to know anything.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

That is my point.

Heh, sure but you add an additional assumption that isn't necessary for science which is that there exists a supernatural entity moving everything around according to a plan.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Heh, sure but you add an additional assumption that isn't necessary for science which is that there exists a supernatural entity moving everything around according to a plan.

I didn't say science had to include it at all. It just depends upon it.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

It is not a matter of eliminating anything. Science depends on the uniformity and consistency of the universe to be able to do science at all. If you were to eliminate that you would have no ability to know anything.

And uniformity and consistency is what is to be expected in the absence of supernatural beings changing things. It goes back to newton, an object at rest stays at rest as long as no force acts in it. In the absence of supernatural beings we can expect things to just do what they do.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

I didn't say science had to include it at all. It just depends upon it.

That's the point. It doesn't. To quote Laplace "I have no need for that hypothesis"