Why ... (2)

[OllieFranz]

Are you claiming that fine tuning is false?

I'm asking if we can tell whether the "fine tuning" thought experiment fails because of the physics, or because of a math mistake due to a missed false assumption.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you know of a different universe?

You would need to absolutely know the number of universes in order to make the claims of improbability that you are making. So how many universes are there, and how did you determine that?

Evidence of the trillion other universes please.

You need evidence that they don't exist in order for your math to work.

That is unfalsifiable. There would be no way to determine if there really were or not. In your worldview that is unacceptable.

In my worldview it is unacceptable to make probability calculations without all of the facts which is exactly what you are doing.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What experiments did they do to show that the constants were fine tuned by a deity?

Like I said, the fact that they have come to this conclusion is not based on anything but the evidence.

More importantly, how did you even determine that the universe was designed for us?

As we have discovered more and more fundamental physical principles they seem to have less and less to do with us. To take one example, in the early 1920s it was thought that the only elementary particles were the electron and the proton, then considered to be the ingredients from which we and our world are made. When new particles like the neu[bless and do not curse]tron were discovered it was taken for granted at first that they had to be made up of electrons and protons. Matters are very different today. We are not so sure anymore what we mean by a particle being elementary, but we have learned the important lesson that the fact that particles are present in ordinary matter has nothing to do with how fundamental they are. Almost all the particles whose fields appear in the modern standard model of particles and interactions decay so rapidly that they are ab[bless and do not curse]sent in ordinary matter and play no role at all in human life. „ Electrons are an essential part of our everyday world; the par[bless and do not curse]ticles called muons and tauons hardly matter at all to our lives; yet, in the way that they appear in our theories, electrons do not seem in any way more fundamental than muons and tauons. More generally, no one has ever discovered any correlation be[bless and do not curse]tween the importance of anything to us and its importance in the laws of nature.--Steven Weinberg, "Dreams of a Final Theory"​

The August ‘97 issue of “Science” (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled “Science and God: A Warming Trend?” Here is an excerpt:
The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life—such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars—also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.
Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal “Scientific American”, reflects on
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg’s wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:
One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning—The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.
This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,
but instead:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,

 

[Loudmouth]

Like I said, the fact that they have come to this conclusion is not based on anything but the evidence.

The August ‘97 issue of “Science” (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled “Science and God: A Warming Trend?” Here is an excerpt:
The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life—such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars—also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.
Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal “Scientific American”, reflects on
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg’s wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:
One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning—The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.
This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,
but instead:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,

You obviously have not read much of Weinberg's stuff.

For an analogy, suppose that there is a planet called Earth-prime, in every respect identical to our own, except that on this planet mankind developed the science of physics without know­ing anything about astronomy. (E.g., one might imagine that Earthprime’s surface is perpetually covered by clouds.) Just as on earth, students on Earthprime would find tables of funda­mental constants at the back of their physics textbooks. These tables would list the speed of light, the mass of the electron, and so on, and also another “fundamental” constant having the value 1.99 calories of energy per minute per square centimeter, which gives the energy reaching Earthprime’s surface from some unknown source outside. On earth this is called the solar con­stant because we know that this energy conies from the sun, but no one on Earthprime would have any way of knowing where this energy comes from or why this constant takes this particu­lar value. Some physicist on Earthprime might note that the ob­served value of this constant is remarkably well suited to the appearance of life. If Earthprime received much more or much less than 2 calories per minute per square centimeter the water of the oceans would instead be vapor or ice, leaving Earthprime with no liquid water or reasonable substitute in which life could have evolved. The physicist might conclude that this constant of 1.99 calories per minute per square centimeter had been fine-tuned by God for man’s benefit. More skeptical physicists on Earthprime might argue that such constants are eventually going to be explained by the final laws of physics, and that it is just a lucky accident that they have values favorable for life. In fact, both would be wrong. When the inhabitants of Earthprime finally develop a knowledge of astronomy, they learn that their planet receives 1.99 calories per minute per square centimeter because, like earth, it happens to be about 93 million miles away from a sun that produces 5,600 million million million million calories per minute, but they also see that there are other planets closer to their sun that are too hot for life and more planets farther from their sun that are too cold for life and doubtless countless other planets orbiting other stars of which only a small proportion are suitable for life. When they learn something about astronomy, the arguing physicists on Earthprime finally understand that the reason why they live on a world that receives roughly 2 calories per minute per square centimeter is just that there is no other kind of world where they could live. We in our part of the universe may be like the inhabitants of Earthprime before they learn about astronomy, but with other parts of the universe instead of other planets hidden from our view.--Steven Weinberg, "Dreams of a Final Theory"
​

 

[Oncedeceived]

You would need to absolutely know the number of universes in order to make the claims of improbability that you are making. So how many universes are there, and how did you determine that?

So you are questioning the peer reviewed information?

You need evidence that they don't exist in order for your math to work.

It isn't MY math. This is a secular scientist that has presented his mathematical calculations. IF you have issues with his math you must take it up with him. I believe that you have said that the way science works is that if there is a problem with the findings of any such information the peer review would bring it light. I have no indication that those who have worked in this field and have significantly more reason to critique the calculations would be countering his conclusions.

In my worldview it is unacceptable to make probability calculations without all of the facts which is exactly what you are doing.

I am doing nothing but citing a Scientific conclusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You obviously have not read much of Weinberg's stuff.

For an analogy, suppose that there is a planet called Earth-prime, in every respect identical to our own, except that on this planet mankind developed the science of physics without know[bless and do not curse]ing anything about astronomy. (E.g., one might imagine that Earthprime’s surface is perpetually covered by clouds.) Just as on earth, students on Earthprime would find tables of funda[bless and do not curse]mental constants at the back of their physics textbooks. These tables would list the speed of light, the mass of the electron, and so on, and also another “fundamental” constant having the value 1.99 calories of energy per minute per square centimeter, which gives the energy reaching Earthprime’s surface from some unknown source outside. On earth this is called the solar con[bless and do not curse]stant because we know that this energy conies from the sun, but no one on Earthprime would have any way of knowing where this energy comes from or why this constant takes this particu[bless and do not curse]lar value. Some physicist on Earthprime might note that the ob[bless and do not curse]served value of this constant is remarkably well suited to the appearance of life. If Earthprime received much more or much less than 2 calories per minute per square centimeter the water of the oceans would instead be vapor or ice, leaving Earthprime with no liquid water or reasonable substitute in which life could have evolved. The physicist might conclude that this constant of 1.99 calories per minute per square centimeter had been fine-tuned by God for man’s benefit. More skeptical physicists on Earthprime might argue that such constants are eventually going to be explained by the final laws of physics, and that it is just a lucky accident that they have values favorable for life. In fact, both would be wrong. When the inhabitants of Earthprime finally develop a knowledge of astronomy, they learn that their planet receives 1.99 calories per minute per square centimeter because, like earth, it happens to be about 93 million miles away from a sun that produces 5,600 million million million million calories per minute, but they also see that there are other planets closer to their sun that are too hot for life and more planets farther from their sun that are too cold for life and doubtless countless other planets orbiting other stars of which only a small proportion are suitable for life. When they learn something about astronomy, the arguing physicists on Earthprime finally understand that the reason why they live on a world that receives roughly 2 calories per minute per square centimeter is just that there is no other kind of world where they could live. We in our part of the universe may be like the inhabitants of Earthprime before they learn about astronomy, but with other parts of the universe instead of other planets hidden from our view.--Steven Weinberg, "Dreams of a Final Theory"
​

What is your point? He is making a defense of his new theory. There is no evidence there, but in his other quote he makes references of the evidence. I can't help that the man contradicts himself.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm asking if we can tell whether the "fine tuning" thought experiment fails because of the physics, or because of a math mistake due to a missed false assumption.

The fine tuning is not a thought experiment. It has been used extensively within the field of Physics. It doesn't fail.

I am not sure what math you are talking about.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That tells us what the number is in this universe. It does not tell us whether or not it can be different in another universe.

That is what this was in reference to. How they come up with the numbers for the constants. lasthero asked me what experiments and I gave him an example.

 

[OllieFranz]

The fine tuning is not a thought experiment. It has been used extensively within the field of Physics. It doesn't fail.

I am not sure what math you are talking about.

Of course it is a thought experiment. We can't actually build another universe. Maybe you are confused about what a thought experiment is. It would help if you looked at the thought experiments with which Einstein proved Relativity.

In any case, moving on. You are asserting that if the six constants you mentioned are altered, the universe would not sustain life as we know it. This conclusion is based on the math of the various laws that utilize these constants. That is the basis of your fine tuning argument.

I'm asking how sure we are that the failed versions (with some of the constants altered) failed because of the incompatability to life, and not because the constants were altered in ways that it is mathematically impossible to alter them. (If for example, contant a must always be proportional to constant b and we double a but triple b, then the resulting imagined universe would be impossible).

 

[Loudmouth]

What is your point?

I thought the analogy made it quite clear.

He is making a defense of his new theory.

He is pointing out that we are jumping to conclusions by pretending that our universe is the only universe. He is also pointing to the obvious confirmation bias in that it is not that stunning that we find life in a universe capable of producing life just as it isn't stunning that we find life on Earth instead of Venus and Mercury.

There is no evidence there, but in his other quote he makes references of the evidence. I can't help that the man contradicts himself.

You have no evidence that a deity fine tuned a single constant in our universe, and yet here you are claiming it is true.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is what this was in reference to. How they come up with the numbers for the constants.

So if I can measure the weight of a sparrow to the 5th decimal place it is evidence that the swallow is designed?

How is precision in measurement an indication of design?

 

[Loudmouth]

So you are questioning the peer reviewed information?

There is no peer reviewed papers with evidence demonstrating that God fine tuned a single constant in our universe.

It isn't MY math.

Yes, it is. You are claiming that a universe with our constants is improbable because it could not be reached by chance. This requires you to know how many universes there are, which you don't have. It is the same as the lottery example. You can't count just the winner when determining if a winner was probable or improbable. You need to count all of the trials.

This is a secular scientist that has presented his mathematical calculations.

Where did he calculate the number of universes? Where did he calculate all of the possible combinations of constants that would result in a universe with intelligent life?

 

[JWGU]

The idea that the fine-structure constant looks "fine," therefore other universes, has always seemed dumb to me. If there are other universes, then the word "universe" is a misnomer. There can only be one universe. But even on a non-linguistic level, the idea is silly because there are an infinite number of ways the universe could fail to support life that do not have anything to do with the fine-structure constant. Take two examples of "universes" in which we emphatically do not live: a non-entropic universe (directionless time) or an illogical universe (mathematically proven statements do not apply). I can imagine the former in some sense--I can reason about it. I can't imagine (reason about) the latter. But there's no reason to believe that directional time isn't as necessary as mathematical logic, or the value of the fine-structure constant. Again: at least with current techniques, there is absolutely no evidence that there is more than one universe or that these constants can be anything other than what they are. I just don't see how that presents a problem because even if we assume that these constants are somehow "tuned" (which implies that they could be different--which I don't accept a priori) for observational life, it means absolutely nothing. If there were no observational life, there would obviously be no counterpart saying "huh, I wonder why there is no observational life?" It's just silly. There's nothing special about observers except to the observers.

 

[Loudmouth]

The idea that the fine-structure constant looks "fine," therefore other universes, has always seemed dumb to me. If there are other universes, then the word "universe" is a misnomer. There can only be one universe.

Actually, universe is simply defined as what we can observe at the present. If the universe is accelerating in its expansion then the universe will get smaller and smaller over time as the accumulation of expansion exceeds the speed of light. The galaxies that are in the universe today will not be in the universe of the future.

At one time we thought we were the only planet in the universe. Later on we thought the Milky Way was the only galaxy in existence. Look at how wrong we were on both of those accounts.

There's nothing special about observers except to the observers.

That is part of the problem as well. We may be like a bacteria on a grain of rice under the refrigerator who wonders if the entire kitchen was made just for them. For all we know, the designer of the universe meant to create a sterile universe full of black holes, and failed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Of course it is a thought experiment. We can't actually build another universe. Maybe you are confused about what a thought experiment is. It would help if you looked at the thought experiments with which Einstein proved Relativity.

Ok. I see what you mean.

In any case, moving on. You are asserting that if the six constants you mentioned are altered, the universe would not sustain life as we know it. This conclusion is based on the math of the various laws that utilize these constants. That is the basis of your fine tuning argument.

I believe that each constant was adjusted individually for each constant itself. It wasn't determined outside of that perimeter. Each constant has a specific function and constitutes an individual system which was analyzed for that system. I don't know if they expanded that to include other systems or not.

I have to say that this is not my fine tuning argument. I ask again, do you doubt that the universe is fine tuned?

I'm asking how sure we are that the failed versions (with some of the constants altered) failed because of the incompatability to life, and not because the constants were altered in ways that it is mathematically impossible to alter them. (If for example, contant a must always be proportional to constant b and we double a but triple b, then the resulting imagined universe would be impossible).

So do you not believe that God created the universe?

I understand what you are saying but the fact remains that if there were any possibility of such a chance it would have been jumped on by the whole physicist community. They don't like that this is the case. They are upset that the universe is fine tuned because it defies a natural explanation.

The LHC will resume smashing protons in 2015 in a last-ditch search for answers. But in papers, talks and interviews, Arkani-Hamed and many other top physicists are already confronting the possibility that the universe might be unnatural. (There is wide disagreement, however, about what it would take to prove it.)

“Ten or 20 years ago, I was a firm believer in naturalness,” said Nathan Seiberg, a theoretical physicist at the Institute, where Einstein taught from 1933 until his death in 1955. “Now I’m not so sure. My hope is there’s still something we haven’t thought about, some other mechanism that would explain all these things. But I don’t see what it could be.”

Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky?

The energy built into the vacuum of space (known as vacuum energy, dark energy or the cosmological constant) is a baffling trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times smaller than what is calculated to be its natural, albeit self-destructive, value. No theory exists about what could naturally fix this gargantuan disparity. But it’s clear that the cosmological constant has to be enormously fine-tuned to prevent the universe from rapidly exploding or collapsing to a point. It has to be fine-tuned in order for life to have a chance.
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130524-is-nature-unnatural/

Read the article it is very eye opening.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There is no peer reviewed papers with evidence demonstrating that God fine tuned a single constant in our universe.

You are absolutely 100% correct. I never claimed there were. I have always claimed that I have supportive evidence of God creating the universe. Those evidences are scientific in nature. That does not mean that I can prove God exists with any of the evidence I use. That does not mean however that the absence of evidence is absence of God.

Yes, it is. You are claiming that a universe with our constants is improbable because it could not be reached by chance. This requires you to know how many universes there are, which you don't have. It is the same as the lottery example. You can't count just the winner when determining if a winner was probable or improbable. You need to count all of the trials.

So you are claiming that you deny what scientists are saying about the fine tuning of the universe?

Where did he calculate the number of universes? Where did he calculate all of the possible combinations of constants that would result in a universe with intelligent life?

Like I said I don't have the paper to see what he did or did not include.I don't personally think it rested on anything other than our universe itself. It was based on the stars if I am correct, although, I am not certain of that.

 

[JWGU]

Actually, universe is simply defined as what we can observe at the present. If the universe is accelerating in its expansion then the universe will get smaller and smaller over time as the accumulation of expansion exceeds the speed of light. The galaxies that are in the universe today will not be in the universe of the future.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was pretty sure that this is the definition of the "observable" universe, and one of the major assumptions of our cosmological models was that the laws of the observable universe are, well, universal.

At one time we thought we were the only planet in the universe. Later on we thought the Milky Way was the only galaxy in existence. Look at how wrong we were on both of those accounts.

Sure, but this doesn't really mean anything. There's no physical law, demonstrated in laboratory conditions, and making falsifiable predictions, that we can use to conclude that we were wrong before about the scope of existence, therefore we are wrong now. What I was particularly objecting to was the misuse of the word "universe." "World" doesn't have the connotation that it's the only world, though it may have at one point. "Galaxy" never did, I don't think. "Universe" definitionally does, and at least according to Wikipedia is expected to encompass "the totality of existence." If something exists, it is part of the universe. It's a catchall term for whatever is at the top of the hierarchy of existence. The notion of "other universes" or "parallel universes" is intriguing but conceptually nonsensical.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So if I can measure the weight of a sparrow to the 5th decimal place it is evidence that the swallow is designed?

How is precision in measurement an indication of design?

I ask again do you deny fine tuning of the universe.

 

[Loudmouth]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was pretty sure that this is the definition of the "observable" universe, and one of the major assumptions of our cosmological models was that the laws of the observable universe are, well, universal.

They are universal for the universe we find ourselves in.

Sure, but this doesn't really mean anything. There's no physical law, demonstrated in laboratory conditions, and making falsifiable predictions, that we can use to conclude that we were wrong before about the scope of existence, therefore we are wrong now. What I was particularly objecting to was the misuse of the word "universe." "World" doesn't have the connotation that it's the only world, though it may have at one point. "Galaxy" never did, I don't think. "Universe" definitionally does, and at least according to Wikipedia is expected to encompass "the totality of existence." If something exists, it is part of the universe. It's a catchall term for whatever is at the top of the hierarchy of existence. The notion of "other universes" or "parallel universes" is intriguing but conceptually nonsensical.

Actually, "world" and "galaxy" did have the same meaning as "universe" at one time. I am not saying that our past mistakes indicates the truth of a multiverse, but surely we should recognize our own hubris before exclaiming that there are no other universes.

 

[Loudmouth]

I ask again do you deny fine tuning of the universe.

I don't deny that we find ourselves in a universe that is capable of supporting life.