Jump to content
ydoaPs

The Fine-Tuning Argument is dead

Recommended Posts

Lol

So, no. I thought as much since you didn't even know what multivariable analysis is. Find even one paper that does the math correctly and finds fine tuning yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, no. I thought as much since you didn't even know what multivariable analysis is. Find even one paper that does the math correctly and finds fine tuning yet?

 

I'm still waiting for you to give me a paper that does multivariable analysis that hasn't been heavliy critiqued by other physicists.

 

Besides the 2 papers didn't have all the constants and initial conditions in there calculations. They carry picked as well.

 

The first 1 only did the weak force (which I gave you a paper that critiqued that), and the 2nd one only did G, a, and C and he only let the constants very a limited range and used a limited set of criteria. (I also gave you a paper that critiqued that as well)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One guy with terrible critiques doesn't count as "heavily". And, btw, all physics papers are heavily critiqued. It's called peer review.

 

The first 1 only did the weak force (which I gave you a paper that critiqued that), and the 2nd one only did G, a, and C and he only let the constants very a limited range and used a limited set of criteria. (I also gave you a paper that critiqued that as well)

Show me one that lets even two variables vary. If you sincerely find this to be a flaw in the work, then you can't stand behind any paper that has found fine tuning in the history of the human race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oxford Dialogues in Christian Theism,

 

You really think this is a source for a physics paper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been researching the fine-tuning argument more, and found these comic coincidences. Tell me how moving them all at the same time would help the fine-tuning problem? (moving them randomly)

 

Strong Force:

 

If the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium. 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. [1]

 

The weak nuclear force:

 

The weak nuclear force is involved in the radioactive decay of some particles, including the transmutation of protons to neutrons. It controlled the ratio of protons to neutrons in the life of the universe, and hence the ratio of hydrogen to helium. If it was only slightly weaker, all hydrogen would have become helium and we could have no water; if only slightly greater, there would be only hydrogen and no helium, which was necessary to later produce the more complex elements necessary for life. [2]

 

Electromagnetism:

 

The formation of stable nuclei depends on the ratio of the strong and electromagnetic forces - the protons in a nucleus repel each other, but the strong force overcomes this repulsion. A small change in their relative strengths (0.74%) would allow the electromagnetic force to overcome the strong force, and atoms could not exist. [3]

 

Gravity:

 

Gravity is about 10^39 times weaker than electromagnetism (I have seen slightly different values given for this ratio). If it were only 10^33 times weaker, stars would be billions of times less massive and burn a million times faster - and life and the universe as we know it could not exist. [4]

 

Mass Density of the Universe:

 

The mass density of the universe is finely balanced to permit life to a degree of one part in 10^15. A change by 1 part in 10^15 would have resulted in a collapse, or big crunch, occurring far too early for life to have developed, or there would have been an expansion so rapid that no stars, galaxies or life could have formed. [5]

 

Electrons:

 

If electrons were any more massive, then electrons and protons would be disposed to bond and form neutrons, thus disrupting the formation of heavy elements. [6]

 

Neutron:

 

If the mass of a neutron was only 0.14% larger there would be no nuclear fusion in stars and no energy source for life. [7]

 

Proton:

 

The mass of a proton is roughly 1836.1526 times the mass of the electron. Were this ratio changed by any significant degree, the stability of many common chemicals would be compromised. In the end, this would prevent the formation of such molecules as DNA, the building blocks of life. [8]

 

The homogeneity of the universe:

 

If the initial state of the universe was homogenous, matter wouldn't ever coalesce, but if the "density contrast" (or lumpiness) was too great, galaxies would be too turbulent and unstable for life. The actual lumpiness is 10^-5 is just right, but if it was 10^-6 or 10^-4 then conditions would be unsuitable. [9]

 

The formation of carbon and oxygen:

 

1. Two helium nuclei have to collide and combine to form beryllium, followed by collision with a third helium nucleus to produce carbon. But beryllium is extremely unstable, and the process would rarely occur except for the "fortunate" fact that carbon has a resonance (a natural energy level) that exactly matches the energy of the particles involved and so facilitates the process - if the resonance level is just 4% lower, no larger nuclei could have formed.

 

2. Another helium nucleus must collide with a carbon nucleus to produce oxygen, and this time the oxygen resonance is just right to reduce the conversion and retain a high percentage of carbon necessary for life. [10]

 

Cosmological Constant:

 

The Cosmological Constant is causing the universe to expand at an accelerating rate, such that if the cosmological constant were larger by 1 part in 10^120 it would have prevented stars and galaxies from forming. As Leonard Susskind says, “To make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is most certainly no accident.” [11]

 

The Higgs vev:

 

The Higgs vev is fine-tuned to 10^-17 [12]

 

inflation:

 

The “famous fine-tuning problem” of inflation is 10^-11 [13]

 

entropy:

 

The fine-tuning implied by entropy is 1 in 10^10^123 [14]

 

Fine-structure constant:

 

The triple alpha process plausibly puts constraints of order 10^{-5} on the fine-structure constant

 

 

 

 

[1] Paul Davies, The Accidental Universe, Cambridge University Press, p70-71

[2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0609050v1.pdf

[3] http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/forces.htm

[4] Davies, Superforce p. 242

[5] Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006), 72-73

[6] http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/forces.htm

[7] Barrow, J D and Tipler, F J, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ‘The Anthropic Cosmological Principle.’

 

[8] Holder, "Is the Universe Designed?"

[9] Martin Rees Just Six Numbers:The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe

[10] Fred Hoyle The "Hoyle state"

[11] Leonard Susskind ("The Cosmic Landscape")

[12] http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/in-defence-of-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-for-intelligent-life/

[13] Turok, 2002

[14] Roger Penrose, former Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University and a cosmologist who worked with Stephen Hawking ("The Emperor's New Mind"):

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been researching the fine-tuning argument more, and found these comic coincidences. Tell me how moving them all at the same time would help the fine-tuning problem? (moving them randomly)

 

Strong Force:

 

If the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium. 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. [1]

 

The weak nuclear force:

 

The weak nuclear force is involved in the radioactive decay of some particles, including the transmutation of protons to neutrons. It controlled the ratio of protons to neutrons in the life of the universe, and hence the ratio of hydrogen to helium. If it was only slightly weaker, all hydrogen would have become helium and we could have no water; if only slightly greater, there would be only hydrogen and no helium, which was necessary to later produce the more complex elements necessary for life. [2]

 

Electromagnetism:

 

The formation of stable nuclei depends on the ratio of the strong and electromagnetic forces - the protons in a nucleus repel each other, but the strong force overcomes this repulsion. A small change in their relative strengths (0.74%) would allow the electromagnetic force to overcome the strong force, and atoms could not exist. [3]

 

Gravity:

 

Gravity is about 10^39 times weaker than electromagnetism (I have seen slightly different values given for this ratio). If it were only 10^33 times weaker, stars would be billions of times less massive and burn a million times faster - and life and the universe as we know it could not exist. [4]

 

Mass Density of the Universe:

 

The mass density of the universe is finely balanced to permit life to a degree of one part in 10^15. A change by 1 part in 10^15 would have resulted in a collapse, or big crunch, occurring far too early for life to have developed, or there would have been an expansion so rapid that no stars, galaxies or life could have formed. [5]

 

Electrons:

 

If electrons were any more massive, then electrons and protons would be disposed to bond and form neutrons, thus disrupting the formation of heavy elements. [6]

 

Neutron:

 

If the mass of a neutron was only 0.14% larger there would be no nuclear fusion in stars and no energy source for life. [7]

 

Proton:

 

The mass of a proton is roughly 1836.1526 times the mass of the electron. Were this ratio changed by any significant degree, the stability of many common chemicals would be compromised. In the end, this would prevent the formation of such molecules as DNA, the building blocks of life. [8]

 

The homogeneity of the universe:

 

If the initial state of the universe was homogenous, matter wouldn't ever coalesce, but if the "density contrast" (or lumpiness) was too great, galaxies would be too turbulent and unstable for life. The actual lumpiness is 10^-5 is just right, but if it was 10^-6 or 10^-4 then conditions would be unsuitable. [9]

 

The formation of carbon and oxygen:

 

1. Two helium nuclei have to collide and combine to form beryllium, followed by collision with a third helium nucleus to produce carbon. But beryllium is extremely unstable, and the process would rarely occur except for the "fortunate" fact that carbon has a resonance (a natural energy level) that exactly matches the energy of the particles involved and so facilitates the process - if the resonance level is just 4% lower, no larger nuclei could have formed.

 

2. Another helium nucleus must collide with a carbon nucleus to produce oxygen, and this time the oxygen resonance is just right to reduce the conversion and retain a high percentage of carbon necessary for life. [10]

 

Cosmological Constant:

 

The Cosmological Constant is causing the universe to expand at an accelerating rate, such that if the cosmological constant were larger by 1 part in 10^120 it would have prevented stars and galaxies from forming. As Leonard Susskind says, “To make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is most certainly no accident.” [11]

 

The Higgs vev:

 

The Higgs vev is fine-tuned to 10^-17 [12]

 

inflation:

 

The “famous fine-tuning problem” of inflation is 10^-11 [13]

 

entropy:

 

The fine-tuning implied by entropy is 1 in 10^10^123 [14]

 

Fine-structure constant:

 

The triple alpha process plausibly puts constraints of order 10^{-5} on the fine-structure constant

 

 

 

 

[1] Paul Davies, The Accidental Universe, Cambridge University Press, p70-71

[2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0609050v1.pdf

[3] http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/forces.htm

[4] Davies, Superforce p. 242

[5] Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006), 72-73

[6] http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/forces.htm

[7] Barrow, J D and Tipler, F J, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ‘The Anthropic Cosmological Principle.’

 

[8] Holder, "Is the Universe Designed?"

[9] Martin Rees Just Six Numbers:The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe

[10] Fred Hoyle The "Hoyle state"

[11] Leonard Susskind ("The Cosmic Landscape")

[12] http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/in-defence-of-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-for-intelligent-life/

[13] Turok, 2002

[14] Roger Penrose, former Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University and a cosmologist who worked with Stephen Hawking ("The Emperor's New Mind"):

 

And yet it cannot demonstrate how or why you would expect a universe to be any different than the universe we live in now, just because you can speculate about how changing constants would effect the reality we live in doesn't mean there is or even if there can be other universes with different constants, IMHO it's more than a bit like discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...

 

But in your speculations you are always driving the constant in a direction that equals bad, possibly changing the gravitational constant up a tiny bit would make sun like stars out of red dwarfs and allow for more habitable space around each star. In any scenario we can only judge what the effect would have on life as we know it.

 

We can speculate anything, maybe a tiny jiggle of constants makes a universe with lots of boron instead of carbon and there we have boron life forms sitting around thinking of how perfectly tuned their universe is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been researching the fine-tuning argument more, and found these comic coincidences. Tell me how moving them all at the same time would help the fine-tuning problem? (moving them randomly)

 

Strong Force:

 

If the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium. 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. [1]

 

The weak nuclear force:

 

The weak nuclear force is involved in the radioactive decay of some particles, including the transmutation of protons to neutrons. It controlled the ratio of protons to neutrons in the life of the universe, and hence the ratio of hydrogen to helium. If it was only slightly weaker, all hydrogen would have become helium and we could have no water; if only slightly greater, there would be only hydrogen and no helium, which was necessary to later produce the more complex elements necessary for life. [2]

 

Electromagnetism:

 

The formation of stable nuclei depends on the ratio of the strong and electromagnetic forces - the protons in a nucleus repel each other, but the strong force overcomes this repulsion. A small change in their relative strengths (0.74%) would allow the electromagnetic force to overcome the strong force, and atoms could not exist. [3]

 

Gravity:

 

Gravity is about 10^39 times weaker than electromagnetism (I have seen slightly different values given for this ratio). If it were only 10^33 times weaker, stars would be billions of times less massive and burn a million times faster - and life and the universe as we know it could not exist. [4]

 

Mass Density of the Universe:

 

The mass density of the universe is finely balanced to permit life to a degree of one part in 10^15. A change by 1 part in 10^15 would have resulted in a collapse, or big crunch, occurring far too early for life to have developed, or there would have been an expansion so rapid that no stars, galaxies or life could have formed. [5]

 

Electrons:

 

If electrons were any more massive, then electrons and protons would be disposed to bond and form neutrons, thus disrupting the formation of heavy elements. [6]

 

Neutron:

 

If the mass of a neutron was only 0.14% larger there would be no nuclear fusion in stars and no energy source for life. [7]

 

Proton:

 

The mass of a proton is roughly 1836.1526 times the mass of the electron. Were this ratio changed by any significant degree, the stability of many common chemicals would be compromised. In the end, this would prevent the formation of such molecules as DNA, the building blocks of life. [8]

 

The homogeneity of the universe:

 

If the initial state of the universe was homogenous, matter wouldn't ever coalesce, but if the "density contrast" (or lumpiness) was too great, galaxies would be too turbulent and unstable for life. The actual lumpiness is 10^-5 is just right, but if it was 10^-6 or 10^-4 then conditions would be unsuitable. [9]

 

The formation of carbon and oxygen:

 

1. Two helium nuclei have to collide and combine to form beryllium, followed by collision with a third helium nucleus to produce carbon. But beryllium is extremely unstable, and the process would rarely occur except for the "fortunate" fact that carbon has a resonance (a natural energy level) that exactly matches the energy of the particles involved and so facilitates the process - if the resonance level is just 4% lower, no larger nuclei could have formed.

 

2. Another helium nucleus must collide with a carbon nucleus to produce oxygen, and this time the oxygen resonance is just right to reduce the conversion and retain a high percentage of carbon necessary for life. [10]

 

Cosmological Constant:

 

The Cosmological Constant is causing the universe to expand at an accelerating rate, such that if the cosmological constant were larger by 1 part in 10^120 it would have prevented stars and galaxies from forming. As Leonard Susskind says, “To make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is most certainly no accident.” [11]

 

The Higgs vev:

 

The Higgs vev is fine-tuned to 10^-17 [12]

 

inflation:

 

The “famous fine-tuning problem” of inflation is 10^-11 [13]

 

entropy:

 

The fine-tuning implied by entropy is 1 in 10^10^123 [14]

 

Fine-structure constant:

 

The triple alpha process plausibly puts constraints of order 10^{-5} on the fine-structure constant

 

 

 

 

[1] Paul Davies, The Accidental Universe, Cambridge University Press, p70-71

[2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0609050v1.pdf

[3] http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/forces.htm

[4] Davies, Superforce p. 242

[5] Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006), 72-73

[6] http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/forces.htm

[7] Barrow, J D and Tipler, F J, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ‘The Anthropic Cosmological Principle.’

 

[8] Holder, "Is the Universe Designed?"

[9] Martin Rees Just Six Numbers:The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe

[10] Fred Hoyle The "Hoyle state"

[11] Leonard Susskind ("The Cosmic Landscape")

[12] http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/in-defence-of-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-for-intelligent-life/

[13] Turok, 2002

[14] Roger Penrose, former Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University and a cosmologist who worked with Stephen Hawking ("The Emperor's New Mind"):

 

This is a good start.

I've been researching the fine-tuning argument more, and found these comic coincidences. Tell me how moving them all at the same time would help the fine-tuning problem? (moving them randomly)

 

Strong Force:

 

If the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium. 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. [1]

 

The weak nuclear force:

 

The weak nuclear force is involved in the radioactive decay of some particles, including the transmutation of protons to neutrons. It controlled the ratio of protons to neutrons in the life of the universe, and hence the ratio of hydrogen to helium. If it was only slightly weaker, all hydrogen would have become helium and we could have no water; if only slightly greater, there would be only hydrogen and no helium, which was necessary to later produce the more complex elements necessary for life. [2]

 

Electromagnetism:

 

The formation of stable nuclei depends on the ratio of the strong and electromagnetic forces - the protons in a nucleus repel each other, but the strong force overcomes this repulsion. A small change in their relative strengths (0.74%) would allow the electromagnetic force to overcome the strong force, and atoms could not exist. [3]

 

Gravity:

 

Gravity is about 10^39 times weaker than electromagnetism (I have seen slightly different values given for this ratio). If it were only 10^33 times weaker, stars would be billions of times less massive and burn a million times faster - and life and the universe as we know it could not exist. [4]

 

Mass Density of the Universe:

 

The mass density of the universe is finely balanced to permit life to a degree of one part in 10^15. A change by 1 part in 10^15 would have resulted in a collapse, or big crunch, occurring far too early for life to have developed, or there would have been an expansion so rapid that no stars, galaxies or life could have formed. [5]

 

Electrons:

 

If electrons were any more massive, then electrons and protons would be disposed to bond and form neutrons, thus disrupting the formation of heavy elements. [6]

 

Neutron:

 

If the mass of a neutron was only 0.14% larger there would be no nuclear fusion in stars and no energy source for life. [7]

 

Proton:

 

The mass of a proton is roughly 1836.1526 times the mass of the electron. Were this ratio changed by any significant degree, the stability of many common chemicals would be compromised. In the end, this would prevent the formation of such molecules as DNA, the building blocks of life. [8]

 

The homogeneity of the universe:

 

If the initial state of the universe was homogenous, matter wouldn't ever coalesce, but if the "density contrast" (or lumpiness) was too great, galaxies would be too turbulent and unstable for life. The actual lumpiness is 10^-5 is just right, but if it was 10^-6 or 10^-4 then conditions would be unsuitable. [9]

 

The formation of carbon and oxygen:

 

1. Two helium nuclei have to collide and combine to form beryllium, followed by collision with a third helium nucleus to produce carbon. But beryllium is extremely unstable, and the process would rarely occur except for the "fortunate" fact that carbon has a resonance (a natural energy level) that exactly matches the energy of the particles involved and so facilitates the process - if the resonance level is just 4% lower, no larger nuclei could have formed.

 

2. Another helium nucleus must collide with a carbon nucleus to produce oxygen, and this time the oxygen resonance is just right to reduce the conversion and retain a high percentage of carbon necessary for life. [10]

 

Cosmological Constant:

 

The Cosmological Constant is causing the universe to expand at an accelerating rate, such that if the cosmological constant were larger by 1 part in 10^120 it would have prevented stars and galaxies from forming. As Leonard Susskind says, “To make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is most certainly no accident.” [11]

 

The Higgs vev:

 

The Higgs vev is fine-tuned to 10^-17 [12]

 

inflation:

 

The “famous fine-tuning problem” of inflation is 10^-11 [13]

 

entropy:

 

The fine-tuning implied by entropy is 1 in 10^10^123 [14]

 

Fine-structure constant:

 

The triple alpha process plausibly puts constraints of order 10^{-5} on the fine-structure constant

 

 

 

 

[1] Paul Davies, The Accidental Universe, Cambridge University Press, p70-71

[2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0609050v1.pdf

[3] http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/forces.htm

[4] Davies, Superforce p. 242

[5] Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006), 72-73

[6] http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/forces.htm

[7] Barrow, J D and Tipler, F J, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ‘The Anthropic Cosmological Principle.’

 

[8] Holder, "Is the Universe Designed?"

[9] Martin Rees Just Six Numbers:The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe

[10] Fred Hoyle The "Hoyle state"

[11] Leonard Susskind ("The Cosmic Landscape")

[12] http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/in-defence-of-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-for-intelligent-life/

[13] Turok, 2002

[14] Roger Penrose, former Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University and a cosmologist who worked with Stephen Hawking ("The Emperor's New Mind"):

 

You're forgetting the bit where none of those have been demonstrated. Ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be noted that lettertonature is not a peer reviewed journal, but a blog by four theistic cosmologists, whom crispy bacon has already cited multiple times. There's nothing new there, just a repetition of bacon's posts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be noted that lettertonature is not a peer reviewed journal, but a blog by four theistic cosmologists, whom crispy bacon has already cited multiple times. There's nothing new there, just a repetition of bacon's posts

 

How do you know they are theistic cosmologists? Even if they are, shouldn't we judge based off what they say and the evidence they provide, Not weither they are atheist/theist?

Let people look at the evidence he provided and judge for themselves.

 

http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/fine-tuning-and-the-myth-of-one-variable-at-a-time/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

How do you know they are theistic cosmologists?

Because you've been making this argument for months over on Physforum, to the point where you simply repeat yourself over and over. This is hardly the first time you've referenced these same guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because you've been making this argument for months over on Physforum, to the point where you simply repeat yourself over and over. This is hardly the first time you've referenced these same guys.

 

It doesn't mean they're theist. There are many atheist that agree with fine-tuning. Even if they are theist, that doesn't mean they're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It doesn't mean they're theist. There are many atheist that agree with fine-tuning. Even if they are theist, that doesn't mean they're wrong.

 

If someone who believes in fine tuning is an atheist then who does the fine tuning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone who believes in fine tuning is an atheist then who does the fine tuning?

The universe itself.

 

It might have happened when the universe was very young. The tuning wouldn't take all that much because information content (entropy) was very low.The mechanism? Who knows? Saying that it had to be some god is a god of the gaps argument.

 

Or it might be that the universe is infinite and those magic numbers aren't the same across the entire universe. We happen to live in a pocket universe that is amenable to life. The places that aren't? There aren't any beings there to ask this silly question about fine tuning.

 

Or it might be that the universe is but one of a huge number of universes. Our universe is amenable to life. Others aren't, and there aren't any beings in those hostile universes to ask this silly question. This multiverse concept apparently is a leading contender amongst cosmologists. Think of it as the MWI interpretation of quantum mechanics gone wild.

 

Or it might be that there is a "before the big bang", and that this "before" was another universe. This leads to a never starting, never ending cycle of universes. We happen to live in a cycle that is amenable to life. This is Penrose's view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If someone who believes in fine tuning is an atheist then who does the fine tuning?

 

There are many atheist that find the evidence for fine-tuning convincing. You must remember fine-tuning doesn't = designed.

 

Paul Davies, Luke Barnes, Martin Rees, John Barrow, Frank Tipler, Don N. Page, John A. Wheeler, Roger Penrose, David Jonathan, Luboš Motl, Peter Woit, Arno Penzias, Dr Dennis Scania, Francis Collins, Karl W. Giberson, Peter Harrison, Andrei Linde, Hugh Ross, Frank A. Wilczek, Dr. David Deutsch, Michael Turner, Lee Smolin, George Ellis, Alan Sandage, George Greenstein, Robin Collins, Tony Rothman, Vera Kistiakowsky, Ed Harrison, John Gribbin all say the universe is fine-tuned.

 

Half of those guys are atheist/agnostic.

 

I just think God is the best explanation for the fine-tuning.

 

I do it like this...

 

The fine-tuning is either because of chance, physical necessity, or God.

 

The numbers we see rules out chance.

 

I rule out physical neccisity by saying Physicist Stephen Hawking says, "It appears that the fundamental numbers, and even the form, of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle.” Also you would have to believe that a life-prohibiting universe is physically impossible, but a life-prohibiting universe is logically possible and there is no evidence suggesting otherwise. Saying the universe had to take a form suitable for life is ridiculous, which is why physical necessity has few, if any supporters.

 

Also if the constants can't be moved, we can use that as an argument for God as well. If the "only" way the universe could be is life supporting, out of all the other logically possible ways it could be, it could be used as an argument for God. After all scientist have always tried to say "we arn't the purpose of the universe". If physical necessity turns out to be true, than those scientist might be wrong.

 

After chance and physical necessity is out of the way, we are left with God.

god of the gaps argument.

 

“The happy coincidences between life’s requirements and nature’s choices of parameter values might be just a series of flukes, but one could be forgiven for beginning to suspect that something deeper is at work”. - Wilczek. It’s not a god-of-the-gaps, fine-tuning is leading to God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are many atheist that find the evidence for fine-tuning convincing. You must remember fine-tuning doesn't = designed.

 

Paul Davies, Luke Barnes, Martin Rees, John Barrow, Frank Tipler, Don N. Page, John A. Wheeler, Roger Penrose, David Jonathan, Luboš Motl, Peter Woit, Arno Penzias, Dr Dennis Scania, Francis Collins, Karl W. Giberson, Peter Harrison, Andrei Linde, Hugh Ross, Frank A. Wilczek, Dr. David Deutsch, Michael Turner, Lee Smolin, George Ellis, Alan Sandage, George Greenstein, Robin Collins, Tony Rothman, Vera Kistiakowsky, Ed Harrison, John Gribbin all say the universe is fine-tuned.

 

Half of those guys are atheist/agnostic.

 

I just think God is the best explanation for the fine-tuning.

 

I do it like this...

 

The fine-tuning is either because of chance, physical necessity, or God.

 

The numbers we see rules out chance.

 

I rule out physical neccisity by saying Physicist Stephen Hawking says, "It appears that the fundamental numbers, and even the form, of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle.” Also you would have to believe that a life-prohibiting universe is physically impossible, but a life-prohibiting universe is logically possible and there is no evidence suggesting otherwise. Saying the universe had to take a form suitable for life is ridiculous, which is why physical necessity has few, if any supporters.

 

Also if the constants can't be moved, we can use that as an argument for God as well. If the "only" way the universe could be is life supporting, out of all the other logically possible ways it could be, it could be used as an argument for God. After all scientist have always tried to say "we arn't the purpose of the universe". If physical necessity turns out to be true, than those scientist might be wrong.

 

After chance and physical necessity is out of the way, we are left with God.

 

“The happy coincidences between life’s requirements and nature’s choices of parameter values might be just a series of flukes, but one could be forgiven for beginning to suspect that something deeper is at work”. - Wilczek. It’s not a god-of-the-gaps, fine-tuning is leading to God.

 

 

Horse feathers, it's straight up god of the gaps... We are here, the odds of that happening is 100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Horse feathers, it's straight up god of the gaps... We are here, the odds of that happening is 100%

 

Well yes it did happen, now we have to ask why. Why out of increditable odds did a life substaining universe form by chance?

 

Or could it be that there is a fine-tuner.

Or it might be that the universe is but one of a huge number of universes.

 

Or it might be that there is a "before the big bang", and that this "before" was another universe. This leads to a never starting, never ending cycle of universes. We happen to live in a cycle that is amenable to life.

 

I've already pointed this out many times, but since people keep bringing it up I will say this again.

 

There is currently no experimental evidence in support of the M-verse "hypothesis". While there is some support in physics for string theory and inflationary cosmology, they are currently provisional and highly speculative. However I actually believe the multiverse exists, but is insufficient in accounting for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature. (see links)

 

http://sententias.org/2013/01/19/do-multiverse-scenarios-solve-the-problem-of-fine-tuning/

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0246.pdf

 

Also about the never ending cycle of universes (cyclic universe).

 

The new Planck data render many cyclic models, including the ekpyrotic universe, a lot less likely. A lack of non-Gaussianities in the CMB spectrum rules out the conversion mechanism required by most cyclic models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

every time it happens the odds are still 1...

 

Imagine you're being dragged before a firing squad of one hundred trained marksmen to be executed. The command is given: "Ready! Aim! Fire!" You hear the deafening roar of the guns. But then you observe that you're still alive, that all the one hundred trained marksmen missed! You're telling me you would say, "The chances of the bullets missing are 1:1 because I'm alive! Let's not even look into why they missed"

 

A logical approach would be to find out why the bullets missed or in the case of fine-tuning why these constants are so fine-tuned.

 

The odds clearly wern't 1:1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

There is currently no experimental evidence in support of the M-verse "hypothesis"

There is currently no evidence in support of god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The fine-tuning is either because of chance, physical necessity, or God.

 

The numbers we see rules out chance.

 

Can you explain how you calculate that based on a sample size of 1.

 

Imagine you're being dragged before a firing squad of one hundred trained marksmen to be executed.

 

This analolgy would be better if it was one marksman (our current sample size). And he may not be a marksman. He may not even be armed. Maybe he doesn't exist. So what were the odds, again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're telling me you would say, "The chances of the bullets missing are 1:1 because I'm alive! Let's not even look into why they missed"

Actually the correct statement would be the chances of me being alive after the shots were fired are 1, because I am. The chances of all 100 bullets missing is another question entirely. Maybe they all hit exactly what they were aiming at, it just wasn't me.

 

The probability of this universe existing exactly as it does is 1, because - well, it exists, exactly as it does. We can't compute the odds of the universe forming this way because we only have one example of a universe (this one) to work with.

 

My ethics professor used to say "You will never get the right answer if you keep asking the wrong question."

Edited by Greg H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.