|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/18/2008 3:51:03 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 527
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
No. If this universe is the only possible universe, you can't say it is fine-tuned. Without the other possibilites, it isn't fine-tuned, it is the only way it could be.
Again, we say it's fine-tuned because of a myriad of constants that must exist as they do for us to exist as we do; the fact that it couldn't be 'any other way' then is evidence for the neccesity of fine-tuning, not evidence against it. Evidence against fine-tuning would be in the form of universes that exist despite differences in the fundamental constants.
Tuning assumes a range of possible values. If it coundn't be any other way, there is no range and no 'tuning'.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/18/2008 8:23:47 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7624
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Tuning assumes a range of possible values. If it coundn't be any other way, there is no range and no 'tuning'.
Well no, it just assumes that the universe didn't have to be at all - because it is, and because it is a requirement for it to exist at all that numerous constants be exactly as they are, it can be said to fine-tuned.
Otherwise one would have to contend that the universe must exist, and can only exist as this one does; and how you would prove that is beyond me.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/18/2008 8:49:34 PM
|
|
|
HocusPocus
Posts: 17
Joined: 11/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
quote:
Rather, if the constants were changed, then the universe would be perfectly fine-tuned to allow whatever entities that arise to exist (I will call these entities X).
This presumes, of course, that this fictional universe would support ANY kind of life by whatever definition, which is a very, very, very big presumption. But at least this speculation is right in-line with the Discover multiverse theory; totally untestable.
No, it does not presume this at all. You can fill in X with ANYTHING and it holds true, so the only thing required is that SOMETHING exists in this alternate universe.
And, in fact, I think there are several better candidates for X than life, without even talking about other universes.
For example, the more astronomers take a look at the universe, the more black holes they find. Now black holes are the norm rather than the exception, and recent evidence indicates an absolutely staggering number of black holes throughout the universe.
It seems that the universe has been fine-tuned to allow the existence of billions of black holes, which are rapidly consuming everything around them.
Or, you could say that rather than the universe being fine-tuned for life, it is fine-tuned for the destruction of life. Again, destruction of life seems to be the norm, as indicated by regular massive extinction events since life's inception.
And now we find out that the Andromeda Galaxy is headed our way at 300,000 miles per hour, which will lead the ultimate destruction of not only life, but of the entire Milky Way.
You better hope jesus comes back by then...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/18/2008 9:08:19 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7624
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
No, it does not presume this at all. You can fill in X with ANYTHING and it holds true, so the only thing required is that SOMETHING exists in this alternate universe.
And, in fact, I think there are several better candidates for X than life, without even talking about other universes.
For example, the more astronomers take a look at the universe, the more black holes they find. Now black holes are the norm rather than the exception, and recent evidence indicates an absolutely staggering number of black holes throughout the universe.
It seems that the universe has been fine-tuned to allow the existence of billions of black holes, which are rapidly consuming everything around them.
Or, you could say that rather than the universe being fine-tuned for life, it is fine-tuned for the destruction of life. Again, destruction of life seems to be the norm, as indicated by regular massive extinction events since life's inception.
And now we find out that the Andromeda Galaxy is headed our way at 300,000 miles per hour, which will lead the ultimate destruction of not only life, but of the entire Milky Way.
You better hope jesus comes back by then...
The problem with both points is that inherent in them is the assumption that black holes and the existence of previous life are both detrimental to the existence of the universe's ability to support life, as well as the earth's ability to do so.
As it turns out, a black hole seems central to the structure of our own galaxy, and the existence of previous life did much to establish livability for current life. A much as those two things are true, and are necessary conditions for us to exist, they only add to the growing understanding that our world is finely-tuned for our existence.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/18/2008 9:50:51 PM
|
|
|
HocusPocus
Posts: 17
Joined: 11/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
The problem with both points is that inherent in them is the assumption that black holes and the existence of previous life are both detrimental to the existence of the universe's ability to support life, as well as the earth's ability to do so.
As it turns out, a black hole seems central to the structure of our own galaxy, and the existence of previous life did much to establish livability for current life. A much as those two things are true, and are necessary conditions for us to exist, they only add to the growing understanding that our world is finely-tuned for our existence.
There is no assumption, these were just two arbitrary examples used to show that you can claim the universe is fine-tuned for ANYTHING. As far as your claim that these aren't detrimental to life, you can try to justify it all you want, but really all you are doing is making excuses for god. If your god exists, then he is certainly capable of creating a universe that would not involve killing of life, nor the impending destruction of the galaxy in which life exists, under any circumstances.
The claims I made are just as valid as yours, but you arbitrarily place more value on life.
Every claim which states that "the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of X" is true by definition, as long as X exists.
So, for example, I can claim that the universe is fine-tuned to allow for the destruction of life, and the only reason life continues to exist is to allow for it's regular destruction. This is, of course, until life is completely wiped out, at which point I could just as easily claim that the universe was fine-tuned to prevent the existence of life from continuing. After all, if any constant were to be changed, the Andromeda Galaxy would not be headed this way, so it's quite obvious to me that this is the ultimate reason for why these values are set so perfectly.
Once again, you can fill X in with any noun you prefer. Doorknobs? Sure! The universe is fine-tuned for the existence of doorknobs. This is the sole reason for the existence of the planet, and the human beings living on the planet. And now that we have finally figured out our purpose, we now live to pursue the exceptional engineering of doorknobs.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/18/2008 10:59:00 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7624
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
There is no assumption, these were just two arbitrary examples used to show that you can claim the universe is fine-tuned for ANYTHING. As far as your claim that these aren't detrimental to life, you can try to justify it all you want, but really all you are doing is making excuses for god. If your god exists, then he is certainly capable of creating a universe that would not involve killing of life, nor the impending destruction of the galaxy in which life exists, under any circumstances.
Well, my God exists, and while as you have already admitted black holes are common result of universal phenomenon, and it is easy enough to kill living organisms, only a precisely tuned and specific environment can support living organisms; and one must either believe that all those constants and circumstances fell together to produce it in this unique circumstance from the moment of its inception until the moment we first became aware that we were observing it, or else such precision and our awareness of it belies an intentional order.
quote:
The claims I made are just as valid as yours, but you arbitrarily place more value on life.
Every claim which states that "the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of X" is true by definition, as long as X exists.
I don't 'arbitrarily place more value on life', it's just that while certain basic conditions can cause black holes and the causes of death can indeed be arbitrary, life itself does not arise as the result of ordinary nor arbitrary circumstances.
quote:
So, for example, I can claim that the universe is fine-tuned to allow for the destruction of life, and the only reason life continues to exist is to allow for it's regular destruction. This is, of course, until life is completely wiped out, at which point I could just as easily claim that the universe was fine-tuned to prevent the existence of life from continuing. After all, if any constant were to be changed, the Andromeda Galaxy would not be headed this way, so it's quite obvious to me that this is the ultimate reason for why these values are set so perfectly.
Even if you were to argue this, life has to exist before it can die; you would first have to get to the point where life exists at all the universe - and this brings us back to the neccesity of fine-tuning.
quote:
Once again, you can fill X in with any noun you prefer. Doorknobs? Sure! The universe is fine-tuned for the existence of doorknobs. This is the sole reason for the existence of the planet, and the human beings living on the planet. And now that we have finally figured out our purpose, we now live to pursue the exceptional engineering of doorknobs.
You appear to be making the wrong argument here. What we are talking about really has nothing to do with 'purpose' per se, merely what can happen as the result of incidental forces and what cannot. I may not know what 'purpose' a stone figure serves, but I can still argue based on its structure and design that the universe doesn't, and cannot regularly produce such figures apart from the intention of a mind.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/18/2008 11:41:05 PM
|
|
|
HocusPocus
Posts: 17
Joined: 11/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well, my God exists, and while as you have already admitted black holes are common result of universal phenomenon, and it is easy enough to kill living organisms, only a precisely tuned and specific environment can support living organisms; and one must either believe that all those constants and circumstances fell together to produce it in this unique circumstance from the moment of its inception until the moment we first became aware that we were observing it, or else such precision and our awareness of it belies an intentional order.
And only a precisely tuned and specific environment can support the existence of black holes and the ability to destroy life.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
I don't 'arbitrarily place more value on life', it's just that while certain basic conditions can cause black holes and the causes of death can indeed be arbitrary, life itself does not arise as the result of ordinary nor arbitrary circumstances.
Certain basic conditions cause black holes? You don't seem to understand the implications of a fine-tuned universe. The same constants that allow life to exist on Earth, also allow for the proliferation of black holes. If any one of these constants is changed, both life and black holes would cease to exist, along with any other thing in the universe.
Once again, you are arbitrarily placing value on the existence of life. You are justifying this by arbitrarily calling the conditions for some things to exist "ordinary conditions", and calling the conditions for other things (life) to exist "not ordinary".
The same constants apply to the existence of all things in the universe, and therefore every thing in the universe is subject to the same fine-tuning.
quote:
Even if you were to argue this, life has to exist before it can die; you would first have to get to the point where life exists at all the universe - and this brings us back to the neccesity of fine-tuning.
Right, the universe is fine-tuned to allow life to continue, so that it can ultimately be destroyed. What aren't you understanding? If any constant was changed, there could not be the regular massive destruction of life, and the Andromeda galaxy would not be headed toward the Milky Way. Therefore, it is obvious that the universe is fine-tuned to allow the existence of life so that life can then regularly be exterminated on Earth, followed by life's ultimate destruction.
This is a better argument than yours, considering the fact that chances are life will be completely wiped out when this collision occurs.
quote:
You appear to be making the wrong argument here. What we are talking about really has nothing to do with 'purpose' per se, merely what can happen as the result of incidental forces and what cannot. I may not know what 'purpose' a stone figure serves, but I can still argue based on its structure and design that the universe doesn't, and cannot regularly produce such figures apart from the intention of a mind.
We know that doorknobs exist in this universe as a result of fine-tuning, and we know that life is necessary for doorknobs to be created. Therefore, I can conclude that the universe is fine-tuned to allow the existence of life, which has allowed for the production of doorknobs.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/19/2008 12:57:37 AM
|
|
|
atruefaith
Posts: 320
Joined: 6/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
We know that doorknobs exist in this universe as a result of fine-tuning, and we know that life is necessary for doorknobs to be created. Therefore, I can conclude that the universe is fine-tuned to allow the existence of life, which has allowed for the production of doorknobs.
Now that's a circular argument. And the problem still remains. You cannot fine-tune anything by chance without injecting massive presumptions that just constantly shift the goal posts until they register any probability above 0, no matter how mathematically impossible and absurd the theory.
_____________________________
A series of short stories depicting the Christian faith....
www.atruefaith.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/19/2008 1:14:05 AM
|
|
|
HocusPocus
Posts: 17
Joined: 11/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: atruefaith
Now that's a circular argument. And the problem still remains. You cannot fine-tune anything by chance without injecting massive presumptions that just constantly shift the goal posts until they register any probability above 0, no matter how mathematically impossible and absurd the theory.
What? You must have just jumped into the discussion without reading my previous posts.
What I have stated is that everything and anything that exists is a consequence of a fine-tuned universe, by definition. This includes life, doorknobs, and black holes. If, for example, the gravitational force were any different, none of these things would exist.
As far as probabilities go, there is no valid way to determine the probability of a particular universe existing with its particular constants. Probabilities are determined by dividing an outcome by the total number of possible outcomes, which is unknown.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/19/2008 7:33:20 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 527
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HocusPocus
Probabilities are determined by dividing an outcome by the total number of possible outcomes, which is unknown.
According to Jack, "it is a requirement for it to exist at all that numerous constants be exactly as they". By his logic, the probability that the parameters are the way they are given that the universe exists is one.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/19/2008 8:57:12 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7624
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
According to Jack, "it is a requirement for it to exist at all that numerous constants be exactly as they". By his logic, the probability that the parameters are the way they are given that the universe exists is one.
Based on what?
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/19/2008 9:06:20 AM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 94
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
HocusPocus: I can claim that the universe is fine-tuned to allow for the destruction of life, and the only reason life continues to exist is to allow for it's regular destruction. This is, of course, until life is completely wiped out, at which point I could just as easily claim that the universe was fine-tuned to prevent the existence of life from continuing.
??? If life were completely wiped out, not you or anyone else would be making claims of any kind in this universe.
That is the core of the Anthropic Principle, which this thread seems to be about, which tries to address "Why is it we are here to ask this question?" Science is pretty good at determining _what_ the laws of nature are, but impotent at finding _why_ they are as they are. Fundamentally that is not a question for science, but a question for philosophy and faith.
The faithful know the laws of nature were given by a law giver: the LORD God Almighty. Can this be proved? No, but there is evidence, both physical and historical by eyewitness accounts.
The naturalist scientist, edging into philosophy, is trying to explain this with a multiverse mythos; that it is all happenstance. Can this be proved? No, but this position has no evidence and no historical basis either.
Both are ultimately positions of faith, but the naturalist position takes far more faith than mine.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/19/2008 9:08:06 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7624
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
And only a precisely tuned and specific environment can support the existence of black holes and the ability to destroy life.
I know this is hard to comprehend, but I will try one more time in hopes it's becoming clearer.
"Destroying ife' is not process that needs precision - indeed, any number of processes can do so - for life to exist at all requires precision, and it can't 'be destroyed' unless it exists, so even if one accepted that as it's purpose, one would still fall back on fine tuning.
As far as black holes, so what? They appear to be an integral part of the organization of the universe - they are one more component of its fine-tuning.
quote:
Certain basic conditions cause black holes? You don't seem to understand the implications of a fine-tuned universe. The same constants that allow life to exist on Earth, also allow for the proliferation of black holes. If any one of these constants is changed, both life and black holes would cease to exist, along with any other thing in the universe.
Once again, you are arbitrarily placing value on the existence of life. You are justifying this by arbitrarily calling the conditions for some things to exist "ordinary conditions", and calling the conditions for other things (life) to exist "not ordinary".
The same constants apply to the existence of all things in the universe, and therefore every thing in the universe is subject to the same fine-tuning.
Actually, you got it backwards again - black holes, which appear to be central to the structure of galleries, are one of the components of a finely-tuned universe, not a product of it.
quote:
Right, the universe is fine-tuned to allow life to continue, so that it can ultimately be destroyed. What aren't you understanding? If any constant was changed, there could not be the regular massive destruction of life, and the Andromeda galaxy would not be headed toward the Milky Way. Therefore, it is obvious that the universe is fine-tuned to allow the existence of life so that life can then regularly be exterminated on Earth, followed by life's ultimate destruction.
This is a better argument than yours, considering the fact that chances are life will be completely wiped out when this collision occurs.
Life, since it's inception, has never been 'destroyed'. Certain life forms no longer exist, but so what? No one is arguing that the ultimate purpose of the universe is to insure eternal life for every bacterium. Red herring.
quote:
We know that doorknobs exist in this universe as a result of fine-tuning, and we know that life is necessary for doorknobs to be created. Therefore, I can conclude that the universe is fine-tuned to allow the existence of life, which has allowed for the production of doorknobs.
Doorknobs are a non-essential product of the existence of intelligent life, so whatever facetious arguments one attempts to apply to them are only corollaries of the already established neccesity of a finely-tuned universe.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/19/2008 9:08:50 AM
|
|
|
BookerG
Posts: 88
Status: offline
|
The only fine-tuning black holes need is enough gravity. That’s a very easy target to hit, and since higher gravity would either give us more or bigger black holes, the universe is not very well fine tuned for them.
In any other universe Andromeda might not be heading toward the Milky Way, but one galaxy (if galaxies exist) would be heading toward another. So that condition exists in every universe that contains stars and galaxies, including those where the stars are far too short-lived for life to evolve or too cool to produce the heavy elements life needs. Again, it is far less fine-tuned than life.
You might have a point about the door knobs. Except that, if the universe is fine tuned not just for life but for what life produces, then it should be said that it’s fine tuned for the pinnacle of human invention, which is, of course, the espresso machine.
Show me any other creation of this universe that needs all of the constants to be in as precise a balance as life, without some functionally equivalent creation being prevalent in many other less balanced universes.
As for probabilities, I said right from the start that specific probabilities are not possible. We can’t pin one specific number on it. But you can still determine that one event is more probable than another. My cat just upchucked on the living room carpet. I can’t predict the probability that its emesis would look like a bunny rabbit, because I don’t know all the possible shapes it could take. But I can say that a bunny rabbit is far more likely than The Last Supper. You can’t put a number on infinity, but mathematicians still talk about how one infinity is larger than another.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/19/2008 11:02:00 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 527
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
According to Jack, "it is a requirement for it to exist at all that numerous constants be exactly as they". By his logic, the probability that the parameters are the way they are given that the universe exists is one.
Based on what?
Your statement and simple probibility. If there are n equally likely outcomes, the probability of any one outcome is 1/n. If you flip a fair coin, there are two equally likely outcomes - heads and tails. The probability of heads is therefore 1/2. If you roll a fair die, there are six equally likely outcomes. The probability of rolling a particular number from 1 to 6 is 1/6. According to you, there is only one possible outcome. Therefore, the probability would be 1/1 = 1.
This is elementary probability.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/19/2008 12:12:55 PM
|
|
|
BookerG
Posts: 88
Status: offline
|
A few words on probability and the anthropic principle: Probability is not a measure of likeliness, but a measure of one’s knowledge about likeliness. Three forecasters could say the probability of snow tomorrow is 10%, 50%, and 100%, and they could all be absolutely correct.
All knowledge plays in to the probability, including assumptions, even faulty ones. The probability will still be correct, but to the degree of assumption or misinformation, it will be less useful. I rolled some dice and got snake-eyes and asked what are the odds. One in 36. You may have falsely assumed my dice were two six-sided, unweighted, randomly thrown dice. That doesn’t mean the answer was wrong–it accurately reflects your knowledge and assumptions; it’s just not as useful as a fully informed probability.
There are two problems raised by the anthropic principle. First, we know we exist, so the probability is automatically one. You can get rid of that knowledge by assuming the question was asked by someone else, posit an objective observer who would ask the question whether we exist or not.
The second problem is intent. We’d need to know why he’s asking to determine how broad the question needs to be. I rolled snake-eyes; what are the odds. It could be one in 36. But I might have asked if I got any doubles. Then the odds of asking were one in six, and the odds of getting snake-eyes were one in six. I could have asked about any interesting phenomenon, and we’d have to count up all the interesting possible events that could trigger the question and calculate their individual probabilities. (That's what makes coincidences so restitant to probability; we fail to factor in all the potential coincidences which could have caught our attention but didn't occur at all).
If our objective observer asked what are the odds that bipedal, self-aware creatures would exist on planet earth, the odds are incredibly low.
If he asked, what are the odds that intelligent life capable of asking the question would exist anywhere, the odds are higher, but still incredibly low.
If he asked about the odds of single-cell life forms...if he asked about any self-organizing, self-replicating objects that could fit a broad definition of life, that raises the odds considerably. But I'd still bet against it.
If he asked on the basis of seeing anything at all in the universe that was interesting, including door knobs and black holes, the odds are pretty good that he'd find something to ask about.
It’s pretty hard to give a probability on intent. But as long as we establish what our assumptions are about the question, and we’re realistic about the question’s usefulness or lack thereof, we can calculate the probability of the universe’s fine tuning. Any knowledge, even the knowledge that we lack knowledge, can be used for probability calculation. (Our calculation also has to make assumptions about the range and distribution of possible values of each constant. As the assumptions expand, the usefulness shrinks almost, but not quite to zero).
But a multiverse does absolutely nothing to increase the usefulness or confidence in the probability, and does very little to increase the probability itself.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/19/2008 12:54:43 PM
|
|
|
BookerG
Posts: 88
Status: offline
|
Sorry, I forgot to make my main point that was the reason for that long excursion. If we want to get objective probabilities that our universe is fine tuned for life, then we not only have to step outside of any knowledge that the probability that "our universe exists" is one, but also outside of any knowledge that the probability that "a life-supporting universe is possible" is one. At this level the only things our outside observer can ask are, a) what are the requirements of life, and b) what are the possible universal constants. And how likely is it that an unbiased selection of any or all of the universal constants would simultaneously fulfill every single one of the requirements of life. That's where I say the multiverse takes incredibly long odds and makes them slightly less incredible.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/19/2008 1:36:43 PM
|
|
|
robto
Posts: 98
Joined: 10/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BookerG
Sorry, I forgot to make my main point that was the reason for that long excursion. If we want to get objective probabilities that our universe is fine tuned for life, then we not only have to step outside of any knowledge that the probability that "our universe exists" is one, but also outside of any knowledge that the probability that "a life-supporting universe is possible" is one. At this level the only things our outside observer can ask are, a) what are the requirements of life, and b) what are the possible universal constants. And how likely is it that an unbiased selection of any or all of the universal constants would simultaneously fulfill every single one of the requirements of life. That's where I say the multiverse takes incredibly long odds and makes them slightly less incredible.
And there's the rub (bolded). We don't KNOW what are the possible values of the constants of nature, much less the liklihood of them being in any given range. The only values that we know for a fact are possible are the values we actually observe.
Maybe all other values are ruled out (by some greater theory that we don't yet have). Maybe the values are constrained to lie in a very narrow range around the observed values. Maybe the constants can vary, but not independently - changing one necessarily changes some, or all, others. Maybe there's a wide range, and lots of universes.
The point is, you can't use a fine tuning argument unless you know that the universe is, in fact, finely tuned: there is a range of possibilities, and the values we see are in a small subset of those possibilities. Can you prove that the electron's charge could be anything other than 1.602 x 10^-19 Coulombs? If not, how can you decide that that value is likely or unlikely? What exactly would "an unbiased selection of the electron charge" entail?
To use your firing squad analogy, suppose your blindfold slipped and you saw that the squad was, in fact, 500 yards away. Would you still conclude they had missed on purpose? What if they were a mile away? Two miles? What if there were a thick stone wall between them and you? Unless you know the exact circumstances, how can you conclude that your survival was not an accident?
_____________________________
The Theory of Almost Everything: Everything you always wanted to know about elementary particles but were afraid to ask
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/19/2008 2:00:22 PM
|
|
|
BookerG
Posts: 88
Status: offline
|
The key is not the unknown universal constants, but the many, many requirements for intelligent life. So what if the electron’s charge had only one possible value? It is still just as unlikely that this value would simultaneously match every one of the requirements for intelligent life, things like a stable energy source that will last long enough for the incredible complexity of intelligent life to emerge, the existence of elements that can combine and recombine into molecules that meet all the requirements of a cellular system...
By restricting the range of values for the electron’s charge, you are not strengthening naturalism’s argument, you are weakening it, because a narrower range of values would increase the possibility that a multiverse could not possibly tweak that value into the one needed by life. Surely you're not suggesting that this narrow range was optimized for life?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/19/2008 2:26:34 PM
|
|
|
BookerG
Posts: 88
Status: offline
|
My purpose in starting this thread was not to come to any agreement on how fine-tuned the universe is or to hammer out the probabilities. I just wanted to refute the Discover article claiming that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning problem. If you don't think there is a fine-tuning problem, then we are agreed: The multiverse solves nothing. That's good enough for me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/19/2008 4:25:35 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 271
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HocusPocus
What I have stated is that everything and anything that exists is a consequence of a fine-tuned universe, by definition. Well that explains why Davies, Hoyle and a whole slew of other astrophysicists have done probability calculations on the universal constants eh!
quote:
As far as probabilities go, there is no valid way to determine the probability of a particular universe existing with its particular constants. Probabilities are determined by dividing an outcome by the total number of possible outcomes, which is unknown. Not sure of your meaning here but the possible outcomes, in terms of possible variations in the constants, are not unknown at all. They are rather infinite.
_____________________________
"The formation within geological time of a human body, by the laws of physics..., starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components." Kurt Godel
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/19/2008 4:37:19 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 271
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BookerG
My purpose in starting this thread was not to come to any agreement on how fine-tuned the universe is or to hammer out the probabilities. I just wanted to refute the Discover article claiming that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning problem. If you don't think there is a fine-tuning problem, then we are agreed: The multiverse solves nothing. That's good enough for me.
Indeed, multiverses, being entirely hypothetical, can never prove anything at all since it can't be tested. And as such, cannot even reach the status of a valid theory which materialists are striving to give it. And even if there are multiple universes, so? God, all powerful and transcendent, could still be responsible for all of them. Furthermore, he could make life in them, no matter their individual constants, by using some other, unknown and unknowable to us, system of information bearing 'things', 'matters', 'energies',. etc..
_____________________________
"The formation within geological time of a human body, by the laws of physics..., starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components." Kurt Godel
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/24/2008 9:16:03 AM
|
|
|
robto
Posts: 98
Joined: 10/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BookerG
My purpose in starting this thread was not to come to any agreement on how fine-tuned the universe is or to hammer out the probabilities. I just wanted to refute the Discover article claiming that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning problem. If you don't think there is a fine-tuning problem, then we are agreed: The multiverse solves nothing. That's good enough for me.
I'm tempted to continue the discussion of probabilities because I think it's an interesting and difficult one. However, maybe it's better to focus, as you do, on the points where we seem to have pretty general agreement. (A rare thing on these boards!)
1) The multiverse idea is not, in any real sense, a testable theory.
2) Therefore, it is a philosophical rather than a scientific proposal.
3) And so doesn't provide a scientific answer to the issues of fine tuning. (Although I would say the fine tuning problem is really philosophical, not a scientific, issue to start with, unless one can find a way to actually calculate the probabilities of various physical constants.)
But also
4) the multiverse is not in contradiction to a God-created universe.
I'm frankly somewhat embarassed, as a hard-core materialist, when these things are put forward as science. (And even more embarassed by claims that this "makes God unnecessary" and such like.) To the extent that these models generate testable predictions, I see them as a good thing for scientific progress. But I think we need to do a better job of separating the science from the philosophical in these discussions.
_____________________________
The Theory of Almost Everything: Everything you always wanted to know about elementary particles but were afraid to ask
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/24/2008 10:26:50 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7624
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
1) The multiverse idea is not, in any real sense, a testable theory.
I completely agree with this.
quote:
2) Therefore, it is a philosophical rather than a scientific proposal.
Perhaps, but I think if that is a criteria would call a number of ‘scientific’ proposals and even theories into question – abiogenesis, common descent, the Copernican principle, many theories about the origin of the earth, solar system and universe. Most of these theories are either untestable (at least in the experimental sense) or are the product of inferences made from interpretation of the remains of past events.
quote:
3) And so doesn't provide a scientific answer to the issues of fine tuning. (Although I would say the fine tuning problem is really philosophical, not a scientific, issue to start with, unless one can find a way to actually calculate the probabilities of various physical constants.)
Well I think especially in this case that is the primary reason the theory exists is to counter evident fine-tuning; it is a tacit admission by many scientists that fine-tuning exists and requires some explanation.
But also
quote:
4) the multiverse is not in contradiction to a God-created universe.
I'm frankly somewhat embarassed, as a hard-core materialist, when these things are put forward as science. (And even more embarassed by claims that this "makes God unnecessary" and such like.) To the extent that these models generate testable predictions, I see them as a good thing for scientific progress. But I think we need to do a better job of separating the science from the philosophical in these discussions.
While I don’t think any scientific theory or idea proposed in and of itself makes God’s existence impossible, I do think many of these proposals exist primarily to advance materialism by attempting to make God less necessary, though interestingly as they occur these theories actually tend to show to what desperate ends some scientists will go to cling to a materialist view of the universe.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
