Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[Sapiens]

We are not talking about a claim. We are talking about the calculated values of the fundamental physical constants which are collectively responsible for the existence of the universe. Without the fine calibration of these values, matter, astronomical structures in addition to life wouldn’t be possible. This is a consensus among physicists and cosmologists not a claim. Definitely, not my claim. Check Post #309 for more info.

There is a consensus about the numbers, but I suspect that most physicists and cosmologists would think that statistics were laughable and as to your claim that the values had some religious meaning, they'd find similarly daft. As to the so called citations in #309, you should note that both Davis and Hawking were highly critical of Craig and both said that he must have "misinterpreted" them (a nice way of accusing him of either stupidity or malevolent quote mining)

 

[NoorNoor]

There is a consensus about the numbers,

Not only about the numbers but also how its directly related to formation of matter, astronomical structures and existence of life. It’s a fact.

but I suspect that most physicists and cosmologists would think that statistics were laughable

Your suspicion is wrong.

and as to your claim that the values had some religious meaning, they'd find similarly daft.

Don’t change the subject. Existence of universe and life depends on the specific values of the constants. This is a fact. This is the point of discussion.

As to the so called citations in #309, you should note that both Davis and Hawking were highly critical of Craig and both said that he must have "misinterpreted" them (a nice way of accusing him of either stupidity or malevolent quote mining)

Both Davies and Hawking asserted the facts of the fine tuned universe and the dependency of the physical existence of the universe on it.

 

[Sapiens]

Not only about the numbers but also how its directly related to formation of matter, astronomical structures and existence of life. It’s a fact.

There are no facts, only probabilities.

It is highly probable that if the numbers were different the universe would be too ... big wup, things would be different, or not at all. What is you point?

Your suspicion is wrong.

Now you want to play pigeon chess? How about some support for that baseless claim?

Don’t change the subject. Existence of universe and life depends on the specific values of the constants. This is a fact. This is the point of discussion.

1) There are not facts.
2) You can not even come up with evidence that makes it probable.

Both Davies and Hawking asserted the facts of the fine tuned universe and the dependency of the physical existence of the universe on it.

No, the asserted that the way that the universe is probably reflects the values of certain underlying constants ... that may sound the same to you, but if it does, read it again.

 

[NoorNoor]

There are no facts, only probabilities.

It is highly probable that if the numbers were different the universe would be too ... big wup, things would be different, or not at all. What is you point?

Agreement, very highly probable, can’t be denied.

Now you want to play pigeon chess? How about some support for that baseless claim?

Do I need support to claim that your suspicion without evidence is meaningless?

1) There are not facts.

Agreement, very highly probable, can’t be denied.

2) You can not even come up with evidence that makes it probable.

Physicists and cosmologists came with the evidence not me. This is not my claim.

No, the asserted that the way that the universe is probably reflects the values of certain underlying constants ... that may sound the same to you, but if it does, read it again.

Not reflection of values but extreme dependency on these values to exist.

 

[Sapiens]

Agreement, very highly probable, can’t be denied.
Do I need support to claim that your suspicion without evidence is meaningless?

Evidence is not required for suspicions, that's what skepticism is all about. However, it is required when you're claiming that people are saying things in their writings, especially when it is exceedingly unlikely that you've read the material you are citing ... that is, by the way, extremely bad form

Agreement, very highly probable, can’t be denied.

Ah, but it can be denied, at a low level of probability (at the moment).

Physicists and cosmologists came with the evidence not me. This is not my claim.

When you cite them you become responsible for making sure you are citing them correctly and that you either agree with them and are citing them is support of YOUR opinion or that you are citing them to make a point that they are wrong.

Since your posts do not, IMHO, exhibit a knowledge of what is between the covers of the books you cited, not even the little bit I remember from years ago, I have to wonder if you ever read them.

Not reflection of values but extreme dependency on these values to exist.

Again ... so what?

 

[Valjean]

We are not talking about a claim. We are talking about the calculated values of the fundamental physical constants which are collectively responsible for the existence of the universe. Without the fine calibration of these values, matter, astronomical structures in addition to life wouldn’t be possible. This is a consensus among physicists and cosmologists not a claim. Definitely, not my claim. Check Post #309 for more info.

What configuration of fundamental values would qualify as not finely calibrated? What configuration would be less statistically improbable?

 

[NoorNoor]

--(Not reflection of values but extreme dependency on these values to exist.)--

Again ... so what?

So we agreed on the point of discussion. The significance of it is not for you.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

You are not really interested. If you are, then you would have found the info for yourself but the following are some references :. (I also added info about the Authors)

---Rees, Martin (May 3, 2001). Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe. New York, NY: Basic Books; First American Edition edition.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees

---Davis, Paul (2007). Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life. New York, NY: Orion Publications. p. 2. ISBN 0618592261.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies

---Stephen Hawking, 1988. A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-05340-X,


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

These are not proper peer reviewed sources. These are books. The type of source I'm looking for is a form of a some experimental study that was conducted that confirms what you claim.

Again, neither life nor the universe itself would have existed without the fine tuned constants. This has nothing to do with some other imaginary universe that may or may not exist. the comparison is irrelevant.

Again, not a claim you can make. You'd need an example of a universe with different constants to know that for sure. Otherwise it's just an empty claim on your part.

To calculate a chance, you will need to multiply the probability of the first constant by the probability of the second and so on. The cosmological constant alone is fine tuned to “1 in 10 to the power120 ”. The probability of all the constants to be collectively fine tuned at the same time will be extremely small to an unimaginable extent.

To calculate a chance, you need to know all possible configurations. For instance, with a die, it has six sides, so it landing on any particular side is 1/6. For a coin, it's 1/2. For ten dice, it's 1/60466176. To say the configuration of our universe is vanishingly small, you need to know all possible configurations of universes. But you don't. What you have is an unknown amount of dice with an unknown amount of sides. Thus, an unknown probability for any particular configuration. For all you know, this universe is the only possible configuration.

Additionally, you have an unknown amount of allowed attempts at throwing the dice. The more allowed attempts, and the greater the probability of any specific configuration eventually coming up. If the allowed attempts are limitless, then any otherwise improbable configuration, suddenly becomes guaranteed.

The Universe has been here a very long time. It's spawned countless planets, the vast majority of which don't have life. You can consider each lifeless planet as the universe's attempt at throwing the dice, and failing each time, until it finally made Earth.

 

[NoorNoor]

What configuration of fundamental values would qualify as not finely calibrated?

The configuration/constant values that don’t allow the universe to exist (infinite numbers of values)

What configuration would be less statistically improbable?

The configuration that doesn’t exist. In other words, configuration necessarily require the existence of multiple items that may have different values/relationships relative to each other. The beginning was at an undefined zone with no space, no time, no physical laws. At this undefined zone, you don’t have the required elements that create physical configuration. There was no configuration. There was no chance. There was only a starting point. At which, all forces collectively worked precisely in the right direction as an execution of an extremely complex program.

 

[sayak83]

The configuration/constant values that don’t allow the universe to exist (infinite numbers of values)



The configuration that doesn’t exist. In other words, configuration necessarily require the existence of multiple items that may have different values/relationships relative to each other. The beginning was at an undefined zone with no space, no time, no physical laws. At this undefined zone, you don’t have the required elements that create physical configuration. There was no configuration. There was no chance. There was only a starting point. At which, all forces collectively worked precisely in the right direction as an execution of an extremely complex program.

Sorry Noor, the number of possible universes that could possibly exist is equal to the number of mathematically and logically consistent set of ways things could be, which is INFINITE. There could be a universe with 50,000 laws and 5 billion space-time directions and 20,000 types of fundamental particles and as long as that universe can be described in a mathematically consistent fashion, it could exist. There is NO FINE TUNING because there are no restrictions of the number of knobs that a universe can have. You can vastly vastly vastly improve the life-hospitability of the universe by adding a fifth law or physics, the law of conservation of entropy, which ensures that the total order of the universe is conserved by adding a 5th "order restoring force" along with the 4 laws of physics. The entire fine tuning argument is thus complete utter non-sense.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I did. Your example was wrong

How, exactly? I explained why calculating the probability of literally any formation of matter occurring is essentially a meaningless waste of time. In what way was my explanation wrong?

Why? Just think about the universe itself. Take life out.

I already explained why.

Wrong, meaningless hypothesis. if thing's weren't the way they were, they would not be existent.

Baseless claim. Can you demonstrate that this is true?

You didn't explain. You assumed.

That is a lie. I gave a lengthy explanation, and your responses thus far have been nothing but flat denial without any explanation. What's the point of debating if you aren't going to present an argument?

 

[viole]

We are not talking about a claim. We are talking about the calculated values of the fundamental physical constants which are collectively responsible for the existence of the universe. Without the fine calibration of these values, matter, astronomical structures in addition to life wouldn’t be possible.

And?

I am sure that with the constants we have, a lot of things are impossible that would be possble if the constants were different.

Ciao

- viole

 

[NoorNoor]

Sorry Noor, the number of possible universes that could possibly exist is equal to the number of mathematically and logically consistent set of ways things could be, which is INFINITE. There could be a universe with 50,000 laws and 5 billion space-time directions and 20,000 types of fundamental particles and as long as that universe can be described in a mathematically consistent fashion, it could exist. There is NO FINE TUNING because there are no restrictions of the number of knobs that a universe can have. You can vastly vastly vastly improve the life-hospitability of the universe by adding a fifth law or physics, the law of conservation of entropy, which ensures that the total order of the universe is conserved by adding a 5th "order restoring force" along with the 4 laws of physics. The entire fine tuning argument is thus complete utter non-sense.

The assumption that infinite number of random universes would exist based on infinite number of random constants is a hypothesis. In other words, the assumption that every single random set of ways will equally result a random universe, is a very misleading hypothesis.

What is real is that we exist in a universe and the existence of this universe totally depended on the very specific values of the observed constants. In another words, observations/data vs. mere hypothesis.

You can be in favor of this hypothesis, but you need to be aware that this is a hypothesis with no observations or data to support it (and will never be). Meaning, Your trust in this hypothesis would be a mere act of faith.

 

[sayak83]

The assumption that infinite number of random universes would exist based on infinite number of random constants is a hypothesis. In other words, the assumption that every single random set of ways will equally result a random universe, is a very misleading hypothesis.

What is real is that we exist in a universe and the existence of this universe totally depended on the very specific values of the observed constants. In another words, observations/data vs. mere hypothesis.

You can be in favor of this hypothesis, but you need to be aware that this is a hypothesis with no observations or data to support it (and will never be). Meaning, Your trust in this hypothesis would be a mere act of faith.

You cannot discuss probability with one universe. You have already moved into the realm of the hypothetical when you said, what would happen if those constant values were different from what they ARE. Well, that counterfactual is EXACTLY the same kind as the counterfactual, what would happen if there were not 4 but 5 laws of physics, or what would happen if there were not 61 but 200 elementary particles, or 50 instead of 4 space-time dimensions. Its not as if only the constants have specificity, everything in physics has the same specificity because there is only one observable universe. So a true sample space of probability for the universe is going to have to have all possible logically permissible permutations of every aspect of physics (laws, dimensions, properties and number of elementary particles etc. etc.) The fine tuning argument arbitrarily assumes that everything else is fixed and only the constant values are changing. That assumption has no basis. Thus the fine tuning argument fails.

 

[NoorNoor]

And?

I am sure that with the constants we have, a lot of things are impossible that would be possble if the constants were different.

Ciao

- viole

I like your meaningful simplicity. Just keep in mind, "And" will take us forward to the following point. you have to think, what are these things? What is the significance of it? What is the example? I can give you one example. It would be impossible for our universe not to come to existence under the specific influence of these calibrated forces. But the universe would not exist if the constants were different. I am sure you may think of other examples but any other example would only be a hypothesis.

you can be in favor of a hypothesis but you need to be aware that it is only a hypothesis.

 

[McBell]

Existence of matter, formation of astronomical structures and life itself, directly depends on the calibration of the constants. Check Post #309 & 319

Posts #309 & #219 are nothing but bold empty claims.
I understand that bold empty claims are good enough for you, but they are not good enough for most people outside the choir.

Pray tell, do you have anything other than bold empty claims to present?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

But the universe would not exist if the constants were different.

A different universe would exist. Jeez, why is that so hard to understand?

 

[NoorNoor]

A different universe would exist. Jeez, why is that so hard to understand?

Because assumed chances of an undefined unknown to result some other undefined unknown is totally meaningless hypothesis. It can't be verified, you may trust it only based on mere faith.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Because assumed chances of an undefined unknown to result some other undefined unknown is totally meaningless hypothesis. It can't be verified, you may trust it only based on mere faith.

Then that eliminates your so-called low probability. If this universe is the only possible configuration, then if left to pure chance, the probability is exactly 1/1, or 100%. Either way, you debated yourself into a corner.

 

[NoorNoor]

Then that eliminates your so-called low probability. If this universe is the only possible configuration, then if left to pure chance, the probability is exactly 1/1, or 100%. Either way, you debated yourself into a corner.

Thanks for bringing up this point. I claim an accuracy of "1 part to 10 to the power120" only indicates the accuracy of our math which is remarkably accurate (but with very slight error). The cosmological constant itself would be perfect. """It can't change at all""". Meaning, the constant is a reference for our math accuracy not the opposite. this is only my claim but at least, it's logical to me.

Lets go back to your point, if we follow your logic, then the probability is not 1/1 but 1/infinity=0 (a single specific configuration to infinite possible configuration). This would work in favor of my argument but this logic wouldn't apply. The random possibilities itself require prerequisites that didn't even exist. It doesn't apply. There were no possibilities, no chances. There was only an undefined singularity then our universe.