Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[NoorNoor]

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?

The constants values were calculated, it's significance is a consensus. I am not sure what does it take to make you understand that this is not a claim.

If you wish, you may deny possible implied meanings of it but not the fine tuned universe itself. This denial itself is a baseless empty claim.

 

[NoorNoor]

You cannot discuss probability with one universe.

You can’t assert facts based on hypothetical universes.

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 AR

No, I simply said that the specific dependency of the universe/life on these constants was established.

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

not a counterfactual. the fine tuning conclusion was based on the calculated values and the understanding of how laws of physics collectively control our universe. The conclusion doesn’t provide room for hypothetical imagined variations.

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.

The assumption that all or any imagined possible random permissible permutations would create a universe is only a hypothesis. It’s neither consistent with scientific findings nor can be verified. The fine tuning doesn’t assume any physical laws are fixed. It only asserted the dependency of the universe existence on these very specific values of physical forces that control our world.

Chance itself would be meaningless without set of conditions or "prerequisites". If you throw the dice, we have an example of chance. This chance requires, dice, someone to throw it, surface to throw it on and a gravitational field so the dice would balance against the surface. If you have all the prerequisites, then you have a verified chance of "1/6". If you don't have dice, some one to throw it, surface or gravitational field, then what chances would be possible? chances for what? In absence of the defining elements of chance, any assumed or imagined chance would be only an undefined hypothesis. an undefined realm with no chances. In other words, chances of the undefined unknown to result some other undefined unknown is totally meaningless hypothesis.

 

[sayak83]

You can’t assert facts based on hypothetical universes.



No, I simply said that the specific dependency of the universe/life on these constants was established.


not a counterfactual. the fine tuning conclusion was based on the calculated values and the understanding of how laws of physics collectively control our universe. The conclusion doesn’t provide room for hypothetical imagined variations.


The assumption that all or any imagined possible random permissible permutations would create a universe is only a hypothesis. It’s neither consistent with scientific findings nor can be verified. The fine tuning doesn’t assume any physical laws are fixed. It only asserted the dependency of the universe existence on these very specific values of physical forces that control our world.

Chance itself would be meaningless without set of conditions or "prerequisites". If you throw the dice, we have an example of chance. This chance requires, dice, someone to throw it, surface to throw it on and a gravitational field so the dice would balance against the surface. If you have all the prerequisites, then you have a verified chance of "1/6". If you don't have dice, some one to throw it, surface or gravitational field, then what chances would be possible? chances for what? In absence of the defining elements of chance, any assumed or imagined chance would be only an undefined hypothesis. an undefined realm with no chances. In other words, chances of the undefined unknown to result some other undefined unknown is totally meaningless hypothesis.

You are mistaken about physics. The changing of the values of the constants are just as much hypothetical imaginary counterfactuals as the changing of the number of laws or the dimensions of the universe. NONE of these things have any apriori justification for being what they are. ANY consistent set of mathematical principles can be used as parameters to simulate a universe in a computer, and all this variability of constant talk is, at the end the day exactly that, mere simulations in a computer. They are hypothetical imagined variations through and through. Understand this, physics provides no first principle reason for anything, the nature of the laws, the number of the laws, the dimensions, the symmetries, the kinds and numbers of particles or the value of these constants. They are all on the same footing, they have been discovered to be facts about the universe - but there has never been a justification of why any of things could not have been otherwise. That consistent universes in countless numbers could be simulated by changing any and all of them in various ways is quite well known. So the idea of just changing the constants while keeping all else seem is an interesting exercise, but has no philosophically relevant ramifications whatsoever. I am sorry, but I know this to be the case by studying the topic extensively.

 

[McBell]

The constants values were calculated, it's significance is a consensus.

good.
Now show the math.
Including how they got the assigned numbers.

 

[NoorNoor]

You are mistaken about physics. The changing of the values of the constants are just as much hypothetical imaginary counterfactuals as the changing of the number of laws or the dimensions of the universe. NONE of these things have any apriori justification for being what they are. ANY consistent set of mathematical principles can be used as parameters to simulate a universe in a computer, and all this variability of constant talk is, at the end the day exactly that, mere simulations in a computer. They are hypothetical imagined variations through and through. Understand this, physics provides no first principle reason for anything, the nature of the laws, the number of the laws, the dimensions, the symmetries, the kinds and numbers of particles or the value of these constants. They are all on the same footing, they have been discovered to be facts about the universe - but there has never been a justification of why any of things could not have been otherwise. That consistent universes in countless numbers could be simulated by changing any and all of them in various ways is quite well known. So the idea of just changing the constants while keeping all else seem is an interesting exercise, but has no philosophically relevant ramifications whatsoever. I am sorry, but I know this to be the case by studying the topic extensively.

You can assume, trust hypothesis of others or your own hypothesis. You can trust hypothetical imagined simulations. It all stays in the realm of hypothesis.

You claim there has never been a justification of why any things could not have been otherwise. I claim this is what the fine tuning is all about. In the realm of our specific observed reality, """yes""", things could not have been otherwise. Beyond this reality, it would be mere imagination. I claim there was never been a proof (and will never be) of otherwise things. You believe in imagined hypothesis. I'll believe in facts. You can make your relative reality but the absolute reality beyond you and me stays external to any imagined relative realities of our limited beings. We are not the reference. We are not the center of existence. We have limits. Every thing within our limits is relative, can't be defined unless related to something else but beyond this realm of relativities/dependencies you have to end at a single absolute reference. Absolute constant (not dependent on another) against which, every thing gets measured.

 

[sayak83]

You can assume, trust hypothesis of others or your own hypothesis. You can trust hypothetical imagined simulations. It all stays in the realm of hypothesis.

You claim there has never been a justification of why any things could not have been otherwise. I claim this is what the fine tuning is all about. In the realm of our specific observed reality, """yes""", things could not have been otherwise. Beyond this reality, it would be mere imagination. I claim there was never been a proof (and will never be) of otherwise things. You believe in imagined hypothesis. I'll believe in facts. You can make your relative reality but the absolute reality beyond you and me stays external to any imagined relative realities of our limited beings. We are not the reference. We are not the center of existence. We have limits. Every thing within our limits is relative, can't be defined unless related to something else but beyond this realm of relativities/dependencies you have to end at a single absolute reference. Absolute constant (not dependent on another) against which, every thing gets measured.

Your argument is incoherent. Fine tuning argument tries to speculate how things could have been otherwise by creating hypothetical alternate realities with different constants of nature. What it does is called in physics and chemistry as sensitive analysis, universally applied in all fields of science and engineering. It is patently obvious that there is no reason to artificially constrain the range of variation in such speculative alternate realities only to the constants of nature and not to expand it to the laws, the dimensions and the nature of the elementary particles themselves. It is obvious from your statements that you do not understand the argument at all, but are merely using it in a simplistic manner as it gives you an illusion of supporting a worldview you happen to hold dear. Physicists routinely tinker with all the various parameters in the physical theory (adding new dimensions as in string theory, adding lots of new particles and symmetries: supersymmetry, adding new forces and fields: dark energy) to see how such hypothetical universes work and whether this universe is, or may have evolved from some such universe (multi-verse model).

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

(a single specific configuration to infinite possible configuration).

You just said there's no other possible configurations. Or rather you said it's a "meaningless hypothesis". Now you're saying there's an infinite amount of possible configurations. Which is it? Make up your mind.

 

[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.

I am not sure that if the constants would be different, then there would be no Universe. String theory, for instance, would strongly disagree. And we have definetely no evidence that this is indeed the case. I am not even sure that it makes sense. What are those constants describing if there is no Universe based on them?

But even if it were true. Why do you think that this would possess theological or teleological relevance?

I think you are begging the question by assuming the Universe must have any significance at all. In the same way some people tend to attribute unjustified cosmic importance to things like life, so that they need to look for significance thereof.

Ciao

- viole

 

[NoorNoor]

Your argument is incoherent. Fine tuning argument tries to speculate how things could have been otherwise by creating hypothetical alternate realities with different constants of nature. What it does is called in physics and chemistry as sensitive analysis, universally applied in all fields of science and engineering.

Fine tuning is not concerned about hypothetical alternate realities. It’s concerned about our own observed reality and its dependency on the specific values of the constants. On the other hand, you are making/trust the assumption that hypothetical alternate realities are possible.

It is patently obvious that there is no reason to artificially constrain the range of variation in such speculative alternate realities only to the constants of nature and not to expand it to the laws, the dimensions and the nature of the elementary particles themselves

It’s not about constraining the range of imagined random variation in such speculative alternate realities only to the constants of nature. But it’s about extremely constraining the variation of the constants that would successfully result our own specific observed universe.

It is obvious from your statements that you do not understand the argument at all, but are merely using it in a simplistic manner as it gives you an illusion of supporting a worldview you happen to hold dear

this is how you wish to believe it. It’s not simplification but rather holistic vs. analytic approach. It helps if you step back to see more rather than being confined in mere deceiving unverified technicalities. Yes, I do have a view that I hold dear but who doesn’t? Don’t you have your own view that you hold dear/trust? You do, it’s just a different view. In other words, are we neutral? No one is. We all have our presuppositions that tints our vision. its very difficult for most people to be neutral. You may think you are but most likely you would have your own presuppositions. Being neutral makes you look at it all equally regardless of any presuppositions and allow you to expect the unexpected. you would be attached to your own presuppositions (not free from illusions) like most people are.

Physicists routinely tinker with all the various parameters in the physical theory (adding new dimensions as in string theory, adding lots of new particles and symmetries: supersymmetry, adding new forces and fields: dark energy) to see how such hypothetical universes work and whether this universe is, or may have evolved from some such universe (multi-verse model).

I totally respect that however continual tinkering with parameters asserts that we are not at perfection and will never be. It asserts that we would know better later. We would change understandings later. Our knowledge today is not an absolute reference. We continue to make hypothesis hoping to find answers but it’s important to keep a clear line between what is assumed and what is established. The grey area in between can be very deceiving.

If you consider the example of Multi-verse model, it’s totally a hypothesis that may never be verified/falsified. No matter how fascinating an idea would be, we can not rely on it as a fact if we already know it’s not and may never be. Its like shifting to a realm of fantasies that can only be accepted on mere faith.

 

[sayak83]

Fine tuning is not concerned about hypothetical alternate realities. It’s concerned about our own observed reality and its dependency on the specific values of the constants. On the other hand, you are making/trust the assumption that hypothetical alternate realities are possible.

Yet, our reality is ALSO dependent on the nature and number of the physical laws, the number of space time dimensions, the number and kinds of elementary particles. Our reality is dependent on each and every one of these things, including the constants. That is the point. If, in a hypothetical, one checks what things would be like if physics were different, then all of them could be varied.

It’s not about constraining the range of imagined random variation in such speculative alternate realities only to the constants of nature. But it’s about extremely constraining the variation of the constants that would successfully result our own specific observed universe.

The two sentences you wrote mean the same thing. You seem to be confused.

this is how you wish to believe it. It’s not simplification but rather holistic vs. analytic approach. It helps if you step back to see more rather than being confined in mere deceiving unverified technicalities. Yes, I do have a view that I hold dear but who doesn’t? Don’t you have your own view that you hold dear/trust? You do, it’s just a different view. In other words, are we neutral? No one is. We all have our presuppositions that tints our vision. its very difficult for most people to be neutral. You may think you are but most likely you would have your own presuppositions. Being neutral makes you look at it all equally regardless of any presuppositions and allow you to expect the unexpected. you would be attached to your own presuppositions (not free from illusions) like most people are.

Being influenced by Buddhism I seek to be unattached to worldviews, including Buddhism.
But that is not the point, you seem to be trying to differentiate something that cannot be differentiated. I actually know what it means when one says that a model has fine-tuned parameters, having myself worked with models that have such things (in other branches of physics). So I understand what is going on here.

I totally respect that however continual tinkering with parameters asserts that we are not at perfection and will never be. It asserts that we would know better later. We would change understandings later. Our knowledge today is not an absolute reference. We continue to make hypothesis hoping to find answers but it’s important to keep a clear line between what is assumed and what is established. The grey area in between can be very deceiving.

If you consider the example of Multi-verse model, it’s totally a hypothesis that may never be verified/falsified. No matter how fascinating an idea would be, we can not rely on it as a fact if we already know it’s not and may never be. Its like shifting to a realm of fantasies that can only be accepted on mere faith.

The fine-tuning is even worse. Its an ill-conceived idea through and through. There really is no cosmological fine tuning. Its an artifact of the assumption that constants and only the constants can vary while keeping the laws of physics etc. fixed, a move that has no justification. The only thing it shows that the current models of physics are heuristical at some level and are mere rough appx. of some deeper concepts we have yet to understand. This is obvious to all physicists and anybody who understands what it means when one says a model has several independent parameters with sensitive arbitrary non-natural values.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Fine tuning is not concerned about hypothetical alternate realities. It’s concerned about our own observed reality and its dependency on the specific values of the constants. On the other hand, you are making/trust the assumption that hypothetical alternate realities are possible.

The argument of "fine tuning" implies there are other possible universes that can be made. That's an automatic implication. If there's only one possible universe, and only one possible configuration, then there's no fine tuning that needs to be done.

 

[viole]

I really do not see how I can introduce any novelty in the physical state of the Universe without throwing away the very basic laws of physics as we know them today.

Yes I know, but there is so much we do not know about the universe, and most likely, there are probably laws out there that we have not discovered or understood yet. We label black holes as breaking all laws of physics as we know it, but what is most likely happening is that the black holes are simply determined by another set of laws which we do not understand or have discovered yet. So there wouldn't be any laws which are broken, just greater laws which are being obeyed, per say.

Yes.

I see. But what you are asserting here is that the spiritual can affect the physical. That the spiritual can introduce unexpected and not physically reducible changes of states on the physics of things. That if I decide to kick a ball, out of my (spiritual) free will, i cannot possibly reduce the new state of the ball to states prior to my decision. And that breaks the unitarity of physical laws as we know them.

Again, it comes down to our limited understanding of the physical laws. Out of all the laws we know about, we consider that, as you say, unified, but that cannot be if there are more laws out there that we don't know about. This means that it can technically and logically be possible, all of this, with a broader understanding of the laws that govern the universe.

Nothing can surpass the speed of light, this is a law, and it's based off the fact that the less mass something has, the greater its speed of travel. But when something reaches 0 mass (a photon for example), the speed of an object reaches its limit, and it cannot surpass it. We still don't know why that is the case, the universe was designed based off this basic principle. This is what we know, but let's say there was another law out there that changed what we know, a law which allowed objects to surpass the speed of 299,792,458 m/s. This law would first have to work in a way that doesn't completely nullify the currently known speed of light, and it would have to operate differently. This is just an example, I'm not saying there is a law out there that can negate the effects of the max travel distance of a photon, but that if there were other greater laws, then something like this can be possible.

Almost true. It is not true, for instance, that if an object has small rest mass, then it can travel faster than an object with greater rest mass. This can be seen immediately if we consider that from the vantage point of both objects, they are not moving but it is the other object moving. And the relative speeds are the same.

But what you are saying here is, basically: free will can break the current laws of physics, because these laws are not necessarily definitive. Technically true, but the same applies for anything. For instance, invisible angels might be responsible for gravity, since all theories of gravity today might change in the future.

I think you are justifying the evidence of X (spiritual bodies) by using Y (God), which shares the same amount of (lack of) evidence as X.

God, and similarly, spiritual bodies, is a philosophical topic, not a physical one. So the evidence for God and everything related with God, comes through philosophical thinking, rather than science. So there won't ever be empirical evidence for God, because God is a concept outside the universe as we know it, and completely free and independent from the laws that govern the universe.

If spiritual bodies affect the physical, then they have a non zero intersection with the physical.

Ciao

- viole

 

[NoorNoor]

Being influenced by Buddhism I seek to be unattached to worldviews, including Buddhism.

I didn't necessarily mean religion, but any ideology that you would trust or hold dear whether religious or not.

But that is not the point, you seem to be trying to differentiate something that cannot be differentiated. I

I was trying to differentiate between the ability to make a neutral judgment vs. a judgement strongly influenced by an ideology.

. I actually know what it means when one says that a model has fine-tuned parameters, having myself worked with models that have such things (in other branches of physics). So I understand what is going on here.

I trust you worked with models but the fine tuning was asserted by physicists and cosmologists such as Stephen Hawking and Martin Rees

 

[sayak83]

I didn't necessarily mean religion, but any ideology that you would trust or hold dear whether religious or not.



I was trying to differentiate between the ability to make a neutral judgment vs. a judgement strongly influenced by an ideology.




I trust you worked with models but the fine tuning was asserted by physicists and cosmologists such as Stephen Hawking and Martin Rees

Look, I have taken introductory courses in cosmology, and talked about these issue with cosmology majors, Christian and non-Christian. I have not read Dr. Rees's book, but have read many others that cover the fine tuning point (in general cosmology text books, not apologetic or counter-apologetic ones) and its obvious to me that fine-tuning, if it continues to hold (as seen by the LHC), supports string theory multiverse as the only mathematically complete theory that can possibly "work" in this universe. The problem is that fine-tuning is needed at all. There are plenty of extremely elegant ways in which the universe could be while supporting all the complexities of life and more, but the current model (the Standard model) is almost the worst mathematical structure for a complex universe one could find which has been hastily and badly repaired by using arbitrary constants. The current universe model looks like a bad software code (Windows 7) with hastily added software patches (the arbitrary constants) so that it does not crash and burn, while lots of other simpler and elegant ways of structuring the laws (Mac) exists out there. See for yourself,
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20130524-is-nature-unnatural/
I have never understood how this can ever serve as an argument for God. He (It) must then be the lousiest programmer in the universe (metaphorically speaking), doing a hasty hack job. Indeed the only two viable options are that our laws are incomplete (this is becoming increasingly unlikely with LHC results) or the string-theory multiverse model is true, because in a multiverse frame, this very set of poorly made laws of physics become the most complete and elegant way to "run" a billion different universes. Its like physical laws are naturally structured to run in millions of parallel simulations of the universe, and it merely looks horrible when forced by physicists to run only one.
If there is a God, He has made the laws of physics a natural fit for a multiverse creation and a horrible fit for a single universe creation. Nothing to do with theism or atheism, just math.

 

[NoorNoor]

If there is a God, He has made the laws of physics a natural fit for a multiverse creation and a horrible fit for a single universe creation. Nothing to do with theism or atheism, just math.

It's interesting that multiverse was typically used to claim that the perfect fit of single universe is a coincidence sense it's not alone. now you want to extend this perfection to multiverse creation. even so your claim may work in favor of my argument but no, Multiverse is only a (philosophical) hypothesis. at least till now.

Beyond hypothesis, what's solid is our observed universe, calculated constants values and consensus of its significance?

 

[metis]

The multiverse hypothesis fits well within what we know, which granted is very little, about how quantum mechanics works. Frankly, I'd be really surprised if we were the only universe, but then that's a safe bet because it's not likely we could ever prove or disprove that such exists.

 

[McBell]

It's interesting that multiverse was typically used to claim that the perfect fit of single universe is a coincidence sense it's not alone. now you want to extend this perfection to multiverse creation. even so your claim may work in favor of my argument but no, Multiverse is only a (philosophical) hypothesis. at least till now.

Beyond hypothesis, what's solid is our observed universe, calculated constants values and consensus of its significance?

Still waiting for you to show the math...
Not holding my breath, since I figure it to be yet another bold empty claim....

 

[NoorNoor]

Still waiting for you to show the math...
Not holding my breath, since I figure it to be yet another bold empty claim....

If you really want to know, find a reference you can trust and get your facts straight for your self.

 

[sayak83]

It's interesting that multiverse was typically used to claim that the perfect fit of single universe is a coincidence sense it's not alone. now you want to extend this perfection to multiverse creation. even so your claim may work in favor of my argument but no, Multiverse is only a (philosophical) hypothesis. at least till now.

Beyond hypothesis, what's solid is our observed universe, calculated constants values and consensus of its significance?

If by consensus you mean it is found tuned for life, then there is no consensus there at all. There is consensus that the constants and their values are very bad fit with the models which we currently use for the laws of physics if there is only a single universe here.

 

[NoorNoor]

The argument of "fine tuning" implies there are other possible universes that can be made. That's an automatic implication. If there's only one possible universe, and only one possible configuration, then there's no fine tuning that needs to be done.

Fine tuning doesn't mean selecting one configuration/design vs. another. But it means that the specific nuts and bolts of a specific design to be perfect fit for its intended use.