Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You made the claim. That puts a burden of.proof upon you. As usual all you have are empty unsupported claims. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It does not put up barriers thicker than a wet paper towel.
It is highly meaningful and nontrivial for theoretical physicists and cosmologists as well as those in foundation physics, HEP, astrophysics, etc. To take one example, here is literally textbook physics written by Carroll (the guy featured elsewhere in this thread as a steadfast opponent of the so-called fine-tuning argument:
Because in the sciences we generally seek for explanations when possible especially when our theories and data seem to scream that they are required but missing. To simply accept as given whatever observations we might think to somehow record prevents the theory-construction process, hinders scientific progress more generally, and is antithetical to scientific thinking.
And again, it is precisely this approach that not only prevented the emergence of science, but also in this case and for these types of issues is particularly antithetical to scientific inquiry. To note again a specific fine-tuning problem and the complete dismissal of what seems to be your approach, consider the author's comment below on the flatness problem:
It is exceedingly complicated and is an outstanding problem in cosmology, HEP, and BSM physics. Not the "life-creator" part so much, and certainly not with respect to evolution, but rather with fine-tuning in the universe and the precision required for the parameters in our models to allow a universe that can sustain itself, let alone much in the way of matter and molecules (and still less, sustain life).
Yes, But in reality, "_ in the gap" notions are a primary driver of science, metaphysics, and pseudoscience (among much else). It seems to me completely unreasonable to say that because our universe was finely-tuned, this implied a "tuner". But it is just about equally ridiculous to turn our backs on a long tradition of principles within physics that have proved so fruitful and simply accept a process in which we use experimental precision to cancel out divergences in a series of delicate processes in order to finely-tune models to match what can be observed when tiny deviations from certain of these values drastically alter the possibility of cosmic structures or a cosmos at all for reasons we have no explanation for. Likewise, it is nearly as fantastical to posit cosmologies involving speculative metaphysics (e.g., multiverse cosmologies) based on the vary same reasoning used in the fine-tuning argument(s) for God.
This is just wrong.
This is misunderstanding QM, completely getting annihilation wrong, and mistaking a bunch of theoretical notions while confusing them with incorrect inferences from observation (all the while mistaking the nature of randomness in QM and physics more generally).
This is almost as controversial as "god did it" and is accepted by Tegmark and not really anybody else. It is an appeal to faith, aesthetics, and the same kind of reasonining underlying so many theistic arguments that are similarly to be dismissed as unscientific.
Wrong. Firstly, a rather interesting paradox in QM is that one can not only make predictions regarding the evolution of quantum systems with certainty, but one can prevent this evolution altogether so as to make the system more "deterministic" than is possible in classical physics. Secondly, future predictions are impossible in classical physics not only due to impossible precision required for even a 1-body system, but also because the deterministic laws hold only for idealized systems that do not exist (i.e., those which are isolated, which would preclude even in principle our knowledge of them, and those which require a level of measurement accuracy which is even in pricinple impossible as the entire set of possible measurements we could ever make given any technology form a set of measure 0 in comparison with that required of classical physical systems, properties, and processes). FInally, the statistical structures and probabilistic nature of QM are irrelevant here in the manner you seem to suggest.
And what is our evidence for this? Violations of metaphysical assumptions in observation that lead to speculative pleading (like the kind you dismiss so readily and for exactly the same reason). The "evidence" for other universe described in multiverse cosmologies is basically fine-tuning.
Technical note: for so-called continuous distributions in probability as well as in the main for mixed distributions, the probability of any singleton is 0. To make this clearer: imagine we are trying to calculate the probability that a process will stop at a particular instant of time in some interval (assuming time is continuous) or the probability of hitting a particular point on a dartboard (assuming space is continuous). Then the probability of stopping at a particular point in time or of hitting a particular point on the dartboard is 0 for all points, while the probability that there will exist a stopping time or that a particular point will be hit is 1.
Perhaps not, and in fact I would say it isn't. But it is a similar non-explanation as the designer argument. It is a matter of fitting subjective conceptions of chance with certain aesthetic, metaphysical considerations. This is without getting into the issue of the interpretation of probability, still less the issue, given one or more interpretations, what may be inferred from improbability. Causation cannot generally be inferred, for example. Even if we were to agree that some process/event were improbable, and agree on an appropriate triple <Ω , F , P> (or some less formal measure of improbability), then simply demonstrating that "X is unlikely" cannot imply "therefore Y". It is certainly true that in a multiverse cosmology, it is necessarily the case that some universes such as ours will be finely tuned by chance. It is also true that to infer there must exist such a multiverse because of fine-tuning is at best speculative and more likely flawed reasoning masquerading as theoretical physics. The same is true of the cosmological/fine-tuning argument for a designer.
What are you referring to by "it?" @leroy 's premise or something else?
In case you missed it, this thread is about theological apologetics, not scientific thinking.
You think that pointing out that "improbable" is not the same thing as "impossible" is what "prevented the emergence of science?"
Yes I accepted the burden proof and provided my testable falsifiable and positive argument
And without design we wouldn't predict that life falls in a narrow rage.
I get why someone might not want to admit that they don't understand someone else's argument, but at least Google "tautology" to find out it means. It'll save you embarrassment.
You know that this is what actually happened, right?
I am trying to get across one very simple point, which you are not dealing with.The theory of evolution predicts what observations we should expect to make.
Argument? What argument? You haven't presented any argument.
Hallelujah.
Thats kind of the point if many things could have gone wrong...... But things happened to turn out "ok" what explanation do you suggest?
And what I am trying to explain to you is that the current approach in cosmology and theoretical physics is to claim that based upon the unnaturally finely tuned nature of the universe (finely-tuned in just such a way that one finds in the literature not infrequent references to a "designer" or "creator"), rather than on our state of knowledge per se, we should and must construct theories/models for which we have no evidence whatsoever other than that without such alternatives the universe appears to be too improbable. Again, to quote the most concise, non-technical explanation by specialists in a reviewed source that passed the inspection of an editorial board (upon which sits Lawrence Krauss, among others) :
The point is that the fine-tuning problem is sufficient evidence to warrant outlandish, otherwise completely speculative metaphysical nonsense that is akin to the nonsense one finds in Craig's argument and other arguments from design, in which e.g., there are googols of universe so that ours doesn't appear designed. The point is that to say that improbable, highly unnatural seeming "coincidences" or appeals to aesthetics or even appeals to the fact that our universe shouldn't seem to be designed is a central driver of research, model-building, and theoretical work in cosmology and related fields. The point that the same evidence motivating design arguments by theists are used by cosmologists and theoretical physicists for the same reason: to explain fine-tuning problems.
Hand waving is not defending your argument, and that is all that you have ever done. I am not by any means the only one that has pointed this out to you. But let's go over your argument.
Boltzmann brain - Wikipedia