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!
I am sure you can see the flaws in your argument.....
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ZENO! Zeno's paradoxes concern issues with infinities in general. It has even LESS to do with Cantor's transfinite infinity. Google "measure theory" or something before continuing to spout this nonsense. What I was talking about has more to do with infamous atheist Bertrand Russell's argument about the continuum, with recent work by Gisin and others to reformulate foundation physics in a manner that excludes the continuum artifice of classical physics with something that is consistent with quantum theory and does not by definition preclude the possibility of any measurement, even of any infinite precision, over ever having a non-zero probability of being correct. It has to do with why Tegmark backed of his MUH to some extent in favor of the set of computable universe, with proposals in mathematical physics, cosmology, quantum foundations, etc., to recast physical theories in a mathematical framework that doesn't require beyond infinite accuracy for all physical properties/measurements/dynamics, which physicists such as Wheeler or 't Hooft or others have tried to embrace because they view the presence of the required infinities in classical physics as physically meaningful rather than the computational alternative, and so on.
Again, this is akin to saying the universe is highly linguistic. It mistakes the nature of the universe with how we describe it. Most mathematics doesn't describe the universe.
And the naturalness problem is related to fine-tuning. But here it is an issue of whether or not it is within the bounds of physics and supported by scientific evidence to use the same evidence theists do for god to say that there exist multiple universes, inflation, etc., all to explain away the unnatural appearance of design. You are promoting a set of metaphysical principles and corresponding mathematical structures and would-be theories you appreciate only to the limited sense you get from sensationalist sources in order to claim that the one is a "natural" explanation while the argument for a Creator (which, historically, was the basis for your mathematical laws, mathematical universe, and the emergence of physics) is nothing at all like one. And for many physicists, the popular physics you've been exposed to is about as appealing and as "scientific" as is the claim that "god did it." That's one reason Davies (your prejudices notwithstanding) has objected to multiverse schemes: He doesn't believe "god did it is" is scientific or warranted, but neither is "well the specialness of our universe can be made non-special if we imagine there are huge numbers of universes for which we cannot by definition have any evidence for and never will"
Providing you understand what this means. In the context of what I said, your assertion would mean that there is a realm in which classical systems exist, rather than that classical descriptions are adequate.
Are you asking me personally? Because unlike cosmology, quantum foundations is probably the area I work on the most and this is perhaps the outstanding question.
Wrong. I'd cite more sources here, but you apparently can't be bothered to read actual physics literature so why bother? In short, a fundamental feature of there being a multiverse is causally disconnected "universes" which by definition cannot interact even indirectly in any manner. Thus any "evidence" you may think you have come across is a matter of over-simplification and sensationalism that glosses over the ways in which e.g., fine-tuning and the appearance of design is counted as "evidence."
It's mostly mathematics, and while the mathematics is still mostly lacking rigour or even a coherent framework within which it could be completed, it is far more advanced in terms of mathematical advances, insights, and progress in a handful of exciting mathematical subdisciplines and fields than it is remotely something that might qualify as a coherent physical theory. It's such a failure as an actual attempt at something resembling a theory that it is not usually clear from the literature where certain incarnations end and others begin, as there are often instances in all of them such speculative leaps and hand-waving it hasn't always been clear what has been said or how it relates to current or future research. In fact, it hasn't always been clear even to experts when they have been duped by nonsense that had to be retracted even from some of the premier journals.
“The theory of cosmic inflation was invented to solve fine-tuning problems [51, 71, 105, 106, 120–122]. Indeed, the pre-inflationary Standard Model of cosmology, the hot Big Bang model [114, 138], suffers from a number of issues, all related to a fragile adjustment of the initial conditions needed to make it work.”
It's not my point. It is simply a fact. Go read some physics for a change.
You used a popular youtube video and a bunch of mistaken impressions you got from popular sources or misunderstood from popular sources, and ignored completely every actual citation I made as well as failed to actually engage in any arguments I made (Zeno's paradox? Really? "glowing ball" unified theory? Seriously?)
Only to the extent they believe that this knowledge is sufficient to make claims of actual knowledge over and against the actual literature in the respective field. It should be blatantly obvious that a great deal is lost and wont to be misunderstood from popular science. It need not be as bad as it is. I try to actively encourage the reading and consuming of better sources, but there is always a necessary loss. It's somewhat akin to reading a translation of an ancient text, only the gap is wider.
It's not that they aren't worthy of discussion. It's that they are limited. Some are simply misleading, but all are necessarily limited. Even my explanations are vastly oversimplified. But you seem to hold on to your popular sources over and against the actual scientific literature even when it is the same author.
You mean your little youtube clip? Or where you failed to engage in any of the literature I cited but did manage to dig up a paper you misunderstood completely? Or any of the other mistakes you've made and then ignored or regarded as nit-picking or refused to acknowledge?
None of the above is accurate. It is well-known that inflationary cosmology was motivated to solve fine-tuning, your ignorance notwithstanding. The many-worlds interpretation of QM is not the "convincing mathematics" you described it as in error, but an interpretation that I freely acknowledge many physicists adhere to which has little to do with the multiverse for almost all of them and which is highly controversial as an outstanding problem for MWI propnents is to derive the basic probabilities required to make use of QM. As for string theory, I already covered that above. It is well known that it fails to be any actual theory of anything or even remotely resembling something coherent enough to be more than a set of intuitions that have failed for decades to come together in the manner hoped by proponents. This much is acknowleged even by hardcore proponents who write the popular literature you should have read.
Because, as I said before, I don't believe in God. I just find it intellectually dishonest in the extreme when the same reasoning used in FTAs is used to promote similar supernatural nonsense with the veneer of physics that is made all the more convincing when presented to the layperson.
I never said you asked me. Here's what you said and to whom:
It would have been. But I've quoted your post several times now. You can now go back and check whether I ever claimed you said the above in response to me.
But we can discount him as you implied because of his theistic leanings you claimed he had?
Interesting conceptions you have.
HA HA elitist fool. I've watched confernces and I'll source them and you can cry about it all you want. I backed up my source with actual scientists. If you don't like the way they use terms then you can write a paper and get a nobel prize and get invited to confernces and get the terms changed.
All arguments that are pointless to this discussion. The things I've said about Cosmology stand. You are still complaining about symmetries but I sourced a Cern paper saying the exact thing that you are freaking out about. So talk to them. You are a nobody. Get your work published and printed on the front page of the Cern website and I'll source you. Until then you are a cry-baby. I do not care if you disagree with the paper on the front page of the Cern site.
Yup, to find the science behind the constants. Not to find how Yahweh did it.
First I know you are just being difficult and you confirmed it. But that turned out to be a fail so you had to invent stuff I never said.
No it doesn't but are we taking into count all lines of evidence or not?
How does thins help you prevent the simulation problem?
Everything concerning phylogenetics.
Arguing against Premise #2, I posit the following thought experiment:
Again this is the challenge for you.He already did on multiple occasions. Including the very post you were replying to.
So no physicist you have ever listened to thinks there is any actual evidence for fine-tuning, but when these same physicists (and others you haven't listened to) "say 'fine-tuning'", they are trying to find the science behind it? Despite the fact that (according to you) you've never listened to a physicist who believes there is any actual evidence for fine-tuning?
Please do. And no, you backed up your misconceptions with summary simplifications that some scientists use to explain physics to people like you in ways you can understand (i.e., with all the actual physics content missing).
I attend them all the time. It's a major component of what I do. So when I talk about "listening to physicists", I actually mean in the audience or in person or fielding questions in such conferences. Otherwise I speak of "reading" physics as it is something published in the scientific literature in general (nobody can attend every conference, symposia, etc., still less every lab meeting or group discussion in some interdepartmental meeting or research group discussion).
The youtube clip again? I've given you actual sources. You've ignored them. You've dogmatically clung to a simplified understanding you've managed to glean from sensationalist sources, and then become offended when I dismissed these are irrelevant compared to the actual physics literature which, after all, is what even the best popular science tries to simplify in understandable ways for those like you who lack the necessary background to read or understand even a simplified version of the technical aspects found in material for upper-level undergrads and beginning graduates.
Wrong. Occasionally, scientists are trying to say "God did it" but here they are going beyond the science. More importantly, often enough even those physicists you claim to like and pay attention to, and even in the popular science you are limited to, explicitly state that a central goal of finding alternative explanations for fine-tuning problems is to avoid theistic explanations or appeals to a Creator.
Who needed to use some sort of simplified metaphor in order to get an idea across in a manner that would be somewhat understandable for someone without any physics knowledge. It doesn't make it actual physics, it makes it a term used instead of physics.
Nope. I have no problem with it being on Youtube. There are graduate and post-graduate seminars as well as other material intended for specialists one can now find there. It's becoming a common means by which we can share and access information. The problem isn't that it is a Youtube video per se, but that you cling to it desperately in support of this bizarre notion of your "glowing ball" unified theory nonsense when this has no place in actual physics, but only in a popular presentation intended for those, such as you, who cannot read or otherwise understand the relevant material. "Glowing ball" is much easier to digest than even the simplest equations from QED (or classical field theory for that matter) and via metaphor it creates a kind of image to replace the one that we must have in order to understand the actual physics. If descriptions in terms of such over-simplified metaphors were sufficient, we wouldn't require most of the physics literature nor anything much in the way of mathematics either.
"A scientist said it"? I've quoted several scientists several times in this thread, including their references to a Creator or theism or God in the context of fine-tuning. You've ignored this in favor of your sensationalist youtube clip.
It isn't your thread, nor are your points all that matter. My central point has been that physicists, including those you admire, use the same evidence from fine-tuning arguments that are employed to support the existence of God in order to explain away this evidence by creating fictional metaphysics for which there cannot (typically) be even in principle any empirical support.
You did. You just didn't say it to me. I quoted you, repeatedly, and anybody can follow this back to you:
Well it seems to be that the moderators removed the post where you did it.
Because with random laws of physics life is improbable.
That, or you're ostrich defenses have reached god-mode.