Is the cosmos "fine-tuned"?

[Bunyip]

Then that's what we'd find. We don't. Ergo, it isn't.

Erm....actually that is exactly what we find. Life takes up an all but imperceptible proportioj of the universe.

Not probabilities. Certainly not in any sense that you may be familiar with.


Such as?


This has been addressed ad nauseum, as it collapses to the "by chance" or fortuitous situation. In which case we are again left with the problem of explaining why unheard of precision exists in such a way that allows our existence that we can't explain by physics, cosmology, or even the sciences in general as it must be taken as given despite the fact that it shouldn't be as the only reason we have for taking it as given rather than as absurdly, astronomically implausible is that it happened when it need not have.

Well if we do in fact need an explanation - not that I believe we do, in fact to ask is simply the tu quoque fallacy. As of course are all of the similar arguments. The most rational explanation is 'I don't know' - which is far, far more plausible than concluding that a specific bronze age Jewish deity dun it.

 

[Bunyip]

. Let us imagine that we were able to determine these "finely tuned" constants were exactly that: fine-tuned. Let us further suppose that we allow this as evidence for design. We are still left without any explanation for the nature of the designer or the mechanisms of design.

Exactly, which is where the entirety of the fine tuning argument collapses. It reduces to faith.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Erm....actually that is exactly what we find.

Vacuums are not permitted in modern physics. They violate the uncertainty principle. Thus quantum vacuums (ground states) are pretty much as far from a "howling wilderness of interstellar vacuum" as is possible. Do your homework. This is basic.

Life takes up an all but imperceptible proportioj of the universe.

Irrelevant. The constants that enable it define the entirety of the universe.

Well if we do in fact need an explanation - not that I believe we do

Good thing you aren't a physicist. Or scientist. Or mathematician. Or logician. Or relevant.

in fact to ask is simply the tu quoque fallacy.

I would love to hear your explanation of the logic behind this assertion of this fallacy. It's been a boring day.

As of course are all of the similar arguments.

I wonder what your basis for comparison is.

Exactly, which is where the entirety of the fine tuning argument collapses. It reduces to faith.

You don't follow logic very well. Nothing in that post entails faith.

 

[Bunyip]

Vacuums are not permitted in modern physics. They violate the uncertainty principle. Thus quantum vacuums (ground states) are pretty much as far from a "howling wilderness of interstellar vacuum" as is possible. Do your homework. This is basic.

So what Legion? I know that there is no perfect vacuum - but it makes no difference and you know what I meant.

Irrelevant. The constants that enable it define the entirety of the universe.

LOL LOL LOL Looooove to see you prove that one.

Good thing you aren't a physicist. Or scientist. Or mathematician. Or logician. Or relevant.


I would love to hear your explanation of the logic behind this assertion of this fallacy. It's been a boring day.

Sure, the fine tuning advocates demand an explanation they themselves do not have - hence the tu quoque fallacy.

I wonder what your basis for comparison is.

The other pointless semantic conjouring tricks that are supposed to be arguments for God, the kalam for example

You don't follow logic very well.

So you keep saying, and yet you demonstrate no detectable ability to participate in meaningful dialogue.

nothing in that post entails faith.

Only the conclusion. The bit where fine tuning connects to god - that is entirely faith based.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So what Legion? I know that there is no perfect vacuum

No, not "no perfect vacuum". Nothing remotely resembling a vacuum. Vacuums went the way of the rest of classical physics: out-dated dustbins of history except when they are approximately accurate which isn't here.

but it makes no difference and you know what I meant.

No, I honestly did not. Because I firmly believe that after hundreds of posts I've read of yours you do not know much of anything about physics, you readily make claims about fields you aren't familiar with, and you do not offer evidence as you prefer to define yourself as correct.

What happened to putting me on ignore? I was so looking forward to that.

LOL LOL LOL Looooove to see you prove that one.

That's easy. One of the "fine-tunings" is the cosmological constant. I can supply you with literature or you can take 6 minutes to watch the clip I uploaded of Susskind (a non-believer). Infinitesimal variations would have caused the "big bang" to reverse and turn into a "big crunch" and infinitesimal increases would have ensured a dispersal that could not support life (or galaxies).

Sure, the fine tuning advocates

We call them physicists.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Fascinating discussion. It's good to hear more about the science and less about God for a change.

 

[Bunyip]

No, not "no perfect vacuum". Nothing remotely resembling a vacuum. Vacuums went the way of the rest of classical physics: out-dated dustbins of history except when they are approximately accurate which isn't here.

Yes and we covered that in the last post. I know that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum, tell you what - where I said 'vacuum' just substitute 'space' given as it has obviously confused you so much.

No, I honestly did not. Because I firmly believe that after hundreds of posts I've read of yours you do not know much of anything about physics, you readily make claims about fields you aren't familiar with, and you do not offer evidence as you prefer to define yourself as correct.

What happened to putting me on ignore? I was so looking forward to that.

You are too easy a target, it is hard to ignore.

That's easy. One of the "fine-tunings" is the cosmological constant. I can supply you with literature or you can take 6 minutes to watch the clip I uploaded of Susskind (a non-believer). Infinitesimal variations would have caused the "big bang" to reverse and turn into a "big crunch" and infinitesimal increases would have ensured a dispersal that could not support life (or galaxies).

LOL No you poor old thing - the cosmological constant does not at all establish that the universe was made for life. Not sure where you get these little fantasies from.

We call them physicists.

I bet you do, you do have an amazing imagination. Most other people call them philosophers and apologists. Mostly apologists who are philosophers.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes and we covered that in the last post. I know that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum, tell you what - where I said 'vacuum' just substitute 'space' given as it has obviously confused you so much

Before I continue to address anything you state here, let's determine whether or not you have the basic understanding of physics that would form one necessary component of evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the various incarnations of the FTA. First, you state there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum, but earlier you stated:

The universe if it is 'fine-tuned' must be in favour of the howling wilderness of interstellar vacuum.

and when I stated that if this were true that's what we'd find you stated:

Erm....actually that is exactly what we find

So, we find these vacuums that don't exist. Tell me, if I substitute "space" for "vacuum", why is it still utterly irrelevant? Alternatively, can you formulate your nonsensical description of vacuums to be meaningful or not? And if your understanding of the FTA is reduced to your misunderstanding of something so basic as vacuums such that you posit the cosmos is fine-tuned for something modern physics states is impossible, what can you possibly contribute here?

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

You have this uncanny ability to be blissfully unaware of any views other than your own, so given how often you tell me how I don't know anything,- why not familiarise yourself with what physicists have to say about fine tuning from the vast majority who do not see it as evidence for God or for that matter a serious challenge to accepted wisdom?

Krauss wrote a great article for the New Yorker just last month in which he utterly demolishes the popular myth that fine tuning is a serious issue. It is based entirely on nothing more than a catastrophic ignorance of how probability is calculated, combined with a lot of hope and faith.

Have a look, 'No Astrobiology has not made a case for God' Lawrence Krauss, The New Yorker Jan 2015.

I am constantly amazed at how you appear to have a total ignorance of any view contrary to your own.

 

[Bunyip]

Before I continue to address anything you state here, let's determine whether or not you have the basic understanding of physics that would form one necessary component of evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the various incarnations of the FTA. First, you state there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum, but earlier you stated:

and when I stated that if this were true that's what we'd find you stated:

So, we find these vacuums that don't exist. Tell me, if I substitute "space" for "vacuum", why is it still utterly irrelevant? Alternatively, can you formulate your nonsensical description of vacuums to be meaningful or not? And if your understanding of the FTA is reduced to your misunderstanding of something so basic as vacuums such that you posit the cosmos is fine-tuned for something modern physics states is impossible, what can you possibly contribute here?

LOL I had a feeling you would get stuck in another of your little loops over that. As I said, where I used the word 'vacuum' which I did as it is commonly used - substitute ' space', given that it is confusing you so much.
The whole argument from fine tuning makes no sense whatsoever - as Martin Wegner noted; "All physical parameters are irrelevant to an omnipotent God, he could have created us to live in a hard vacuum, if he wanted!"

As I said, fine tuning if it exists would be a better argument for atheism.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

Here are a couple of versions of the fine tuning argument for atheism, courtesy of Iron Chariots. Given your claims of expertise in logic - pretty amazing you are completely unaware of this.

"To restate the argument, in the form of the Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God :

Let X be "the combination of physical constants which is necessarily capable of sustaining life" and Y be "the combination of physical constants which is necessarily incapable of sustaining life".

1. X is necessary, in whole or part Y is necessary, in whole or part. 2. If theism is true, then divine creation obtained the universe. 3. If divine creation is true, then all in the universe is contingent to God's act of creation, and nothing in the universe is necessary (God could have created any universe). 4. If theism is true, then no X or Y can be necessary or have a necessary part (from 2 and 3). 5. Theism is false (from 1 and 4).

If a theist denies premise 1, they would deny the fine-tuning argument, since the first premise of this argument is the same as the first premise of the fine-tuning argument.

In a similar form of the argument:

1. If theism is true, then divine causation obtained the universe. 2. If divine causation obtains, then all facts of the universe are contingent upon God's act of creation. 3. If theism is true, then life can arise under any possible physical condition. (from 1 and 2) 4. If theism is true, then fine-tuning is invalid. (from 3)

Maybe the transition from premise 2 to 3 requires further justification. Denote the physical constants by {X; Y; Z} and the obtainment of life by L and negation by ~.

A fact of the universe is that {X--> L; Y--> ~L; Z--> ~L}. That is, X can result in life, and Y and Z can not result in life.

Since the fact is contingent upon God's act of creation, then it is not necessary and so can be altered.

If it can be altered then the following can be true {X--> L; Y--> L; Z--> L}, such that God could make anything result in life, or life consist in any environment. Basically, X, Y, and Z are irrelevant to God if divine causation obtains."

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion

You have this uncanny ability to be blissfully unaware of any views other than your own

This entire thread is an argument that I don't find convincing and which I put out there to allow others to present cases for and against it so that I can question my position. I hardly need anonymous sources on the web to learn about something that I've studied in great detail. I do it to obtain views that aren't my own. Your views are based upon mostly ignorance, however, and I am tired of giving you the benefit of the doubt you have repeatedly demonstrated you don't deserve. You simply do not know what you are talking about, but you feel free to spout unsubstantiated nonsense anyway.

It's sickening and tiring and boring.

Krauss wrote a great article for the New Yorker

Is that where you get all your scientific updates? Or do you occasionally rely on tabloids too?

Have a look, 'No Astrobiology has not made a case for God' Lawrence Krauss, The New Yorker Jan 2015.

My GOD! He managed to publish something in a newspaper? Well it MUST be true. Ironically, I wanted to quote from his Universe from Nothing but I can't find where I put my copy. It's mostly irrelevant there are plenty of proponents and critics I could read without Krauss, and if I wanted to reinforce my own views I need only pick sources that reflect whatever view I'm supposed to hold.

I am constantly amazed at how you appear to have a total ignorance of any view contrary to your own.

I'm constantly amazed at how far from accurate your depictions of my position are. The only relevant thing I'm aware of that is less accurate that you have continually presented is your depiction of physics.

 

[Bunyip]

This entire thread is an argument that I don't find convincing and which I put out there to allow others to present cases for and against it so that I can question my position. I hardly need anonymous sources on the web to learn about something that I've studied in great detail. I do it to obtain views that aren't my own. Your views are based upon mostly ignorance, however, and I am tired of giving you the benefit of the doubt you have repeatedly demonstrated you don't deserve. You simply do not know what you are talking about, but you feel free to spout unsubstantiated nonsense anyway.

It's sickening and tiring and boring.


Is that where you get all your scientific updates? Or do you occasionally rely on tabloids too?



My GOD! He managed to publish something in a newspaper? Well it MUST be true. Ironically, I wanted to quote from his Universe from Nothing but I can't find where I put my copy. It's mostly irrelevant there are plenty of proponents and critics I could read without Krauss, and if I wanted to reinforce my own views I need only pick sources that reflect whatever view I'm supposed to hold.


I'm constantly amazed at how far from accurate your depictions of my position are. The only relevant thing I'm aware of that is less accurate that you have continually presented is your depiction of physics.

LOL You are reduced to just whining yet again.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion

Here are a couple of versions of the fine tuning argument for atheism, courtesy of Iron Chariots. Given your claims of expertise in logic - pretty amazing you are completely unaware of this.

Given that you can't recognize logic when it is presented to you not only via example but via multiple texts, I really don't care about your opinion here. It's the "well, if you know so much about something I can't recognize when it stares me in the face, then..." argument. Don't care, not interested, go back to putting me on ignore so that I don't have to deal with your various lies, distortions, "clarification" (read: blatant contradictions), etc.

When you can give some hint that you have any familiarity with formal/symbolic/mathematical logic (rather than the opposite demonstrations you've so perfectly, neatly, and completely provided), then maybe I'll pay attention to what you find to be "amazing" given some internet search you made.

 

[Bunyip]

Given that you can't recognize logic when it is presented to you not only via example but via multiple texts, I really don't care about your opinion here. It's the "well, if you know so much about something I can't recognize when it stares me in the face, then..." argument. Don't care, not interested, go back to putting me on ignore so that I don't have to deal with your various lies, distortions, "clarification" (read: blatant contradictions), etc.

When you can give some hint that you have any familiarity with formal/symbolic/mathematical logic (rather than the opposite demonstrations you've so perfectly, neatly, and completely provided), then maybe I'll pay attention to what you find to be "amazing" given some internet search you made.

Wish I had a dollar for every time you have repeated that.

Don't worry, I knew you would balk at responding to Krauss.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

LOL You are reduced to just whining yet again.

No, just tired. Tired of leading horses to water who would rather chew on sand and claim it's water. So, again, put me on ignore. I have no interest in discussing anything with someone who
1) argues by defining language usage according to his whims
2) makes ridiculous claims he refuses to defend
3) relies on others for arguments so that he can then re-present them
4) is willing to lie about what he understands or doesn't.

I know you have no clue what you are talking about here as you've demonstrated it already here, but I would anyway given the numerous times you've done the same in the past. I know your familiarity with logic is completely informal and "intuitive' (read: wrong). I know that you have accused me of not understanding my own profession (among other things) and I'm just tired of your pathetic excuses for arguments.

So, again, please put me on ignore. I have no respect for your view, for your posts, or for your methods. I respect intellectual integrity.

 

[Bunyip]

No, just tired. Tired of leading horses to water who would rather chew on sand and claim it's water. So, again, put me on ignore. I have no interest in discussing anything with someone who
1) argues by defining language usage according to his whims
2) makes ridiculous claims he refuses to defend
3) relies on others for arguments so that he can then re-present them
4) is willing to lie about what he understands or doesn't.

I know you have no clue what you are talking about here as you've demonstrated it already here, but I would anyway given the numerous times you've done the same in the past. I know your familiarity with logic is completely informal and "intuitive' (read: wrong). I know that you have accused me of not understanding my own profession (among other things) and I'm just tired of your pathetic excuses for arguments.

So, again, please put me on ignore. I have no respect for your view, for your posts, or for your methods. I respect intellectual integrity.

You made that clear from our first exchange, it is how you respond to everyone. It is how you treat anyone who dares to try to discuss anything with you. Your arguments are generally simply gibberish.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You made that clear from our first exchange, it is how you respond to everyone.

And yet, somehow, I have friends, followers, and those members I communicate with or am connected with outside of this discussion board.

It is how you treat anyone who dares to try to discuss anything with you.

There are counter-examples to this claim in this thread alone.

Your arguments are generally simply gibberish.

Of course they would seem so. You do not know logic, physics, probability, mathematics, etc. You've demonstrated this repeatedly. If you object to my posts, please stop responding. If I wished for completely ignorant responses, I have 3-year-old nieces I could pose such questions to.

 

[Gambit]

LegionOnomaMoi,

In regards to the "string theory landscape," if there is no physical mechanism of selection, then how exactly are all these different vacua physically realized?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

LegionOnomaMoi,

In regards to the "string theory landscape," if there is no physical mechanism of selection, then how exactly are all these different vacua physically realized?

Currently, string theory and its more advanced forms are mathematical. I do not mean they involve mathematics, I mean the theory itself is mostly based on mathematical reformulations/equations. Additionally, we have little idea as to how most of the mathematical representations in modern physics correspond to anything physical.