paarsurrey
Veteran Member
It is tuned by G-d, it is a sure yes.
If it is not then; who will rectify it?
Regards
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the cosmos "fine-tuned"?
- Thread starter LegionOnomaMoi
- Start date
It is tuned by G-d, it is a sure yes.
If it is not then; who will rectify it?
Regards
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I think it is misleading to conclude that it is "fine tuned". "Tuned" usually indicates that someone had to tune it for a purpose. However what we mean when we say that the universe most definitely is fine tuned is that there are several constants that exist in our universe that allow us to be what we are. But this is still not an argument that there is some higher purpose or designer behind it.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Could you please mention your source of knowledge that there is positively no purpose or designer behind it? Please
Regards
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I haven't claimed such a thing. I am merely pointing out that just because there are convenient constants in the universe it does not equate to usable evidence for a creator. No burden shifting please.
What makes you think that it needs rectification? If it did, it would not be so well tuned to start with.
Ciao
- viole
After writing several drafts of a paper on problems with assumptions of continuous variables, I recalled this thread and how unfortunate it is that I didn't adequately address a fundamentally important component of both arguments for fine-tuning (in the sense of "tuning" by a designer) and against it (e.g., the WAP). Namely, the interpretation of probability. Too frequently, I have referred to the uninterpretable nature of any probability without a probability and corresponding sample space (more precisely, any probability without a probability triple consisting of the entire set of probabilities, a sigma-algebra/sigma-field of subsets of this set, and a probability measure on this sigma-algebra/sigma-field). In truth, this presumes certain philosophical aspects of probability, especially those akin to the frequentist variety. Subjective probability, including in its most popular form (Bayesian), gives us something quite different wherein we might judge the probability that we find ourselves in a "fine-tuned" universe. First, the "standard" interpretation of probability makes the likelihood of us finding ourselves in this or any other universe 0. But that means nothing. More meaningful is the sets of possible universes in which we could find ourselves or even a "universe" in which matter exists compared to the ones in which the fine-tuned parameters allow for e.g., atoms, let alone life. This set is vastly improbable. From a frequentist perspective, it is 0. Our universe is a miracle. This merely indicates the deficiencies in the frequentist perspective (at least with respect to questions like these). However, a subjectivist interpretation begs the question. It is essentially a tacit assumption of the anthropic principle. Yet what other way(s) can we determine the probability that the finely-tuned cosmos we find ourselves in is likely or unlikely?
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
That's a topic that I find infinitely fascinating and it's something that I supposed could never be known.
It's possible that I've responded to this comment 350 Trillion times already, essentially saying the same thing each time.
If we are the 1st iteration of the Universe or the 350 Trillionth, wouldn't all the data be the same?
History, so far as we can tell, would only go back to the origin of the version of the Universe that we exist in - so it's destined to remain an unsolvable problem, I believe.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Conjecture...not history...and in the mean time, the onus is on the those who believe the universe is finite to prove that all that exists once did not exist?
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Why would they have to do that? The total energy of the universe is the same as it always was - zero.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
...and your proof is?
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
What proof? I didn't claim to have proof - do you?
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Yes...the proof is straight forward.....matter/energy can't be destroyed... hence it is eternal!
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
But the sum total of that energy is zero, so sure - there has been a total of zero energy eternally.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
My proof is irrefutable...you are presenting a hypothesis.....
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Ok, then what is your irrefutible truth?
Matter and energy can be and has been created and destroyed. Currently, the standard model of particle physics and its foundation (QFT) require that energy/matter be CONSERVED, but allow for the destruction of both provided the creation of one or the other given any such annihilation.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
I've already explained it....the matter/energy in existence can't be added to nor can it be destroyed...of course there can be transformation, etc, but the sum total of matter/energy remains the same...
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
That's what I mean by matter/energy......nothing can be added to the cosmos, nor can it be removed....matter/energy is eternal...
Of course, all of this breaks down even assuming the big bang initiated all spacetime/space & time and for a time-like interval after the big bang.