Biology prof: How can we really know if the universe is fine-tuned?

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 14, 2016

Fine tuning}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From Waynesburg U biology prof Wayne Rossiter, author of Shadow of Oz: Theistic Evolution and the Absent God, a question about claims for fine tuning of the universe:

My major concern with arguments from fine-tuning in cosmology is, how do we really get from from observations of precision to statements of probability? To say that something is precise is not to say that it is improbable. Those are two different things.

As a third quick analogy, if we studied the fall patterns of icicles from the roof of my home, we might find that their placement is incredibly precise. Given the vast surface area a given icicle could fall on (my yard, the road, my neighbor’s yard, etc.), the fact that they consistently fall within a very narrow area directly below the edge of the roof (they more or less fall straight down) seems absurdly precise. Absurdly precise, if it was logical to entertain the possibility of icicles falling in ways other than straight down. But the presence of gravity and the lack of strong winds make this highly precise phenomenon highly probable. Said plainly, it would be absurd to treat the falling of an icicle straight down and the falling of it laterally into my neighbor’s yard as equally likely.

But, I think that’s the sort of assumption being made in the argument from cosmological fine-tuning. To say that such-and-such a physical parameter rests upon a razor’s edge does tell us something. It tells us that any small change in the setting of that parameter would lead to a universe drastically different from the one we live in, and likely one that could never even produce material objects (let alone life) as we understand it. Fair enough. I agree. What it doesn’t tell us is how likely any of those other settings are. More.

Thoughts?

See also: Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

'But the fact remains that we have no idea whether or not (or how much) a parameter could vary.' Just before writing that, you claimed that you were NOT arguing from ignorance. What on earth does, 'We have no idea...' suggest to you, if not total ignorance. And to state your cluelessness in the very next sentence !!!! For crying out loud.Axel_{May 7, 2017
May
05
May
7
07
2017
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

mw
It is the lid of the ark with two cherubs; from above it God spoke, and face to face with Moses: and in plain speech.
Yes, as given by divine command the creation of the cherubs reflected the heavenly reality - thus the existence of angels. We don't know (as cited above regarding the Star of Bethlehem) to what extent the angels have been involved in creation, in the designs we observe. That is why ID cannot identify the intelligent designer directly. It may be that angels actually implemented designs. Regarding the philistines, it's interesting also that they were instructed to create golden mice to offer as a sacrifice. And that non-Jewish sacrifices had a reparative effect. Images of animals had a sacred function in that regard.Silver Asiatic_{December 27, 2016
December
12
Dec
27
27
2016
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic, @ 160. "Or perhaps it’s better to think of ID as just a core principle – a simple argument. Then that argument can be adopted and used by different beliefs." I like that view point. Yes, today is the feast of St. John the Evangelist. At Patmos, in a vision he saw the ark of the covenant: the Testimony of God. Today, most probably do not even know what or where on the ark the mercy-seat is. It is the lid of the ark with two cherubs; from above it God spoke, and face to face with Moses: and in plain speech. No one as such had to look into the ark. When the ark was captured by the Philistines, the stone statue of their God Dagon lost its head, legs and arms. They did look in the ark, but eventually sent it back in fear as mice, haemorrhoids and tumours coincidentally came on them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistine_captivity_of_the_Ark What's more, God had given clear instructions on how the ark was to be carried. To aid its return, David decided to put the ark on a cart. It slipped, and someone tried to prevent its fall. The man died for breaking an ordinance. Harsh? The lesson; the stone word of God, the only scripture God has ever written by the Holy Trinity through Yahweh, is the Holy of Holy scripture to be carried with utmost respect. I believe it is there in heaven and we will face its contents some day and hopefully the mercy of the Creator Saviour. Thank you for your comments. mwmw_{December 27, 2016
December
12
Dec
27
27
2016
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

F/N: Joe Carter at First Things some years back:
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/10/fine-tuning-an-argument-and-a-universe At least two dozen demandingly exact physical constants must be in place for carbon-based life to exist (see list at end of post), the slightest variation in any of these conditions—even to a minuscule degree—would have rendered the universe unfit for the existence of any kind of life. “At least on the face of it, these so–called “anthropic coincidences” would appear to support the idea that we were built–in from the beginning,” says physicist Stephen Barr. “Even some former atheists and agnostics have seen in them impressive evidence of a divine plan.” Indeed, as I hope to show, anthropic coincidences can form the basis of one of the most sound teleological arguments: The apparent fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. The apparent fine-tuning is not due to physical necessity or chance. Therefore, it is due to design. The first option, physical necessity, is the easiest to dismiss. The idea that it was physically impossible for the universe to have been created in any way other than in a manner that would support life is neither logically necessary nor scientifically plausible. As Barr notes, “In the final analysis one cannot escape from two very basic facts: the laws of nature did not have to be as they are; and the laws of nature had to be very special in form if life were to be possible.” Our options, therefore, are between chance (the anthropic coincidences truly are coincidences) or design (the parameters needed for life were purposely arranged). While it cannot be established with absolute certainty, we can, I believe, determine that design is the most probable explanation. There is little dispute that probability of this series of “coincidences” occurring is infinitesimally small. Still, it is often argued that since we exist then the probability must be 1. In their book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle , John Barrow and Frank Tipler contend that we ought not be surprised at observing the universe to be as it is and that therefore no explanation of its fine-tuning is needed. In other words, we can only observe the need for fine-tuning in universes that support life. Surprisingly, this dubious argument is often used as if it were a silver bullet that destroys the fine-tuning argument. But philosopher John Leslie (as told by William Lane Craig ) provides an illustration of why such reasoning is faulty: Suppose you are dragged before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all of them with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. The command is given; you hear the deafening sound of the guns. And you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 marksmen missed! Now while it is true that 5. You should not be surprised that you do not observe that you are dead, nonetheless it is equally true that 6. You should be surprised that you do observe that you are alive. Since the firing squad’s missing you altogether is extremely improbable, the surprise expressed in (6) is wholly appropriate, though you are not surprised that you do not observe that you are dead, since if you were dead you could not observe it. Similarly, while we should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our existence, it is nevertheless true that 7. We should be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence, in view of the enormous improbability that the universe should possess such features. Barr also provide a helpful analogy: Suppose you were looking for a specific obscure recipe for, say, goulash. If the first book you took at random from the cooking shelf of the library happened to have exactly that recipe, you would regard it as a great coincidence. If you then discovered that the book contained every recipe for goulash ever invented, you would cease to regard it as coincidental that it had the one of particular interest to you. But you would be surprised nonetheless, for one does not expect a cookbook to treat that particular category of food so comprehensively. The fact that it happened to be so comprehensive in its selection of goulash, when it was goulash that you needed, would itself count as a remarkable coincidence. Another problem I find with this line of thinking is that it implies that the probability of a stochastically independent event is determined by the existence of an observer. For example, imagine a universe that is exactly like ours yet contains no carbon-based life forms. We could determine the factors required for such an existence and calculate the probability of such constants appearing as they do. The result, of course, would be an infinitesimally small probability. The implication made by opponents of fine-tuning, though, is that the probability suddenly becomes 1 by the mere addition of a human observer. Such a conclusion is exceedingly absurd. Most critics of fine-tuning have begun to recognize that this approach is insufficient. Faced with scientific evidence that undermines their agnostic assumptions, they turn to metaphysical speculation in the form of the “multiple universes” theory. There is a distinction, however, between the mulitple-domains within one universe and the multiple independent universes. As Barr explains: In the version that physicists take seriously, the many “universes” are not really distinct and separate universes at all, but domains or regions of one all–encompassing Universe. The domains are far apart in space, or otherwise prevented from communicating with each other. Conditions are assumed to be so different from one domain to another that they appear superficially to have different physical laws. However, at a deeper level all the domains are really controlled by one and the same set of fundamental laws. These laws also control what types of domains the universe has, and how many of each type. The other version of the idea posits the existence of a large number of universes that really are universes, distinct and unconnected in any way with each other. Each has its own set of physical laws. There is no overarching physical system of which each is a part. One can understand why this version is not discussed among scientists. At least in the many–domains version all the domains are part of the same universe as we, so that, even if we cannot in practice observe them directly, we might hope at least to infer their existence theoretically from a deep understanding of the laws of nature. In the many–universes version, this is not the case. Briefly stated, the multiple universe theory is the hypotheses that if the universe contains an exhaustively infinite number of universes—all of which actually exist—then anything that can occur with non-vanishing probability will occur somewhere. While it might be true that the probability that our universe could develop in a way that supports life is incredibly small, these critics claim that in an infinite series of universes even the improbable is likely to happen quite often. Such a move, however, commits the inverse gambler’s fallacy , which states that an improbable event can be made less improbable by the hypothesis that many similar events exist, and that the hypothesis is thence confirmed by the improbable event. Even if multiple independent universes do exist, though, it does not change the probability that our universe would turn out as it did. Again, to use an illustration by John Leslie : There is no need for us to ask whether very great alterations in these affairs would have rendered it fully possible once more, let alone whether physical worlds conforming to very different laws could have been observer-permitting without being in any way fine tuned. Here it can be useful to think of a fly on a wall, surrounded by an empty region. A bullet hits the fly. Two explanations suggest themselves. Perhaps many bullets are hitting the wall or perhaps a marksman fired the bullet. There is no need to ask whether distant areas of the wall, or other quite different walls, are covered with flies so that more or less any bullet striking there would have hit one. The important point is that the local area contains just the one fly. Having reduced the chance hypothesis to a virtual impossibility we are left with the obvious conclusion that the fine-tuning is not only apparent but actual. While this fine-tuning does not imply that the existence of a tuner is absolutely certain, it certainly makes it more probable than not. Unless one starts with the assumption that the Fine Tuner cannot or must not exist, it seems more probable (at least as a Baynesian inference that such a Being actually does exist. Of course it must be noted that the the uses of such teleological argument are not likely to persuade the unbelief in the existence of God. As I have said many time before the unbeliever suffers from a form of invincible ignorance. There are no metaphysical and illogical knots the agnostically inclined will not twist themselves into in order to avoid having to admit that the existence of God is more reasonable and probable than its alternative.
Just to keep wheels turning. KFkairosfocus_{December 27, 2016
December
12
Dec
27
27
2016
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

DS, I spoke to Mathematics as the logic of structurte and quantity, and in that context to sensitivity analysis of the system that models our cosmos as with any other complex system model. Your remarks above come periously close to endorsing rejection of that. And, your stuff on hypothetically possible cosmos are not comfort given that you seem to want to suggest -- utterly implausibly -- that the key constants of the cosmos are necessary and obtain in all possible worlds. KF PS: I sympathise on the snow, and remind one and all that the Caribbean's beaches are nice, much nicer than ice.kairosfocus_{December 27, 2016
December
12
Dec
27
27
2016
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

mw
However, it would seem Dr Rossiter, as yet, does not include a divine law with the key to our origins. The birth days of the Cosmos, delivered complete. However, to my understanding, he has pointed out an inconsistency in theistic belief. God regularly guides and intervenes, while in between God creates the brainless natural selection for those theistic Christians who have had to bring on board Darwin to save them from believing the ‘errors’ of divine law.
Thanks for your fascinating insights and this one is not exception. If we agree that there is this inconsistency in theistic evolution (as I do), then this is also a problem for ID since there couldn't be any reference to divine law in that context. As I see it, there are different flavors of ID - a theistic version, Christian ID or a secular ID. Or perhaps it's better to think of ID as just a core principle - a simple argument. Then that argument can be adopted and used by different beliefs. But as you point out, belief in divine law has important consequences that cannot be overlooked. Today, the feast of St. John the Evangelist, teacher that the Logos became flesh. The principle of rationality, the Word, the Logos. Those who deny Christ, reject the Logos, thus embrace irrationality.Silver Asiatic_{December 27, 2016
December
12
Dec
27
27
2016
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT}

daveS #157. The spontaneous generation of numbers even unto 'imaginary numbers' such as in quadratic equations, may be likened to the spontaneous generation of the first life form; the spontaneous generation of the cosmos, and the spontaneous generations of the multiverse. It's like a spell, a formula/chant that works every time in the imagination. Happy New Year. https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/imaginary-numbers.htmlmw_{December 27, 2016
December
12
Dec
27
27
2016
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

KF, I don't understand what you are saying in the first two sentences of #150. I do think that mathematics would work the same in any hypothetical physically possible universe. I have a driveway full of snow that I need to deal with at the moment, so don't have much else to add now.daveS_{December 26, 2016
December
12
Dec
26
26
2016
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

mw@149, I don't think that numbers ever began to exist or evolve, although in what sense they do exist is a difficult question. I believe we can discuss them as if they have an objective existence of their own without running into to much trouble.daveS_{December 26, 2016
December
12
Dec
26
26
2016
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

KF @ 153: "MW, that famous star of Bethlehem is indeed a challenge to our presumptions." ______________________________________________________________ Indeed. So is Gabriel. Daniel pondered on what certain numbers meant. Daniel also was lamenting the loss of people’s belief in the Commandments and ordinances of God. Daniel was answered in a vision by the man Gabriel (Dan 9). Of course, by some synchronicity or meaningful coincidence Gabriel also approached the Mother of the God-Man to first await her consent before God the Holy Trinity generated himself as the son of man, God in part and God in whole. A planned event; nonsense said Darwin. It was Darwin who rejected Jesus as Son of God. Darwin rejected miracles. Darwin said in "Origin", Yahweh is "erroneous." Darwin created a Godless theory. A design-less theory. By that I mean, any God but the Judaeo-Christian God, and as long as he keeps his nose out of Darwin's business. Darwin gained the world etc… However, it was Dr Rossiter who pointed out in his book and elsewhere that, threaded out through scripture, God massively intervened to change the course of nature to his way: the Ten Plagues, Sinai, the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection and the Ascension to name but a few. However, it would seem Dr Rossiter, as yet, does not include a divine law with the key to our origins. The birth days of the Cosmos, delivered complete. However, to my understanding, he has pointed out an inconsistency in theistic belief. God regularly guides and intervenes, while in between God creates the brainless natural selection for those theistic Christians who have had to bring on board Darwin to save them from believing the ‘errors’ of divine law. Today is St Stephen's day. The Father formed a holy people for himself, and Jesus said the Father is greater than he, though one God. Stephen would have worshipped Yahweh in the glory of remembering the real purpose of the Sabbath. He followed Jesus into the synagogue. Today, church doors are more or less shut to such. There is no room. It is full with evolutionism. The ass and donkey only fit for the company for those who believe otherwise. In my opinion and belief, God keeps everything in constant tune. It cannot be otherwise. How he decided on which set of numbers to use to fine tune the cosmos I have not got a clue. He has tuned the end game to finish in his time.mw_{December 26, 2016
December
12
Dec
26
26
2016
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

H'mm: here's a term: Goldilocks zone, life-permitting narrow resonance in the space of cosmologically possible worlds. KFkairosfocus_{December 26, 2016
December
12
Dec
26
26
2016
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT}

NB: That captcha then a popup tab tracing to RU, before this worked. Mr Webmaster please check for invasion by de hackerz.ru! >>>>>>>>>>>>> F/N2: Here, from my always linked note, are notes on a typical range of objections to the fine tuning-design inference:
Multiple sub-universes: It is asserted that there is an at least quasi-infinite array of sub-universes that have popped up out of the underlying eternal universe as a whole, with randomly scattered parameters. So, we are in the one that just happened to get lucky: somebody will as a rule win a lottery! We should therefore not be surprised, and there is nothing more to "explain." (Of course, this first resorts to suggesting that there is/must be a vast, unobserved wider universe as a whole. So, right from the start it moves into the province of a worldview claim; it is not at all properly a scientific theory. It therefore cannot fairly exclude other worldview claims from the table of comparative difficulties analysis, nor can it stand apart from the other claims of the underlying worldview it attempts to save: that morally indefensible and factually inadequate and logically self-defeating naturalistic philosophical system that can be best described as evolutionary materialism. Moreover, following Koons, we may paraphrase Leslie tellingly: let us think of a miles-long wall, some of whose sections are actually carpeted with flies; but there is a 100-yard or so stretch with just one fly. Then, suddenly, a bullet hits it. Is it more credible to think that the fly is just monstrously unlucky, or do we celebrate the marksmanship of the hidden shooter? That is, in the end, a locally rare and finetuned possibility is just as wondrous as a globally finetuned one.) But, Science cannot think in terms of the supernatural: That is, "science" is here redefined in terms of so-called methodological naturalism, which in effect implies that a claim can only be deemed scientific if it explains in terms compatible with the materialist's sequence of postulated evolutions: cosmological, chemical, biological, socio-cultural. (That is not only demonstrably historically inaccurate, but it also reduces to: imposition of philosophical materialism by implication. In short, it reduces to philosophical materialism disguised as science. Nor is it fair: in fact the distinction the inference to design makes, strictly is to selecting intelligent agency from the three-way split: chance, regularity of nature [aka necessity], agency. If FSCI is a signature of intelligence, then its detection points us to intelligence, and so we should not resort to intellectual gerrymandering to rule out such possibilities.) "Chance" is good enough, we just plain got lucky: In effect, odds mean nothing as SOMEONE has to win a lottery, and there is probably much more universe out there than we happen to see just now. (First, not all lotteries are winnable, and cosmologically evolving a life-habitable universe that then forms life is not set up to deliver a winner, on pain of reducing to yet another design inference -- cf. Leslie's argument above on the point that the cosmos is designed to get to life, even through a random array of sub-cosmi. But, of course, the point of the fly on the wall analogy is that, a locally rare and finetuned possibility is just as wondrous as a globally rare one. More to the point, the argument self-refutes through its underlying inconsistency: routinely, in the face of the logical possibility that all apparent messages we have ever decoded are simply lucky noise, we infer to intent as the explanation of many things, once they exhibit FSCI: in effect, we take the "welcome to Wales sign" made out of arranged stones seriously, and do not dismiss it as a quirk of geology. In short, the selective resort to "chance" to explain some of the most complex and functionally specific entities we observe is driven by a worldview commitment, not a consistent pattern of reasoning. So, the objector first needs to stop being selectively hyperskeptical, and should fairly address the comparative difficulties problems of his/her own worldview.) The "probabilities"/"Sensitivities" are not credible: usually, this is said by, say challenging the fineness of the balance, perhaps by asserting that some of the parameters may be linked, or that they are driven by an underlying regularity, one that is not as yet discovered. It may even be asserted that the scope of the universe as a whole is such that the size swamps the probabilities in the "little" sub-cosmos we can see. (The first two of these face the problem that while say the Carbon-Oxygen balance is of the order of several percent, the ratio of electrons to protons is unity to within 10^-37, and other parameters that simply do not depend on the accident of how many electrons and protons exist, are even finer. An underlying regularity that drives cosmic values and parameters to such fine balances of course itself raises the issue of design. And, not only is the proposed wider universe concept not empirically controlled, thus strictly a philosophical issue; but also it is manifestly an after the fact ad hoc assertion driven by the discovery of the finetuning.) You can't objectively assign "probabilities": First, the argument strictly speaking turns on sensitivities, not probabilities-- we have dozens of parameters, which are locally quite sensitive in aggregate, i.e. slight [or modest in some cases] changes relative to the current values will trigger radical shifts away from the sort of life-habitable cosmos we observe. Further, as Leslie has noted, in some cases the Goldilocks zone values are such as meet converging constraints. That gives rise to the intuitions that we are looking at complex, co-adapted components of a harmonious, functional, information-rich whole. So we see Robin Collins observing, in the just linked:"Suppose we went on a mission to Mars, and found a domed structure in which everything was set up just right for life to exist . . . Would we draw the conclusion that it just happened to form by chance? Certainly not . . . . The universe is analogous to such a "biosphere," according to recent findings in physics. Almost everything about the basic structure of the universe--for example, the fundamental laws and parameters of physics and the initial distribution of matter and energy--is balanced on a razor's edge for life to occur. As the eminent Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson notes, "There are many . . . lucky accidents in physics. Without such accidents, water could not exist as liquid, chains of carbon atoms could not form complex organic molecules, and hydrogen atoms could not form breakable bridges between molecules" (p. 251)--in short, life as we know it would be impossible." So, independent of whether or not we accept the probability estimates that are often made, the fine-tuning argument in the main has telling force. Can one assign reasonable Probabilities? Yes. Where the value of a variable is not otherwise constrained across a relevant range, one may use the Laplace criterion of indifference to assign probabilities. In effect, since a die may take any one of six values, in absence of other constraints, the credible probability of each outcome is 1/6. Similarly, where we have no reason to assume otherwise, the fact that relevant cosmological parameters may for all we know vary across a given range may be converted into a reasonable (though of course provisional -- as with many things in science!) probability estimate. So, for instance, the Cosmological Constant [considered to be a metric of the energy density of empty space, which triggers corresponding rates of expansion of space itself], there are good physical science reasons [i.e. inter alia Einsteinian General Relativity as applied to cosmology] to estimate that the credible possible range is 10^53 times the range that is life-accommodating, and there is no known constraint otherwise on the value. Thus, it is reasonable to apply indifference to the provisionally known possible range to infer a probability of being in the Goldilocks zone of 1 in 10^53. Relative to basic principles of probability reasoning and to the general provisionality of science, it is therefore reasonable to infer that this is an identifiable, reasonably definable value. (Cf Collins' discussion, for more details.) There are/may be underlying forcing laws or circumstances: It is possible that as yet undiscovered physics may lead us to see that the values in question are more or less as they "have" to be. (However, such a "theory of everything" would itself imply exquisitely balanced functionally specific complexity in the cosmos as a whole, i.e. it is itself a prospect that would lead straight to the issue of design as its explanation.) What about radically different forms of life: We do not know for certain that life must be based on carbon chemistry, so perhaps there is some strange configuration of matter and/or energy (or perhaps, borrowing from the Avida experiments, information) that can be called "life" without being based on the chemistry of carbon and related atoms. (Indeed, theists would immediately agree: spirit is a way that life can exist without being tied down to atoms and molecules! They would also immediately agree that information and -- more fundamentally -- mind are key components of intelligent life. So, this point may lead in surprising directions. But more on the direct point, the proposal is again highly speculative and ad hoc, once it was seen that the cosmos seems designed for life as we know it.) Naturalistic Anthropic Principles: Perhaps, the most important version, the Weak form [WAP] asserts that intelligent life can only exist in a cosmos that has properties permitting their origin and existence. Then, it is inferred, if we are here, we should not be surprised that the parameters are so tight: if they were not met, we would not be here to wonder about it. (Now, of course, if the universe did not permit life like ours, we would not be here to see that we do not exist. But that still leaves open the implications of the point that the cosmos in which we do exist is exquisitely finely tuned for that existence, at least on a local basis. That is, we are simply back to the fly on the wall gets swatted by a bullet example; it is still wondrous and raises the question of marksmanship and intent as the best explanation.)
KFkairosfocus_{December 26, 2016
December
12
Dec
26
26
2016
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PDT}

MW, that famous star of Bethlehem is indeed a challenge to our presumptions. As are almost all things connected to that most famous of all births. However, just for argument, ask yourself how is it that when suggestions of an eternal world and the like are put on the table,the physics keeps on pointing to patterns that indicate design? KFkairosfocus_{December 26, 2016
December
12
Dec
26
26
2016
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT}

Folks, It may be helpful to refocus i/l/o Bradley's remarks (HT W/B machine) on in effect the bill of requisites for a cosmos that supports life such as we enjoy:
* Order to provide the stable environment that is conducive to the development of life, but with just enough chaotic behavior to provide a driving force for change. * Sufficient chemical stability and elemental diversity to build the complex molecules necessary for essential life functions: processing energy, storing information, and replicating. A universe of just hydrogen and helium will not "work." * Predictability in chemical reactions, allowing compounds to form from the various elements. * A "universal connector," an element that is essential for the molecules of life. It must have the chemical property that permits it to react readily with almost all other elements, forming bonds that are stable, but not too stable, so disassembly is also possible. Carbon is the only element in our periodic chart that satisfies this requirement. [--> No, Si, does not quite make the grade. And, do not overlook why Hoyle was so impressed with the enzymes, the range of choice created a search space that challenges available resources and time] * A "universal solvent" in which the chemistry of life can unfold. Since chemical reactions are too slow in the solid state, and complex life would not likely be sustained as a gas, there is a need for a liquid element or compound that readily dissolves both the reactants and the reaction products essential to living systems: namely, a liquid with the properties of water. [Added note: Water requires both hydrogen and oxygen.] * A stable source of energy to sustain living systems in which there must be photons from the sun [--> or a like star, stars being the only energy source in the cosmos of requisite duration and character] with sufficient energy to drive organic, chemical reactions, but not so energetic as to destroy organic molecules (as in the case of highly energetic ultraviolet radiation). [--> this also implies the right kind of solar system, with terrestrial planets in the habitable zone, with protective giants and a good moon etc, cf Jay Richards, here, again.] * A means of transporting the energy from the source (like our sun) to the place where chemical reactions occur in the solvent (like water on Earth) must be available. In the process, there must be minimal losses in transmission if the energy is to be utilized efficiently.
Robert C Koons argues, in skeletal form:
1] The physical constants of the cosmos take anthropic values [that is, those conducive to C-based, intelligent life]. 2] This coincidence must have a causal explanation (we set aside for the moment the possibility of a chance explanation through the many-worlds hypothesis [cf. on this, the points raised by Leslie as cited above; noting too that such a wider "multiverse" is speculative rather than observationally anchored]). ________________________________________________ 3] Therefore, the constants take the values that they do because these values are anthropic (i.e., because they cause the conditions needed for life). 4] Therefore, the purpose of the values of these constants is to permit the development of life (using the aetiological definition of purpose). 5] Therefore, the values of these constants are the purposive effects of an intelligent agent (using the minimalist conception of agency). 6] Therefore, the cosmos has been created.
Again, it is simply not plausible that sensitivity analysis -- note, not precise probability estimates, it having been shown that biased distributions only mean that bigger ensembles for longer times will be needed than in the flat random case* -- is conveniently inapplicable to frameworks for cosmoslogical systems, nor that search challenge is not a relevant issue. _______________
*F/N: As, with such ensembles, given enough cases and time ALL cells in the config space will be explored eventually [i.e. flat random is CONSERVATIVE in estimating search challenge] . . . the opposite of what is suggested by the arguments that in effect imply oh there is a golden search. Golden search in the context of large config spaces is self defeating. For, a search is a subset of a space, and so the set of searches is in effect the power set, an exponentially harder search of order 2^N for a space of N cells. If direct search is challenging, search on golden search is much more so. Likewise, given the cluster of constants, parameters, quantities etc, the effect of suggesting they are locked by a super-force is to simply promote the fine tuning one level, as we need to ask pointed questions about how we get such a conveniently specific law that puts us down in such a convenient neighbourhood. And BTW, what empirical and logical evidence is there for such a law in action? [And no, I will not be intimidated by arguments that boil down to don't you dare go there. There being no evidence of metaphysical necessities, something that aptly configures has to explain such things. ]
Likewise, it is utterly implausible that the range of relevant parameters, constants, quantities, boundary conditions, circumstances, decision nodes in unfolding etc will all be matters of metaphysical necessity: frame-working to any possible world and inevitably present in its foundations as a result. That is they do not partake of the character of two-ness: once distinct identity, so A and also NOT-A exist even as concepts, two exists and must exist in any possible world. Likewise, once a circle exists as a concept, by mathematical extension from numbers to reals to the complex plane and/or Cartesian plane [go ox as reals, then use i*x as orthogonal, then i*i*x as negatives, etc, then simply go to (x,y); thus, functions that specify circles of form say x^2 + y^2 = r^2, then circumference and diameter exist and their ratio as lengths can be recognised as pi, etc etc. (And yes, I am taking this numbers and algebra back-door to classical Geometry as a realm of "logic of structure and quantity" necessity by way of utter contrast with the empirically anchored phenomena of physics.) We have come to this, God help us. When it comes to multiverse proposals and frameworks, the matter is, sensitivity analysis suggests strongly that our observed cosmos sits on a narrow, isolated resonance in the config space of mathematical possibilities for world systems. This brings Leslie's lone fly on the wall and expert firing squad "fails" arguments to the table to ground why we should be surprised to see such, and why it strongly points to fine tuning. And no, it is suspiciously special pleading to argue that in effect standard mathematical techniques -- here, sensitivity analysis and the use of the ensembles approach of statistical mechanics as pioneered by Gibbs -- should not be applied to this particular system. Is a quasi-infinite multiverse the likely explanation? We should first appreciate that a Brane of 10^500 sub cosmi is a SMALL number relative to just the search space to get to a first life form with genomes of 100,000 base pairs . . . in the near-neighbourhood possible worlds cases. As, 4^100,000 ~ 9.98*10^60,205. in short, search challenge is a real issue. the problem with multiversews, first is, they are an observational challenge at the very least; this implies it is easy to wander over into philosophy, and to make the mistake of thinking the lab coat prevails by dint of prestige in science. And, it bears noting that it is an established challenge that there has been massive evolutionary materialist ideology imposition and indoctrination, in a context where that system is in fact self falsifying as has been shown umpteen times in and around UD now. Further to this, the pattern of dominant clusters of microstates from statistical mechanics prevails. We have a very narrow resonance dealing with. The overwhelming outcome -- this is what stabilises the second law of thermodynamics -- is that predominant clusters dominate observation and are overwhelmingly likely to be seen. Narrow, deeply isolated resonances are just too rare to be found readily by contrast with the presumed overwhelming clusters. One argument on this line is that the Boltzmann brain world is far more likely as a mere fluctuation of underlying quasi-space-time than what we see. We face an inference to best empirically and analytically warranted explanation, and the best explanation for the cluster of tight, converging specifications met that we see is, a plan backed up by a force capable of being harnessed to effect same. In short, intelligently directed configuration, at scale of creating a cosmos. Intelligent design. That is what is on the table, and has been firmly on it since there was a recognition of the Be-O-C resonances and the credibility that the world we observe has a finitely remote beginning, were on the table. Finally, it is no accident that this debate has developed in the context of a year in which an issue on the table has been the proposal of an actually completed infinite causal succession to get to the present, presented using oh at any time we are here and so the infinite succession is already there and can be presumed till it is overthrown. The answer to that has been, nope no such presumption can be had until you show how an infinite succession of steps can bridge an endless transfinite span. No sound answer to this has been forthcoming. We can safely accept that the observed world and its onward antecedents of quasi-physical character has had a finite extension in the past and thus a beginning, requiring a begin-ner. From this, we then see that sensitivity analysis and search challenge point to the fine tuned nature of our observed cosmos and that this is best explained on intelligently directed configuration. One of the best pointers to just how robust an explanation this is, is that the objectors have had to resort to such extreme and implausible arguments (and too often ideological lockouts) to try to blunt its point. KFkairosfocus_{December 26, 2016
December
12
Dec
26
26
2016
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT}

"The heavens declare the glory of God" scripture says. Fine tuning took place in the heavens when God created a star to lead wise people. All sorts of explanations abound; a conjunction of plants, a supernova. It came in a day and vanished in a certain day. It did what stars cannot do, stop over some specified place. A meaningful coincidence, a divine omen. This was no ordinary star. It was a light carried by an angel, is the best mystical explanation that I have read. If it was a real star, it still would make no difference. It was created light at will. It did not take billions of years to evolve. It was precise. At the right time and in the right place. It was powerful. At the creation, on day one, God generated an unknown light not from any star. That light was generated from Christ. A few days later, the sun was created, so it may be believed, but in line with divine law.mw_{December 24, 2016
December
12
Dec
24
24
2016
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

DS, do you see the issue that it is the force of the logic of structure and quantity that is flagging the fine tuning? To dismiss that strongly suggests that you imply that the Math works for physics at our operating point as a cosmos, but not significantly away from it. Which would be a form of fine tuning. Next, there is a considerable list of factors, quantities, laws etc that per the math are just so to set up our observed cosmos. It is maximally implausible that these are fixed per the metaphysics of being; which is what would be needed for them to be fixed in any possible world. (BTW, Barnes has a fairly technical discussion on related matters.) If that span of things -- not just what you want to talk about -- is "fixed," something else is doing it. Something that can be justly characterised as a super force or super law. And, something that sets things in cascade from it to the cumulative life resonance point our cosmos sits at [per the math and sensitivity analysis] -- recall it is not plausible these are like pi or 2, necessarily so in themselves in any world -- is going to itself be very specific to a configuration, not set here by some metaphysical necessity. That is, it is fine tuned as a set-point mechanism. One that specifies a whole panoply of values, like . . . a plan put into effect through a mechanism. As noted and explained, it itself would be fine tuned. Which is not so strange to see with a plan. Plans define targets as ends and specify often complex, organised means in order to hit such targets. We are evidently seeing co-ordinated, organised "bits and pieces" that work together to give us the basis for C-chemistry, aqueous medium, cell based life. That practically shouts, DESIGN. KFkairosfocus_{December 24, 2016
December
12
Dec
24
24
2016
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

Hello daveS # 147 and 148. You say, "PS: I don’t believe mathematics itself is fine-tuned, certainly." "When people make claims about any kind of unobservable entity (higher order “superforces” and the like), I’m skeptical." ___________________________________________________________________________ You are not the only one on the latter. No doubt a 'fine tune' was played by a superforce trumpet blast over Mount Sinai, so written records testify. Indeed, people were afraid. Darwin simple reduced such superforces to primitive thinking (a type of argumentum ad novitatem). However, first, how did numbers arise? Did numbers evolve? To me they must have always existed. Hence, in place before the beginning. Or did numbers evolve and become fine tuned to the certainty they are today, as the Big Bang theory progressed?mw_{December 24, 2016
December
12
Dec
24
24
2016
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

PS^2: I'll have to wait on the pdf until later. Regarding your PS(1): Well, since I am talking about physical constants, I guess there is a presumption that the possible worlds under consideration have some physical or material component. But I deny this has anything to do with the ideology of "evolutionary materialism", lab coats, &etc. When people make claims about other universes in the "multiverse", I'm skeptical. When people make claims about any kind of unobservable entity (higher order "superforces" and the like), I'm skeptical.daveS_{December 24, 2016
December
12
Dec
24
24
2016
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

PS: I don't believe mathematics itself is fine-tuned, certainly.daveS_{December 24, 2016
December
12
Dec
24
24
2016
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

KF, I was referring to the "second order" sensititivity analysis that you suggested somewhere above. Because my connection is so bad, I'll have to respond piece-by-piece. Starting from your P^4S: No, I don't believe the implications of mathematics are to be disbelieved simply because physical constants, laws, etc., have been changed. To be clear, I accept that virtually any change in the known physical constants will make life (as we know it, anyway) impossible. My question is how this tells us anything about the contingent vs necessary question. If I can, I will attempt to address the rest of your post.daveS_{December 24, 2016
December
12
Dec
24
24
2016
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

DS, the sensitivity analysis has been done from 1953 on -- Hoyle -- and its verdict is quite strong: fine tuning. The real issue is why? KF PS: Reservations without substantiation of an extremely implausible claim, locking out other factors such as simple quantities etc that also play a big part in the fine tuning of the cosmos picture. It seems to me, there is likely an underlying context of thought that any possible world must be at least quasi-physical-material, as part of a framing of evolutionary materialist metaphysics. Showing such a claim is a challenge, at minimum. And certainly it should not be given an implicit metaphysics default by virtue of putting on a lab coat. PPS: Barnes responding to Stenger p. 7 on here, is illuminating: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647.pdf PPPS: Jay Richards' list of 22 points with explanations in brief here will also help: http://www.discovery.org/f/11011 So will Collins' discussion here: http://www.discovery.org/a/91 P^4S: Do you intend it to be understood that while Mathematics is applicable to our particular circumstances, its implications are to be disbelieved if we slide the dials over a bit on the parameters, constants, frameworks, laws etc? Is MATH -- the logic of structure and quantity, peculiarly fine tuned on your view?kairosfocus_{December 24, 2016
December
12
Dec
24
24
2016
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

MW, I hear your point. KFkairosfocus_{December 24, 2016
December
12
Dec
24
24
2016
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

KF, I unexpectedly have (very poor) wifi access, so will briefly post. Referring to the last part of your post, I don't think there's anything wrong with investigating this problem using sensitivity analysis, so please do so if you feel moved to. Let us know what you find. I've already stated my reservations regarding your "levels" argument, and don't have much else to add, so unless pressing new questions arise, I will leave it at that.daveS_{December 23, 2016
December
12
Dec
23
23
2016
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT}

DS, it is obvious you have no reason for the assertion that the constants of physics as we have found are "plausibly" locked, and it looks a lot like you imagine there is a mirror-image situation. Actually, not. First, what would have to be locked is much more than things like the permittivity of free space or the universal gravitation constant or Planck's constant, or the Boltzmann constant or the speed of light in vacuo etc, you cannot just rule datum lines for argument. Second, the very fact of the "unreasonable effectiveness" of Mathematics in Physics, should give pause before blanking out a result that comes from a standard Math procedure, sensitivity analysis: our observed cosmos stands at a narrow resonance that is life permitting. Third, these constants, by and large, are not forced by the logic of being or the like, though of course something like wave equation analysis ties electrical and magnetic properties of space to the wave speed in the medium, the speed of light. A great many constants do not stand in lock like the three just looked at; and for that one, there is no reason why we cannot say ask, what would happen if space could be manipulated along lines of sensitivity analysis. Where of course, many other values tied to such fine tuning are not constants but simple quantities, etc. So, it is utterly reasonable to explore the mathematical possibilities and to examine the result, no inherent contradiction arises unlike trying to pretend that 2 does not hold a fixed value, or pi etc. KFkairosfocus_{December 23, 2016
December
12
Dec
23
23
2016
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

KF, First, this will be my last comment for a while, since I'll be away for a few days.
we are dealing with the physics of building universes here, which turns out to be strongly shaped by the logic of structure and quantity, aka mathematics. But also it is required that this reflects the range of the facts on the ground — actually, in the sky. We do not get to pick and choose. there are constraints that will be so in every possible world, e.g. two-ness rooted in the existence of distinction A vs ~A, the number pi, the number e etc. Those do not get you anywhere near building a world in which you have intelligent observers based on C-Chemistry, aqueous medium cell based, terrestrial planet, Galactic habitable zone life.
Sure, but I'm definitely not up for a comprehensive discussion on building universes. Rather, I'm only going to look at issues around the fundamental physical constants.
In the context of having explained and pointed out the sort of things that are quite plausibly contingent, I make fair comment: I find dismissive rhetoric on your part on terms like “facile” just now, out of order. I think you have some walking back to do, sir.
And I agree it is plausible they are contingent. Given what is known, it's plausible (in my view) that they are not contingent. Who knows anything about how (or even whether) the constants are "chosen"? And yes, "facile" does have insulting connotations that I did not intend.
The issue is, there is a wide range of things that would have to be metaphysically locked by the sort of structure of reality constraints that make two-ness or pi necessary beings. You have offered not a whit of support for any such, you are making an implied utterly implausible claim and are wishing to impose it as default.
I'm not trying to impose anything by "default". I'm just expressing what I believe to be an appropriate level of skepticism regarding your "levels" argument. We are, after all, talking about things which are apparently untestable, so I don't see how one could come to any firm conclusion one way or another. You are/should be just as skeptical if I claimed that the constants were indeed necessary in some sense.daveS_{December 23, 2016
December
12
Dec
23
23
2016
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

Further: those who believe in the Judaeo-Christian God; crediting him as the brains behind heaven and earth and all that is, and supreme judge and supreme witness; if he cannot write an intelligent sound law for all time, he cannot expect to last for all time, let alone judge anybody.mw_{December 23, 2016
December
12
Dec
23
23
2016
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

kf @ 129: "MW, the estimated scale and age of the observed cosmos trace to empirical evidence. I simply spoke in that context. Come up with better evidence and numbers and I would go with them." ___________________________________________________________________ Hello kf. Please note, I did commend you on your fine piece of work. Nevertheless, in my opinion, there is a better explanation for figures indicating the cosmos is a 90 size, from which many, believe God created over 13.8 billion years. An explanation is God set the key essential evidence in stone, as testified by witnesses and the witness statement of the God at Sinai. However, from any plain reading of divine law from the Ten commandments, devoid of any elasticating of scripture, being that God changes not (Mal 3:6) and Jesus is the same for ever (Heb 13:8), which in terms of the belief in the Holy Trinity, Jesus spoke at Sinai as One God, and said: "The Lord said to Moses: You yourself are to speak to the Israelites: ‘You shall keep my sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, given in order that you may know that I, the Lord, sanctify you. You shall keep the sabbath, because it is holy for you; everyone who profanes it shall be put to death; whoever does any work on it shall be cut off from among the people. For six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall be put to death. Therefore the Israelites shall keep the sabbath, observing the sabbath throughout their generations, as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign for ever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.’ When God finished speaking with Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the covenant, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.” (Exodus 31:12-18) At one time, the Holy Trinity demanded the death penalty for disbelieving and breaking his law. It follows, if God actually created in 13.8 billion years, while condemned to death a man for disobedience to his clear law, we stretch out God to being an unjust murderer! Do we not make the child in a crib a murder even before he can walk? Jesus said, “before Abraham was I am” (Jn 8:58). Surely, he could remember how long he took to create, when he could remember such! Of course, we may bring in other scripture to make people doubt the very accuracy of the word of God. Satan did that in Genesis. Indeed, Satan tried using scripture against the very word of God himself. In the wilderness, Jesus/God give in a swift rebuke: “But he answered, ‘It is written, “One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.”’ (Matt 4:4) Jesus asks Yahweh to sanctify us in His truth (Jn 17:17), that is God sanctifies (makes us holy) by believing in the law of God, including that he created in six days; and keeping to the teaching of Jesus (Rev 12:17). Today, for many, that has become the ‘worst’ of God’s teachings, when the power of faith could move a cosmos if that was the will of God. Today we do not much appreciate what speaking to God face to face and in plain language means (Num 12:1-16). Has anyone had that continued privilege over 40 years? As for Jesus, God of Sinai said, “I declare what I have seen in the Father’s presence; as for you, you should do what you have heard from the Father” (Jn. 8:38). At the time of Sinai, all Israel heard the Father! Jesus said Moses would be their judge (Jn 5:45). Are we any different as spiritual heirs to Abraham? In my opinion, according to divine law, the numbers 90 and 13.8 must have come about in six days. No one can prove otherwise, and certainly not be using scripture against divine law, the only scripture ever written by the Holy Trinity—the Ten Commandments. If one law is deemed flawed; inaccurate, do we not contaminate the validity of the other nine? How accurate the truth of God and all scripture when wide of the mark of theory? How many faiths do we need?mw_{December 23, 2016
December
12
Dec
23
23
2016
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

DS, we are dealing with the physics of building universes here, which turns out to be strongly shaped by the logic of structure and quantity, aka mathematics. But also it is required that this reflects the range of the facts on the ground -- actually, in the sky. We do not get to pick and choose. there are constraints that will be so in every possible world, e.g. two-ness rooted in the existence of distinction A vs ~A, the number pi, the number e etc. Those do not get you anywhere near building a world in which you have intelligent observers based on C-Chemistry, aqueous medium cell based, terrestrial planet, Galactic habitable zone life. In the context of having explained and pointed out the sort of things that are quite plausibly contingent, I make fair comment: I find dismissive rhetoric on your part on terms like "facile" just now, out of order. I think you have some walking back to do, sir. The issue is, there is a wide range of things that would have to be metaphysically locked by the sort of structure of reality constraints that make two-ness or pi necessary beings. You have offered not a whit of support for any such, you are making an implied utterly implausible claim and are wishing to impose it as default. Those are not responsible moves, and you are backing them by playing the burden of proof shift game so beloved of evolutionary materialism advocates. I am not buying such. The evidence is, a lot of constraints have to be in a zone to get to a cosmos like ours with life like we see, and that this zone is set up in a narrow and deeply isolated resonance in the space of mathematically grounded possibilities. Such has to be locked in a relevant zone of 90 Bn LY and 13.8 BY, on conventional estimates. that is we have stable laws in a stable cosmos. But we have no reason whatsoever to imagine that these things are locked in any possible world per metaphysical necessity of being. And we do have a lot of sensitivity analysis that points in very different directions. the first objections were on oh we don't thing you get to probability. that has been answered by showingf the sensitivity search framework. Now there is a gambit on oh maybe it is all locked up in any possible world. in short, ignore the sensitivity analysis and get back to our preferred game. I am not going there. KF PS: Collins here may help with background (without necessarily endorsing everything said): http://www.discovery.org/a/91 likewise Barnes here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647.pdf PPS: O/T, I notice some pretty aggressive pop-ups here at UD that are breaking through several layers of antivirus and popup blockers. Been so for a few weeks now.kairosfocus_{December 22, 2016
December
12
Dec
22
22
2016
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

of supplemental note to this:
Job 26:10 He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness. Proverbs 8:26-27 While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep, Planck satellite unveils the Universe — now and then (w/ Video showing the mapping of the ‘sphere’ of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation with the Planck satellite) – 2010 http://phys.org/news197534140.html#nRlv
It is interesting to note that the Bible predicted that 'He drew a circle on the face of the deep' thousands of years before the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) was discovered by modern science. I would call that a rather stunning confirmation in science of a Theistic prediction that ranks right up there with the Theistic prediction that the universe had a beginning.. Moreover, it is interesting to note that Atheistic Materialism, through its conjecture of inflation, is driven into catastrophic epistemological failure in trying to account for the 'homogenity' of the universe in general and/or for the 'sphere' of the CMBR in particular.
Space is all the same temperature. Coincidence? Distant patches of the universe should never have come into contact. So how come they’re all just as hot as each other? - 26 October 2016 Excerpt: THE temperature of the cosmic microwave background – the radiation bathing all of space – is remarkably uniform. It varies by less than 0.001 degrees from a chilly 2.725 kelvin. But while that might seem natural enough, this consistency is a real puzzle. For two widely separated areas of the cosmos to reach thermal equilibrium, heat needs enough time to travel from one to the other. Even if this happens at the speed of light, the universe is just too young for this to have happened. Cosmologists try to explain this uniformity using the hypothesis known as inflation. It replaces the simple idea of a big bang with one in which there was also a moment of exponential expansion. This sudden, faster-than-light increase in the size of the universe allows it to have started off smaller than an atom, when it would have had plenty of time to equalise its temperature. “On the face of it, inflation is a totally bonkers idea – it replaces a coincidence with a completely nonsensical vision of what the early universe was like,” says Andrew Pontzen at University College London. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230970-900-cosmic-coincidences-everythings-at-the-same-temperature/ Why I Still Doubt Inflation, in Spite of Gravitational Wave Findings By John Horgan - March 17, 2014 Excerpt: Indeed, inflation, like string theory, has always suffered from what is sometimes called the “Alice’s Restaurant Problem.” Like the diner eulogized in the iconic Arlo Guthrie song, inflation comes in so many different versions that it can give you “anything you want.” In other words, it cannot be falsified, and so–like psychoanalysis, Marxism and other overly flexible hypotheses (mmm Darwinism?)–it is not really a scientific theory. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2014/03/17/why-i-still-doubt-inflation-in-spite-of-gravity-wave-findings/ Cosmic inflation is dead, long live cosmic inflation - 25 September 2014 Excerpt: (Inflation) theory, the most widely held of cosmological ideas about the growth of our universe after the big bang, explains a number of mysteries, including why the universe is surprisingly flat and so smoothly distributed, or homogeneous (i.e. why the universe is 'round').,,, Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who helped develop inflationary theory but is now scathing of it, says this is potentially a blow for the theory, but that it pales in significance with inflation's other problems. Meet the multiverse Steinhardt says the idea that inflationary theory produces any observable predictions at all – even those potentially tested by BICEP2 – is based on a simplification of the theory that simply does not hold true. "The deeper problem is that once inflation starts, it doesn't end the way these simplistic calculations suggest," he says. "Instead, due to quantum physics it leads to a multiverse where the universe breaks up into an infinite number of patches. The patches explore all conceivable properties as you go from patch to patch. So that means it doesn't make any sense to say what inflation predicts, except to say it predicts everything. If it's physically possible, then it happens in the (inflationary) multiverse someplace Steinhardt says the point of inflation was to explain a remarkably simple universe. "So the last thing in the world you should be doing is introducing a multiverse of possibilities to explain such a simple thing," he says. "I think it's telling us in the clearest possible terms that we should be able to understand this and when we understand it it's going to come in a model that is extremely simple and compelling. And we thought inflation was it – but it isn't." http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26272-cosmic-inflation-is-dead-long-live-cosmic-inflation.html?page=1#.VCajrGl0y00 WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Infinity - Max Tegmark - January 2014 and Feb. 2015 Excerpt: Physics is all about predicting the future from the past, but inflation seems to sabotage this: when we try to predict the probability that something particular will happen, inflation always gives the same useless answer: infinity divided by infinity. The problem is that whatever experiment you make, inflation predicts that there will be infinitely many copies of you far away in our infinite space, obtaining each physically possible outcome, and despite years of tooth-grinding in the cosmology community, no consensus has emerged on how to extract sensible answers from these infinities. So strictly speaking, we physicists are no longer able to predict anything at all! This means that today’s best theories similarly need a major shakeup, by retiring an incorrect assumption. Which one? Here’s my prime suspect: infinity. MAX TEGMARK – Physicist (actually the ‘theory’ that needs to be retired from science is the philosophy of materialism in general) http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/12/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-retirement-edge-org A Matter of Considerable Gravity: On the Purported Detection of Gravitational Waves and Cosmic Inflation - Bruce Gordon - April 4, 2014 Excerpt: Thirdly, at least two paradoxes result from the inflationary multiverse proposal that suggest our place in such a multiverse must be very special: the "Boltzmann Brain Paradox" and the "Youngness Paradox." In brief, if the inflationary mechanism is autonomously operative in a way that generates a multiverse, then with probability indistinguishable from one (i.e., virtual necessity) the typical observer in such a multiverse is an evanescent thermal fluctuation with memories of a past that never existed (a Boltzmann brain) rather than an observer of the sort we take ourselves to be. Alternatively, by a second measure, post-inflationary universes should overwhelmingly have just been formed, which means that our existence in an old universe like our own has a probability that is effectively zero (i.e., it's nigh impossible). So if our universe existed as part of such a multiverse, it would not be at all typical, but rather infinitely improbable (fine-tuned) with respect to its age and compatibility with stable life-forms. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/a_matter_of_con084001.html
My main point in bringing this failure of materialism up is to point out the fact that this failure of Atheistic materialism to account for the 'fine-tuning' of the CMBR is post Big Bang. In other words, this fine-tuning that must be accounted for is after the creation of space-time matter-energy itself. Thus the 'surprise' we should have at the 'exorbitantly improbable' fine-tuning of the universe is as just as surprising for us after the Big Bang, if not more so, as it is for any fine-tuning of the universe that must be accounted for prior to the Big Bang. Verse:
Hebrews 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
bornagain77_{December 22, 2016
December
12
Dec
22
22
2016
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

KF,
DS, again, look at the matter, we are talking about not just constants (which simply do not partake of the sort of necessity that pi etc do) but quantities, circumstances and the like.
Well, I know you're talking about a variety of things, but I'm talking only about constants almost exclusively, particularly the point in the last paragraph of #132. How do we know they don't "partake of necessity"?
The suggestion maybe it is a metaphysical necessity that cannot be averted in any world — no more than a world can exist without two-ness in it — is not only utterly implausible but does not evade the point of fine tuning, were it to actually hold.
I don't know why it's utterly implausible, but once more, I'm not taking on fine tuning itself. Just this maneuver of "going up one level", which seems a little too facile.daveS_{December 22, 2016
December
12
Dec
22
22
2016
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply