See also: Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.
Comments
Zachriel,
Box: Are you suggesting that the hypothetical underlying principle X – the underlying principle of the fundamental constants of the universe – is also determined by natural law?
Zachriel: Not insisting: merely leaving open the possibility that the so-called tuning is due to some underlying symmetry or principle.
Yes? To repeat my question: "Are you suggesting that the hypothetical underlying principle X – the underlying principle of the fundamental constants of the universe – is also determined by natural law?"Box
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
Box: There is no discussion about it. This ‘problem’ does not go away when there is an underlying natural principle X.
As you keep insisting without evidence or argument.
Box: Are you suggesting that the hypothetical underlying principle X – the underlying principle of the fundamental constants of the universe – is also determined by natural law?
Not insisting: merely leaving open the possibility that the so-called tuning is due to some underlying symmetry or principle.Zachriel
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
Zachriel: You are assuming the underlying explanation requires fine-tuning.
Here you show just how muddled your thinking is. The universe is fine-tuned for life, Zachriel. There is no discussion about it. This 'problem' does not go away when there is an underlying natural principle X. If principle X exists it is fine-tuned as well.
Zachriel: Like the surface of a placid lake.
Again this inappropriate analogy. The surface of a placid lake is determined by natural law. Are you suggesting that the hypothetical underlying principle X - the underlying principle of the fundamental constants of the universe - is also determined by natural law? Don't you understand how muddled your line of reasoning is? How inappropriate your placid lake "analogy" is at this point?Box
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
Box: The origin of the embryo is within the context of life (the parents).
It's also within the context of planetary formation and the formation of primordial matter, but when we determine that egg and sperm make embryo, then we say that's where embryos come from. We don't have to solve every problem back to the Big Bang to make progress.
Box: The placid lake is an inappropriate analogy, because in the case of the fundamental constants of the universe there is no simple underlying principle available to overlook.
At least that's a comprehensible objection. However, that has not been demonstrated scientifically.
Box: You are arguing that the question about the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants may be pushed back one level to an underlying principle X. I don’t find that very interesting.
That's what design does: design posits an entity that itself has to be specific and highly improbable. Nor is that our position. Rather, if you have two or several constants, it's possible they could be unified into fewer constants or none.
Box: We would have discovered a underlying principle X that is incredibly fine-tuned in order to produce all the incredibly fine-tuned fundamental constants.
You are assuming the underlying explanation requires fine-tuning. Like the surface of a placid lake.Zachriel
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
Zachriel: Based on your reading, the primary difference is the origin of the embryo can be directly studied, while the origin of life cannot.
That was not my point. The origin of the embryo is within the context of life (the parents). The origin of life itself is not within the context of life. Therefor the analogy fails. Simularly your 'placid lake analogy' is within the context of a stable universe, the fundamental constants are not, and therefore your analogy also fails.
Zachriel: That still makes no sense. If someone naïvely claims that placid lakes are fine-tuned, they are overlooking the possibility that the extraordinary flatness may be due to an underlying principle or symmetry.
It makes perfect sense. The placid lake is an inappropriate analogy, because in the case of the fundamental constants of the universe there is no simple underlying principle available to overlook.
Similarly, if one asks 'why there is something rather than nothing' it would be inappropriate to offer the 'analogy': "there was a time when science couldn't explain thunder" - which already assumes a context of something.
You are arguing that the question about the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants may be pushed back one level to an underlying principle X. I don't find that very interesting. Again and again I have pointed out that it doesn't make the fine-tuning go away.
Zachriel: If there is symmetry or principle that explains the cosmological constant, then pointing to the cosmological constant as an example of fine-tuning is not scientifically warranted.
Of course. We would have discovered a underlying principle X that is incredibly fine-tuned in order to produce all the incredibly fine-tuned fundamental constants. So what? How does it change the fundamental problem of fine-tuning? It still needs an explanation.Box
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
Box: The ‘analogy’ pertains to ‘origin of life’ and ‘origin of embryo’.
That's not how it reads, but it's your example. Based on your reading, the primary difference is the origin of the embryo can be directly studied, while the origin of life cannot. That doesn't mean science can't address the origin of life, but can make the evidence much more difficult to uncover.
Box: Simularly your placid lake is within the context of a stable universe and therefore not appropriate.
That still makes no sense. If someone naïvely claims that placid lakes are fine-tuned, they are overlooking the possibility that the extraordinary flatness may be due to an underlying principle or symmetry.
Box: Nope, you fail to recognize that the fundamental constants of the universe cannot have an underlying principle X within the universe – and even if we were to suppose that there is such a X, then that X cannot have an underlying principle within the universe.
If there is symmetry or principle that explains the cosmological constant, then pointing to the cosmological constant as an example of fine-tuning is not scientifically warranted.
Sure, there's always the question of why there is something rather than nothing, and science may never have an answer to every question, but thereby declaring design is not scientifically warranted. It just remains mysterious.Zachriel
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
Zachriel: First, that’s not an analogy,
Exactly my point. Simularly, your 'placid lake' is not an analogy.
Zachriel: The argument clearly intended by “Well, there was a time when science could not explain the origin of an embryo.” is that unknowns can become known through the scientific method.
Surely not. The 'analogy' pertains to 'origin of life' and 'origin of embryo'. The latter is within the context of life and therefore not appropriate. Simularly your placid lake is within the context of a stable universe and therefore not appropriate.
Zachriel: There is no reason that the constants considered fundamental today may not be due to some underlying principle or symmetry.
I have already explained the deep seeded problem with this idea in #208Box
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Box: When discussing how science can not explain the origin of life, it would be equally inappropriate to offer as an analogy: “Well, there was a time when science could not explain the origin of an embryo.”
First, that's not an analogy, but an instance of an unknown that became knowable. And yes, it would be appropriate to point out that science has discovered knowledge about what was once unknown. It doesn't constitute proof, but it does constitute an example. The response would be to show why the origin of life is different in kind from the origin of an embryo.
Box: Why would it be inappropriate? Because the ‘analogy’ already assumes what needs to be explained: life.
Um, no. That makes no sense. The argument clearly intended by “Well, there was a time when science could not explain the origin of an embryo.” is that unknowns can become known through the scientific method.
Box: Nope, you fail to recognize that the fundamental constants of the universe cannot have an underlying principle X within the universe
There is no reason that the constants considered fundamental today may not be due to some underlying principle or symmetry.Zachriel
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
JimFit @ 207
Sorry gotta go, so have to be brief -
No it isn’t controlled by light but by the fear of light. I can do the same with humans, control them due to a phobia they have but they will still have consciousness and intention.
Phobia is fear, an emotion. You think brainless slime mold has emotion ? Is a creation magazine your source of science ?
Big Crunch isn’t supported anymore, the Universe will expand forever.
True, the present iteration has a omega of 1, so it will expand. How do you know the earlier iteration (that led to singularity) was not with a omega greater than 1 ? (It had to be > 1 to lead to Big Crunch).
I will also state that I am not averse to the idea of universe having a beginning, just that I don't believe classical model's can explain whether or not there was a beginning.
Before you suggest Hawking said a beginning of universe means God created universe, I will point out that there is no such scientific postulate, it is his personal opinion.Me_Think
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
Zachriel: Then you’re ignoring the analogy and treating it as a literal.
No I'm pointing out that it is inappropriate. Allow me to offer an analogy to your placid lake analogy. When discussing how science can not explain the origin of life, it would be equally inappropriate to offer as an analogy: "Well, there was a time when science could not explain the origin of an embryo."
Why would it be inappropriate? Because the 'analogy' already assumes what needs to be explained: life. The analogy fails because it is about a fundamentally different problem.
Zachriel: For instance, Newton merely assumed that gravitational and inertial masses were equivalent. He had no explanation. It turns out that it is due to an underlying principle. Similarly with the cosmological constant if it is due to some underlying principle. No one knows.
Nope, you fail to recognize that the fundamental constants of the universe cannot have an underlying principle X within the universe - and even if we were to suppose that there is such a X, then that X cannot have an underlying principle within the universe. You seem to be looking for the "Unmoved Natural Cause" of all natural causes and you don't realize that it doesn't make any sense.
fifthmonarchyman #144:
Godel would probably call them axioms instead of gaps and he would remind us that every consistent system will have them.
Science will press up against the “gaps” it might even rearrange them from time to time but the gaps will remain….. forever.
One needs to look for an underlying principle outside this universe. Outside the realm of empirical science. Multiversum or God.Box
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
Heh, the mold is controlled by light. In the Tokyo experiment, light was used to represent the mountains and rivers, which the slime mold avoided as it is photo-phobic.In case of maze, it was the obstruction and it takes 120 hours to cross the maze petridish. If that is your definition of intention, then you are right!
No it isn't controlled by light but by the fear of light. I can do the same with humans, control them due to a phobia they have but they will still have consciousness and intention.
Brainless slime mold makes decisions like humans
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/08/10/brainless-slime-mould-makes-decisions-like-humans/
No, that would be continuation of the Big Crunched universe because the low entropy was a continution of the earlier crunch. For the beginning, the entropy can’t be extraordinarily low ( that is infact one of the puzzle of singularity). BVG theorem is classical, it can’t be extended into the QM realm at singularity.
If you want to argue about beginning with some other theory, then it a separate argument.
Big Crunch isn't supported anymore, the Universe will expand forever.
The Standard Model was based on the assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy. Some cosmologists speculated that by denying homogeneity and isotropy, one might be able to craft an Oscillating Model of the universe.If the internal gravitational pull of the mass of the universe were able to overcome the force of its expansion, then the expansion could be reversed into a cosmic contraction, a Big Crunch. If the universe were not homogeneous and isotropic, then the collapsing universe might not coalesce at a point, but the material contents of the universe might pass each other by, so that the universe would appear to bounce back from the contraction into a new expansion phase. If this process of expansion and contraction could be repeated indefinitely, then an absolute beginning of the universe might be avoided
Such a theory is extraordinarily speculative, but again there were metaphysical motivations for adopting this model.24 The prospects of the Oscillating Model were severely dimmed in 1970, however, by Penrose and Hawking's formulation of the Singularity Theorems which bear their names. The theorems disclosed that under very generalized conditions an initial cosmological singularity is inevitable, even for inhomogeneous and non-isotropic universes. Reflecting on the impact of this discovery, Hawking notes that the Hawking-Penrose Singularity Theorems "led to the abandonment of attempts (mainly by the Russians) to argue that there was a previous contracting phase and a non-singular bounce into expansion. Instead almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang."
Despite the fact that the termini of a closed universe must be singularities and that no space-time trajectory can be extended through a singularity, the Oscillating Model exhibited a stubborn persistence. Three further strikes were lodged against it. First, there are no known physics which would cause a collapsing universe to bounce back to a new expansion. Second, the observational evidence indicates that the mean mass density of the universe is insufficient to generate enough gravitational attraction to halt and reverse the expansion. Third, since entropy is conserved from cycle to cycle in such a model, which has the effect of generating larger and longer oscillations with each successive cycle, the thermodynamic properties of an Oscillating Model imply the very beginning its proponents sought to avoid .
Oscillating Model with Entropy Increase
Oscillating Model with Entropy Increase. Due to the conservation of entropy each successive oscillation has a larger radius and longer expansion time.
Although these difficulties were well-known, proponents of the Oscillating Model tenaciously clung to it until a new alternative to the Standard Model emerged during the 1970s.29 The theory drew its life from its avoidance of an absolute beginning of the universe; but once other models became available claiming to offer the same benefit, the Oscillating Model sank under the weight of its own deficiencies.JimFit
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
Box: Is this how it works? I will remember that for future reference.
Yes, it turns out that some evidence is better than no evidence, though it is tentative in this case.
Box: This is crucial to his assessment that the cosmological constant may be sub-optimal by a tiny tiny fraction.
Assuming the accuracy of Page's analysis, it would seem that a simian living at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away, has access to information about the structure of the cosmos that eluded the reputed designer.
Box (quoting): It’s perfectly legitimate to ask why the universe has such a low value for the cosmological constant. Why isn’t it 3, or 300, or 3 trillion, or 3 with 122 zeroes after it (3 x 10^122)?
Yes, it's an important question in cosmology.
Box: In your analogy an existing spacetime matter/energy context (a universe) is assumed – the very thing that needs to be explained by fine-tuning.
Then you're ignoring the analogy and treating it as a literal. For instance, Newton merely assumed that gravitational and inertial masses were equivalent. He had no explanation. It turns out that it is due to an underlying principle. Similarly with the cosmological constant if it is due to some underlying principle. No one knows.Zachriel
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
JimFit @ 203
How is that? There are BRAINLESS ORGANISMS WITH INTENTION! Your whole argument is destroyed by slime molds, they even luck a nervous system.
Heh, the mold is controlled by light. In the Tokyo experiment, light was used to represent the mountains and rivers, which the slime mold avoided as it is photo-phobic.In case of maze, it was the obstruction and it takes 120 hours to cross the maze petridish. If that is your definition of intention, then you are right!
If there was something on the other side, then it will be a quantum region described by the yet to be discovered theory of quantum gravity. In that case, Vilenkin says, it will be the beginning of the universe. Either way the universe began to exist.
No, that would be continuation of the Big Crunched universe because the low entropy was a continution of the earlier crunch. For the beginning, the entropy can't be extraordinarily low ( that is infact one of the puzzle of singularity). BVG theorem is classical, it can't be extended into the QM realm at singularity.
If you want to argue about beginning with some other theory, then it a separate argument.Me_Think
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
Zachriel: So we have Page saying his calculation shows that the cosmological constant is not optimal. We have no other evidence to consider on that question.
Is this how it works? I will remember that for future reference.
BTW in fact we have Don Page admitting that his initial assumption, that in a fine-tuned universe the fraction of baryons that form living beings should be maximized, may be mistaken. This is crucial to his assessment that the cosmological constant may be sub-optimal by a tiny tiny fraction. IOW Don Page isn't sure about his conclusions.
What we also have is that fine-tuning is not contested at all.
VJTorley:
Professor Page’s latest paper undercuts the view that the universe is optimal, but it doesn’t undercut fine-tuning. The evidence for fine-tuning remains compelling. (...)
To put the whole matter in perspective, it should be pointed out that the argument really hinges on whether God should have designed a universe with a very, very, tiny negative value for the cosmological constant, or a very, very, tiny positive value. Think of the values we’re talking about here: 3 x 10^(-122) is 3 divided by 1 followed by 122 zeroes. That’s a very small fraction. It’s perfectly legitimate to ask why the universe has such a low value for the cosmological constant. Why isn’t it 3, or 300, or 3 trillion, or 3 with 122 zeroes after it (3 x 10^122)?
Zachriel (on his placid lake): It’s an analogy.
Sure, I know. And I'm trying to explain to you why your analogy fails big time. In your analogy an existing spacetime matter/energy context (a universe) is assumed - the very thing that needs to be explained by fine-tuning.Box
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
It means intention is an emergent property of brain, so it can’t exist in isolation, that is also the reason people in same situation don’t have the same intention.
How is that? There are BRAINLESS ORGANISMS WITH INTENTION! Your whole argument is destroyed by slime molds, they even luck a nervous system.
The current consensus is that universe emerged from singularity with low entropy. The only possible explanation is an earlier universe ‘Big Crunched’. If that is the case, BVG theory goes for a toss. BVG theorem takes the average expansion rate into consideration in a classical system, which breaks down at singularity, so you can see why BVG is the wrong mathematical construct for a expanding universe emerging out of a singularity.
The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem proves that classical spacetime, under a single, very general condition, cannot be extended to past infinity but must reach a boundary at some time in the finite past. Now either there was something on the other side of that boundary or not. If not, then that boundary just is the beginning of the universe. If there was something on the other side, then it will be a quantum region described by the yet to be discovered theory of quantum gravity. In that case, Vilenkin says, it will be the beginning of the universe. Either way the universe began to exist.
Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).
Some current cosmological speculation is based upon attempts to craft models based upon possible exceptions to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin condition that the universe has on average been in a state of cosmic expansion. In his article Jim provides the following chart of possibilities:
4 exception conditions to Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorum
The first case involves an infinite contraction prior to the singularity, followed by our current expansion. The second case postulates an unstable initial state followed by an inflationary expansion. The third case imagines a contraction followed by a super-expansion fueled by ‘dark’ energy, with the universe breaking into a multiverse. The fourth case postulates two mirror-image, inflationary expansions, where the arrows of time point away from the cosmological singularity. Jim shows that these highly speculative models are all either in contradiction to observational cosmology or else wind up implying the very beginning of the universe they sought to avert.
The other alternative to the Hawking-Penrose theorems that has been vigorously pursued is Quantum Gravity models. Jim provides the following chart of such models:
The first class of models postulates an eternal vacuum space in which our universe originates via a quantum fluctuation. It was found that these models could not avoid the beginning of the vacuum space itself and so implied the absolute beginning of spacetime. These models did not outlive the early 1980s.
The second class, string theoretical models, have been all the rage lately. They are based upon an alternative to the standard model of particle physics which construes the building blocks of matter to be, not pointlike particles, but one dimensional strings of energy. Jim discusses three types of string cosmological models:
The first of these string cosmologies, Ekpyrotic cyclic models, is subject to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and so is admitted to involve a beginning of the universe. The second group, Pre-Big Bang models, cannot be extended into the infinite past if they are taken to be realistic descriptions of the universe. The third group, the string landscape models, feature the popular multiverse scenario. They are also subject to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and so imply a beginning of the universe. Thus, string cosmological models do not serve to avert the prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist.
The third class of Quantum Gravity models, Loop Quantum Gravity theories, features versions of a cyclical universe, expanding and contracting. These models do not require an eternal past, and trying to extend them to past infinity is hard to square with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and seems to be ruled out by the accumulation of dark energy, which would in time bring an end to the cycling behavior.
Finally, fourth, the Semi-classical Quantum Gravity models include the famous Hartle-Hawking model and Vilenkin’s own theory:
These models feature an absolute beginning of the universe, even if the universe does not come into being at a singular point. Thus, Quantum Gravity models no more avoid the universe’s beginning than do purported Eternal Inflationary models.JimFit
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
Box: Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind, Martin Rees, Paul Davies, and Fred Hoyle seem to ignore D.N.Page’s claims regarding the cosmological constant and regarding Jesus being the Son of God.
So we have Page saying his calculation shows that the cosmological constant is not optimal. We have no other evidence to consider on that question.
Z: 2) This is a very new area of science with a lot of uncertainty
Box: When we address fine-tuning we are not just talking about ‘flatness’.
It's an analogy. Not knowing the reason the lake is flat, we might think it is 'fine-tuned' to be that way rather than simply the result of a simple underlying principle.Zachriel
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
Zachriel: We asked if there was disagreement. Did you have contrary evidence?
Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind, Martin Rees, Paul Davies, and Fred Hoyle seem to ignore D.N.Page's claims regarding the cosmological constant and regarding Jesus being the Son of God. That is all the contrary evidence one needs.
If you make the positive claim that Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind, Martin Rees, Paul Davies, and Fred Hoyle agree with D.N.Page that Jesus is indeed the Son of God and/or that the cosmological constant ought to be slightly negative in an optimally designed universe, then you must provide evidence.
Zachriel:
Well, the placid lake is extraordinarily flat, if that is what you mean. But we probably wouldn’t call it ‘fine-tuned’.
When we address fine-tuning we are not just talking about 'flatness'. Instead we are talking about the prerequisites of any placid lake to exist. So, no that's not what I mean - I'm aiming at a more fundamental level.Box
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
JimFit @ 195
This is exactly what i am saying because there are brainless organisms with consciousness and intention
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lls27hu03yw
The brain provides you the way to express intention,the buttons, if the brain was as the whole the intention device then the brain when traumatized would affect intention but that doesn’t happen, intention stays intact.
It means intention is an emergent property of brain, so it can't exist in isolation, that is also the reason people in same situation don't have the same intention.
Haven’t you tired to use the same argument when
Vilenkin disagrees with you?
Vilenkin pulls no punches: “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning” (p. 176).
The current consensus is that universe emerged from singularity with low entropy. The only possible explanation is an earlier universe 'Big Crunched'. If that is the case, BVG theory goes for a toss. BVG theorem takes the average expansion rate into consideration in a classical system, which breaks down at singularity, so you can see why BVG is the wrong mathematical construct for a expanding universe emerging out of a singularity.
An omniscience God knows what He has to do before it happens. Humans do the same, they can find something that happen in the past or will it happen in the Future without actually observe it, if you have knowledge you are powerful, God is powerful because He is omniscience and so on..
That's just parceling off the unexplainable to an unknown variable.Me_Think
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
Box: So, because Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind, Martin Rees, Paul Davies, and Fred Hoyle did not explicitly address D.N.Page’s claim that the cosmological constant ought to be slightly negative in an optimally designed universe, you assume that they agree with D.N.Page?
We asked if there was disagreement. Did you have contrary evidence?
Box: The universe is fine-tuned for life. The cause for fine-tuning cannot change that fact.
Well, the placid lake is extraordinarily flat, if that is what you mean. But we probably wouldn't call it 'fine-tuned'.Zachriel
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
Huh? Do they contest Page’s results? That the cosmological constant is not optimal for life?
So, because Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind, Martin Rees, Paul Davies, and Fred Hoyle did not explicitly address D.N.Page's claim that the cosmological constant ought to be slightly negative in an optimally designed universe, you assume that they agree with D.N.Page?
In his technical paper D.N.Page states:
I personally think it might be a theological mistake to look for fine tuning as a sign of the existence of God. I am reminded of the exchange between Jesus and the religious authorities recorded in the Gospel of Matthew 12:38-41: “Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, ‘Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.’ But He answered and said to them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.’” In other words, I regard the death and resurrection of Jesus as the sign given to us that He is indeed the Son of God and Savior He claimed to be, rather than needing signs from fine tuning.
Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind, Martin Rees, Paul Davies, and Fred Hoyle didn't explicitly address this statement either. Are we to assume that they agree with D.N.Page on this as well?
Zachriel: Sure, the universe could be fine-tuned, or the apparent tuning could be due to other causes.
False dichotomy. The universe is fine-tuned for life. The cause for fine-tuning cannot change that fact.Box
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
Box: So you put your faith in Christian cosmologist D.N.Page and discard Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind, Martin Rees, Paul Davies, and Fred Hoyle because somehow Don Page’s research convinced you that he (D.Page) is right and the others are wrong.
Huh? Do they contest Page's results? That the cosmological constant is not optimal for life?
Box (quoting): Professor Page’s latest paper undercuts the view that the universe is optimal, but it doesn’t undercut fine-tuning. The evidence for fine-tuning remains compelling.
It doesn't answer the one objection, much less the others. Sure, the universe could be fine-tuned, or the apparent tuning could be due to other causes. While no one has an inkling how to test, the latter has often led to scientific advances.
It isn't necessary to point to fine-tuning to make the gap argument. The fundamental metaphysical question is why there is something rather than nothing.Zachriel
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
You_Think you said
Why is intention specific to scientists? If we are all fine-tuned, we all should have intention to do science.
I just pointed out that science happen because we had the intention to understand the Universe, some people choose science, some chose ignorance but they won happiness. If you take 2 brains you will see that their wiring is different, you create your brain!
If intention precedes physical world, it would mean you don’t need the brain for intention, any other body part would do. You think brain has no part in intention ?
This is exactly what i am saying because there are brainless organisms with consciousness and intention
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lls27hu03yw
The brain provides you the way to express intention,the buttons, if the brain was as the whole the intention device then the brain when traumatized would affect intention but that doesn't happen, intention stays intact. There are people that have traumatized their brain after an accident and they fight their own brain, its the people who suffer from change in personality..It is when they start to cry or get angry without an obvious reason and they know that it is a product of their brain and they have the intention to rewrite their brain wiring to fix these. Have you seen the movie A Beautiful Mind ? It is based on a real event, this man had the intention to heal himself from hallucinations that his brain produced and he did it.
You can watch these videos for more info. They provide scientific peer reviewed papers to support their claims
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70&index=2&list=UU5qDet6sa6rODi7t6wfpg8g
BVG Theorem paper shows inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary. It doesn’t talk of a finite beginning.
Haven't you tired to use the same argument when
Vilenkin disagrees with you?
Vilenkin pulls no punches: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (p. 176).
In this video he analyzes why the Universe began
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A
Also from Villenkin :
“The question of whether or not the universe had a beginning assumes a classical spacetime, in which the notions of time and causality can be defined. On very small time and length scales, quantum fluctuations in the structure of spacetime could be so large that these classical concepts become totally inapplicable. Then we do not really have a language to describe what is happening, because all our physics concepts are deeply rooted in the concepts of space and time. This is what I mean when I say that we do not even know what the right questions are.”
NOT EVEN QUANTUM FLUCTUATIONS CAN BE ETERNAL!
I haven’t found a satisfactory answer to where and how a Single designer can design and launch an entire universe.
If intention isn't needed then the Universe popped out of Nothingness assembled itself through Randomness and we are here due to luck. Please provide me peer reviewed papers about Randomness Nothingness and Luck. The problem with random cosmic mistakes (atheists) is that they try to think a murder as an accident. CLEARLY there must be intention before the Universe began because the Universe by definition is Finite and therefor can't have a physical cause. Even if there are causes that we don't know yet they can't extent to infinity, YOU CAN'T ESCAPE THE ULTIMATE CAUSE!
How do you create a Universe? Do you create it by building each planet separately? No you don't. You set the conditions, the values if you like and the Universe unfolds, you don't have to build each tree, each human, each flower and so on...An omniscience God knows what He has to do before it happens to have a result. Humans do the same, they can find something that happened in the past or will it happen in the Future without actually observe it, if you have knowledge you are powerful, God is powerful because He is omniscience and so on..
Science has show that the observer truly affects the result and that shows that consciousness preceeds materialism. If you want a proof about a timeless spaceless and immaterial thing you must look at yourself because your consciousness is transcendent.
Quantum Enigma
Observation in Quantum Mechanics and the 'Collapse of the Wavefunction'
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1961ZPhy..161..454J
http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777
http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/TexteHS10/bell1964epr.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/full/446866a.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvMx1baJwpA
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1026096313729
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/apr/20/quantum-physics-says-goodbye-to-reality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nttB3Wze3Y8
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903047
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scully/kim-scully-web.htm
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.4481
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20600-quantum-magic-trick-shows-reality-is-what-you-make-it.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiNJRh2fxY8
http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070416/full/news070416-9.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5294
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1256.abstract
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR07/Event/57254
http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v7/n5/full/nnano.2012.34.html
http://www.livescience.com/19268-quantum-double-slit-experiment-largest-molecules.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1469
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/050411/full/news.2011.210.html
http://www.wired.com/2009/09/quantum-entanglement/
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.0337.pdfJimFit
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman @ 191
If you like your milk hot, your fridge is not going to fine-tune for that.
Sure it is, check it out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YggTbDhCZxE
I have a thermostat and a Home Depot down the road to make any modifications I need. I’m in charge not the produce.
That is customization, not fine-tuning. Fine tuning is akin to configuring a system [edited for clarity].
Universe is not fine-tuned for pondering. Universe is fine tuned for matter creation, not intelligent life.
Matter creation is only important because it is important to the intelligent life who ponder it.
Even when we didn't exist, universe was 'fine-tuned' [ I believe Dinosaurs were not pondering about cosmological constant and omega of universe]Me_Think
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
Sorry Mark I mistook Me_think for you
peacefifthmonarchyman
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
#191 5MM
Mark Frank says ...
You have the wrong person - I never contributed to this thread (until now)Mark Frank
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT
Mark Frank says
The temperature in the fridge is fine-tuned to ensure milk or whatever is inside doesn’t spoil.
I say,
Sure If I want it not to spoil you are correct.
On the other hand if for example I'm doing an experiment on raw verses pasteurized milk I might fine-tune the temperature to ensure the growth of bacteria
You say
If you like your milk hot, your fridge is not going to fine-tune for that.
I say
Sure it is, check it out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YggTbDhCZxE
I have a thermostat and a Home Depot down the road to make any modifications I need. I'm in charge not the produce.
You say
Universe is not fine-tuned for pondering. Universe is fine tuned for matter creation, not intelligent life.
I say,
Matter creation is only important because it is important to the intelligent life who ponder it.
That is the point
peacefifthmonarchyman
January 5, 2015
January
01
Jan
5
05
2015
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT
JimFit @ 188,
Atheists miss that before science there was intention to do science, therefor our consciousness precedes science and for that reason i believe that intention precedes the Physical World
Why is intention specific to scientists? If we are all fine-tuned, we all should have intention to do science. If intention precedes physical world, it would mean you don't need the brain for intention, any other body part would do. You think brain has no part in intention ?
The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem states that any universe, which has, on average, a rate of expansion greater 1 that system had to have a finite beginning. This would apply in any multiverse scenario as well
BVG Theorem paper shows inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary. It doesn't talk of a finite beginning.
I haven't found a satisfactory answer to where and how a Single designer can design and launch an entire universe.Me_Think
January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman @ 181
Because matter can’t discover the phyiscal constants or contemplate their significance.
It takes intelligent life to ponder the necessary prerequisites of it’s existence .
The temperature in my refrigerator is not fine-tuned for the milk it is fine-tuned for me. just the way I like it.
The temperature in the fridge is fine-tuned to ensure milk or whatever is inside doesn't spoil. If you like your milk hot, your fridge is not going to fine-tune for that.
Universe is not fine-tuned for pondering. Universe is fine tuned for matter creation, not intelligent life.Me_Think
January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
Let me start by saying that Science is neutral on questions about existence, Atheists think that Science will somehow please their nihilistic desires and prove that the Universe is an accident (whatever that means) but this doesn't work in reality. Opposite to what atheists believe Science truly studies if there was intention behind an event or not, Criminology for example can look at a lifeless body and prove if the victim was killed due to accident or intention. As a Theist i support that the Universe is due to intention and not chance because it is the only logical conclusion, it follows cause and effect. Chance is a philosophical view of things that doesn't work in science, the apple didn't fell on Newtons head because there are lots of apples aka due to chance but due to gravity. Atheists miss that before science there was intention to do science, therefor our consciousness precedes science and for that reason i believe that intention precedes the Physical World and therefor it was intended to be created and yes the Universe began to exist so it follows the definition of the creation.. Atheists also miss that an Eternal Universe ultimately destroys Science, when an atheist say AHA YOU USE GOD OF THE GAPS ARGUMENT all he says is this THE UNIVERSE MUST BE ETERNAL AND THEREFOR UNKNOWN! You can't use infinity of the Universe as a counter argument to God especially when God is transcendent and doesn't involve to the Physical World which the Bible proclaims as understandable to humans because they are the Images of God (equal to Him in understanding). Theists don't fill the gaps with God, they just fill the gaps with a cause that links to the Ultimate Cause.
Multiverses can't save the atheists because they demand a beginning.
The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem states that any universe, which has, on average, a rate of expansion greater 1 that system had to have a finite beginning. This would apply in any multiverse scenario as well.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012v2.pdf
You can't escape the Ultimate cause, Multiverses also would need a Universal Fine Tuned Constant to create Universes and not etc kitties.
The Fine Tuning is not due to chance or physical necessity.
Physical Necessity?
Consider the first alternative, physical necessity.
This alternative seems extraordinarily implausible because the constants and quantities are independent of the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants and quantities. For example, the most promising candidate for a Theory of Everything (T.O.E.) to date, super-string theory or M-Theory, allows a “cosmic landscape” of around 10500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature, so that it does nothing to render the observed values of the constants and quantities physically necessary.
Chance?
So what about the second alternative, that the fine-tuning is due to chance? The problem with this alternative is that the odds against the universe’s being life-permitting are so incomprehensibly great that they cannot be reasonably faced. In order to rescue the alternative of chance, its proponents have therefore been forced to adopt the hypothesis that there exists a sort of World Ensemble or multiverse of randomly ordered universes of which our universe is but a part. Now comes the key move: since observers can exist only in finely tuned worlds, of course we observe our universe to be fine-tuned!
So this explanation of fine-tuning relies on (i) the existence of a specific type of World Ensemble and (ii) an observer self-selection effect. Now this explanation, wholly apart from objections to (i), faces a very formidable objection to (ii), namely, the Boltzmann Brain problem. In order to be observable the entire universe need not be fine-tuned for our existence. Indeed, it is vastly more probable that a random fluctuation of mass-energy would yield a universe dominated by Boltzmann Brain observers than one dominated by ordinary observers like ourselves. In other words, the observer self-selection effect is explanatorily vacuous. As Robin Collins has noted, what needs to be explained is not just intelligent life, but embodied, interactive, intelligent agents like ourselves.[21] Appeal to an observer self-selection effect accomplishes nothing because there’s no reason whatever to think that most observable worlds or the most probable observable worlds are worlds in which that kind of observer exists. Indeed, the opposite appears to be true: most observable worlds will be Boltzmann Brain worlds.
Since we presumably are not Boltzmann Brains, that fact strongly disconfirms a naturalistic World Ensemble or multiverse hypothesis.
YOU CAN'T HAVE INFINITE PAST CAUSES AND THEREFOR AN EXPLANATION OF AN EXPLANATION OF THE CONSTANTS CANNOT GO AD INFINITY, you can't escape the Ultimate cause!
David E. White argues that the notion of an infinite causal regress providing a proper explanation is fallacious. Furthermore Demea states that even if the succession of causes is infinite, the whole chain still requires a cause.To explain this, suppose there exists a causal chain of infinite contingent beings. If one asks the question, "Why are there any contingent beings at all?", it won’t help to be told that "There are contingent beings because other contingent beings caused them." That answer would just presuppose additional contingent beings. An adequate explanation of why some contingent beings exist would invoke a different sort of being, a necessary being that is not contingent. A response might suppose each individual is contingent but the infinite chain as a whole is not; or the whole infinite causal chain to be its own cause.
Does Inflation solve the Fine Tuning?
The historical pattern has been than when fine-tuning is suppressed at one point, it only gets transferred somewhere else, rather like the stubborn bump in the carpet. For example, appeal to an inflationary era in the early universe to explain the fine-tuning of the universe’s expansion rate merely shifts the fine-tuning to the primordial inflaton field and the coupling parameter linked to the density fluctuations that eventually became our galaxies.
Does Lottery Machine solve the Fine Tuning?
No. The lottery machine only draws numbers, lets suppose that the physical reality is the numbers in the chamber of the lottery machine, since everything physical began (according to the BVG Theorem) the Lottery machine can't draw something non physical aka letters or hieroglyphics but only numbers (something physical). Therefor this paradigm made by the Atheists is illogical.
Atheists Scientists that agree with the Fine Tuning of the Universe
Let’s play pick the odd one out of these non-theist scientists.
Wilczek: life appears to depend upon delicate coincidences that we have not been able to explain. The broad outlines of that situation have been apparent for many decades. When less was known, it seemed reasonable to hope that better understanding of symmetry and dynamics would clear things up. Now that hope seems much less reasonable. The happy coincidences between life’s requirements and nature’s choices of parameter values might be just a series of flukes, but one could be forgiven for beginning to suspect that something deeper is at work.
Hawking: “Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. … The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it.”
Rees: Any universe hospitable to life – what we might call a biophilic universe – has to be ‘adjusted’ in a particular way. The prerequisites for any life of the kind we know about — long-lived stable stars, stable atoms such as carbon, oxygen and silicon, able to combine into complex molecules, etc — are sensitive to the physical laws and to the size, expansion rate and contents of the universe. Indeed, even for the most open-minded science ?ction writer, ‘life’ or ‘intelligence’ requires the emergence of some generic complex structures: it can’t exist in a homogeneous universe, not in a universe containing only a few dozen particles. Many recipes would lead to stillborn universes with no atoms, no chemistry, and no planets; or to universes too short-lived or too empty to allow anything to evolve beyond sterile uniformity.
Linde: the existence of an amazingly strong correlation between our own properties and the values of many parameters of our world, such as the masses and charges of electron and proton, the value of the gravitational constant, the amplitude of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the electroweak theory, the value of the vacuum energy, and the dimensionality of our world, is an experimental fact requiring an explanation.
Susskind: The Laws of Physics … are almost always deadly. In a sense the laws of nature are like East Coast weather: tremendously variable, almost always awful, but on rare occasions, perfectly lovely. … [O]ur own universe is an extraordinary place that appears to be fantastically well designed for our own existence. This specialness is not something that we can attribute to lucky accidents, which is far too unlikely. The apparent coincidences cry out for an explanation.
Guth: in the multiverse, life will evolve only in very rare regions where the local laws of physics just happen to have the properties needed for life, giving a simple explanation for why the observed universe appears to have just the right properties for the evolution of life. The incredibly small value of the cosmological constant is a telling example of a feature that seems to be needed for life, but for which an explanation from fundamental physics is painfully lacking.
Smolin: Our universe is much more complex than most universes with the same laws but different values of the parameters of those laws. In particular, it has a complex astrophysics, including galaxies and long lived stars, and a complex chemistry, including carbon chemistry. These necessary conditions for life are present in our universe as a consequence of the complexity which is made possible by the special values of the parameters.
Victor Stenger: The most commonly cited examples of apparent fine-tuning can be readily explained by the application of a little well-established physics and cosmology. . . . [S]ome form of life would have occurred in most universes that could be described by the same physical models as ours, with parameters whose ranges varied over ranges consistent with those models. … . My case against fine-tuning will not rely on speculations beyond well-established physics nor on the existence of multiple universes.JimFit
January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
Zachriel: We cited Page because he provide scientific information concerning the cosmological constant, not for his theological beliefs.
Only the truth matters, right Zachriel? I like that. So you put your faith in Christian cosmologist D.N.Page and discard Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind, Martin Rees, Paul Davies, and Fred Hoyle because somehow Don Page's research convinced you that he (D.Page) is right and the others are wrong. What was it? What convinced you?
You may want to check this out.
--
excerpt:
VJTorley:
Professor Page’s latest paper undercuts the view that the universe is optimal, but it doesn’t undercut fine-tuning. The evidence for fine-tuning remains compelling.