See also: Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.
Comments
AVS, this is Physics not EvoBio, the "Appearance of Fine Tuning" does not cut it.
Some physicists use the Anthropic Argument, but that is generally viewed as a cop out. Wussy "Science".ppolish
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
I did enjoy the exchange Mikey, just another example of an IDer talking out of their rear-end about something that goes way over their head.
Toodaloo!AVS
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
It is fine-tuned to allow for the existence of living organisms. Specifically it was fined tuned for scientific observation/ discovery and thus for scientific observers.
What is the alternative? This just happened and we just happened to emerge from the cosmic dust? What predictions are borne from that?
Your fear is misplaced as it is clear that you don't know what you are talking aboutJoe
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
ppolish: Do you realize how fine tuned gravity and H2O are?
The tuning of gravity doesn't explain the extraordinary flatness of a lake of liquid.
ppolish: At least physicists are smart enough to recognize the problem.
We're aware of the question. The example shows why an appeal to design is not warranted without specific evidence.
Zachriel: That’s why it’s called speculation. However, it is consistent with certain theories of cosmic formation that include the Big Bang. JDH: So correct me if I am wrong. You place your faith, and you can not deny it is faith, in something because it is possible, but never can be observed.
You're wrong.Zachriel
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
AVS: Do you realize that the vast majority of life as we know it is dependent on oxygen?
Yes
And that the vast majority of the universe is completely depleted of oxygen?
Interesting that so much of it is here for us.
In fact it’s completely depleted of any matter at all?
Right.
Not only that but the temperature of the vast majority of the universe approaches absolute zero (that’s as cold as you can get). Life cannot exist in the majority of the universe, Mikey.
Right. Earth is a special place universe the fine-tuned universe. (There may be more, but we don't know of any yet.)
And you can call me Mike.
Don’t you think that fact is at odds with the statement that “the universe is fine-tuned for life”?
No. My brother's machine shop is a mess, but small areas of it have exquisit productions due to his efforts.
So as you say, the periodic table must be fine tuned for life then, right?
Right.
Again, don’t you think it’s odd that life only requires a fraction of the elements on that table?
No.
Yes [sic] how the different elements came about is complex, but the elements themselves are not fine tuned for anything, they are merely all the possible, basic configurations of protons, electrons and neutrons known.
And the nature of their relationships allow them to be used in forming exquisite things.
Yes, carbon has wondrous properties, I am aware of many of them and their importance for life.
Excellent.
Nitrogen has some wondrous properties, so does oxygen and hydrogen.
Yes they do. Which is why I said before there are examples "too many to mention."
And when these atoms combine they form molecules with even more wondrous properties that drive the formation of life.
They are involved in it, yes.
I fear you simply don’t know what you are talking about.
I admit that's possible. Although I have no idea why you think so.
Anyway, I hope you enjoyed the exchange.mike1962
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT
The universe is fine-tuned for life huh?
Do you realize that the vast majority of life as we know it is dependent on oxygen? And that the vast majority of the universe is completely depleted of oxygen? In fact it's completely depleted of any matter at all? Not only that but the temperature of the vast majority of the universe approaches absolute zero (that's as cold as you can get). Life cannot exist in the majority of the universe, Mikey. Don't you think that fact is at odds with the statement that "the universe is fine-tuned for life"?
So as you say, the periodic table must be fine tuned for life then, right? Again, don't you think it's odd that life only requires a fraction of the elements on that table? Yes how the different elements came about is complex, but the elements themselves are not fine tuned for anything, they are merely all the possible, basic configurations of protons, electrons and neutrons known.
Yes, carbon has wondrous properties, I am aware of many of them and their importance for life. Nitrogen has some wondrous properties, so does oxygen and hydrogen. And when these atoms combine they form molecules with even more wondrous properties that drive the formation of life.
I fear you simply don't know what you are talking about.AVS
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
What exactly do you think the universe is fine-tuned for, Mike?
Life.
How is the periodic table an example of fine tuning?
It's the result of steller action that is the result of the values of gravity, electrons, protons, all the subatomic particles, quantum interactions, etc.
It’s simply a list of each element and the physical properties of that element due to it’s atomic structure, is it not?
I would have to object to the "simply" part due to the manner in which they arise from steller evolution, and what sorts of things that can be produced from their innumerable combinations once they exist.
Carbon is just one of these elements, with it’s own distinct properties due to the number of shells and the number of electrons in its valence shell, no?
I would have to object to the "just one" in the sense that of it not being special. Carbon has wonderous properties. I suggest you go learn about it.mike1962
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
What exactly do you think the universe is fine-tuned for, Mike?
How is the periodic table an example of fine tuning? It's simply a list of each element and the physical properties of that element due to it's atomic structure, is it not?
Carbon is just one of these elements, with it's own distinct properties due to the number of shells and the number of electrons in its valence shell, no?AVS
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
AVS: Just a quick question for the fine-tuners...
Are you implying that you deny the fined-tuned nature of the universe?
what, in your opinion, is the single, best example of this fine-tuning?
Some astonishing effects (due to steller action) would be the periodic table in general and the carbon atom in particular. But there's really too many things for me to pick just a "single" one. Sorry.mike1962
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
Interesting, I'm not familiar with the cosmological constant. Does it have units? Could you sum up in your own words what it is, what it means, and maybe how they discovered it? What is so important about it and why does it have to be so precise?AVS
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
Cosmological Constant is the finest of the fine tuned per physicists. There are a dozen or so other extremely fine tuned parameters - but the Cosmo Constant is the big kahuna. Actually, it is so very small. Point 000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000002
If I missed a zero or added one oops - no universe.ppolish
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
Sorry, my Adobe doesn't seem to be working. Can't watch youtube videos.
If you could just give me (in your opinion) the single, best example of fine-tuning, that would be great!AVS
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
And if the multi verse is true, then everything is true, bet you our friends have not really thought about that too muchAndre
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
AVS, watch that vid by Atheist physicist Susskind I posted. Cosmological Constant is by far the finest tuned of the fine tuning.
Btw, you had best jump on the multiverse bandwagon - as Susskind shows it really is the only way to escape the fine tuning. All the cool kids will be multiversers before too long:)ppolish
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
Zach @2
DrCraigVideos: There’s no scientific evidence for the existence of the multiverse.
That’s why it’s called speculation. However, it is consistent with certain theories of cosmic formation that include the Big Bang.
So correct me if I am wrong. You place your faith, and you can not deny it is faith, in something because it is possible, but never can be observed. How is this not religion?
I would rather place my faith in the man who (according to the martyrs who observed the events and died because they wouldn't recant) rose from the dead.
This despite the fact that I am a Ph.D. in Physics.JDH
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
Just a quick question for the fine-tuners; what, in your opinion, is the single, best example of this fine-tuning?AVS
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
Evolve @44
I disagree that the fine-tuning argument "assumes the universe must exist."
ID theorists (I guess creationists too?) calculate probabilities whether or not there are multiple universes. I liken the case to poker. Technically any 5-card hand is just as probable of being drawn from a deck as any other. But only a royal flush will win every time, a specific 5-card hand. To say that the odds of getting a royal flush are small involves more then just probabilities. It involves small probabilities PLUS a specification of winning a hand. Same thing with the lottery, many number combinations are possible, but only one gets you the jackpot money. From the cosmological argument, the parameters can take literally infinite values but only a very very very....very small set of constants produces a life-habitable universe.
I asked you what you would think of the lottery or Paul if he won the jackpot 100 times in a row. Would you conclude chance? Or would you rightly conclude that either the lottery is set up so Paul can win or Paul is cheating and has foreknowledge of the numbers?
"Is there anything that’s not consistent with a theistic belief?" Tons of things, an eternal universe would be one. Consult a theologian for more :)jazzcat
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
"Really? Thought the extraordinary flatness of the placid lake was due to gravity and the liquidity of water."
It is due to that. Do you realize how fine tuned gravity and H2O are? That is the fine tuning problem.
At least physicists are smart enough to recognize the problem. EvoBio still has not admitted to the ID problem. Still in denial there:)ppolish
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
Zachriel @46
"Scientific support requires entailments."
First of all, I disagree with your philosophical assertion. There is no rule in science that says, "scientific support requires entailments." Entailments can be inferred ONLY AFTER a design inference yields a positive result.
Second of all, is "intelligence," not an entailment?jazzcat
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
Zachriel: Yes, the placid lake is so flat, so very flat. It has to be design!
Indeed, in case of the placid lake we can point to natural law as a cause. Good find! However, everyone should comprehend that there cannot be an endless regression in causes.
For instance, in case of natural law itself and the fundamental constants of the universe we cannot invoke on an underlying natural cause - and even if we could that natural law must be fine tuned by definition.Box
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
ppolish: It sure seems to be tuned. Fine tuned. That’s why it’s such a problem for many scientists.
Really? Thought the extraordinary flatness of the placid lake was due to gravity and the liquidity of water.Zachriel
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
jazzcat: So do you agree that ID CAN be the BEST explanation even if there are NO entailments??
Scientific support requires entailments.Zachriel
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
"Is the placid lake tuned to be extraordinarily flat, or is that a result of some underlying symmetry?"
It sure seems to be tuned. Fine tuned. That's why it's such a problem for many scientists. It is the "fine tuning problem", the "naturalness problem"
It is a problem because tuning requires a tuner. An unnatural tuner. One way to avoid a tuner is to posit that pretty much everything and anything happens. And then argue that a fine tune is inevitable, couldn't not happen. Many scientists have a problem accepting that. There is a "scientific method" crisis going on these days. Very interesting times:)ppolish
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
Jazzcat @ 10
///The fine-tuning argument does not state that, “the universe must exist.”///
It does not state that, but it assumes that. It calculates the probability of our "current universe" coming into existence by chance, which means it assumes that this is the only outcome possible.
Going back to my analogy, if you assume that only Paul can win the jackpot (after he wins it), then the probability seems insurmountable (1 in several hundred million). But if you realize that anybody/nobody could have won it and that the eventual winner came about by sheer chance, then the insurmountable probability turns out to be meaningless because you're bound to get some result or the other, all of which have an equally insurmountable probability.
Similarly, there could have been an infinite number of possible values for the cosmological constants. Each one of those values have astronomically low probabilities. But by sheer chance the cosmological constants ended up in their current values. What followed (stars, galaxies, life etc) were mere consequences of the way the universe ended up being.
Now, creationists are looking at it after-the-fact and pointlessly asking how did those constants attain such precise values to make life possible!
///I would argue that, “the universe does not need to exist,” is consistent with the theistic belief that God created the universe not because he had to but because he chose to. ///
Is there anything that's not consistent with a theistic belief?
///If Paul wins the lottery not once, not twice, but 100 times in a row without missing the jackpot combination once, what would you conclude about the nature of Paul or the nature of the lottery?///
Paul winning the lottery 100 times is a repetition of the same thing, the same phenomenon. But the various cosmological constants are different values associated with different phenomena.Evolve
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
Zachriel @42
"Thought we already resolved that." You haven't. Earlier @36 you said, "We’re not saying design is ruled out, only that it is not the “best explanation” as it doesn’t involve any entailments." You say ID cannot be the best explanation because it does not have entailments. I say entailments are "IRRELEVANT to a design inference from observable effects."
So do you agree that ID CAN be the BEST explanation even if there are NO entailments??jazzcat
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
jazzcat: In other words, determining WHO the designer is is IRRELEVANT to a design inference from observable effects.
Thought we resolved that. Most bloggers are a species of primate, known for their propensity for Cheetos. Did you want more specifics? Four-chamber heart, bellows lungs, eukaryote cell structure, clogged arteries, atrophied spine, orange lips.Zachriel
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
Some bright "critic" said: The only designer we conclusively know can design is humans.
Well, yeah. That's why we consider design to be an inference from what we know. Your point?Mung
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
WRT Zachriel, I refuse to rule out that we are dealing with an alien - or a whole bunch of them. Irrespective from what they are, I can infer intelligence as a cause for the posts 'they' produce.Box
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
Zachriel @38
"We don’t have catalog every lion in the wild to have some idea concerning the characteristics of lions. The same with bloggers. We don’t have to examine each and every blogger to have some good idea about the characteristics of bloggers."
In other words, determining WHO the designer is is IRRELEVANT to a design inference from observable effects.jazzcat
December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
jazzcat: I haven’t explored your habitat, I haven’t actually discovered you tiptoeing into your lair. I don’t know what your real name is, who you are, what you are.
We don't have catalog every lion in the wild to have some idea concerning the characteristics of lions. The same with bloggers. We don't have to examine each and every blogger to have some good idea about the characteristics of bloggers.Zachriel