Fine tuning Multiverse News Physics

See what pretzels people make of themselves, to deny fine-tuning of the universe for life?

Spread the love

From Real Clear Science:

To try to test how fine-tuned Hoyle’s resonance is, Meissner’s team ran a series of simulations with different average quark masses and with different fine structure constant values. As described in a paper published in December in the journal Science Bulletin, they found that if they gave either constant a value around two to three percent larger or smaller than its measured value, dying stars could still produce enough carbon to account for the amount we see on Earth. Previously, other groups found similar results for the fine structure constant, but Meissner’s group was the first to study what happens if the quarks’ mass varies.

Meissner acknowledges that the research does not answer why the values are what they are. To explain this, some physicists invoke a concept called the “multiverse,” in which “parallel” universes with many different possible values of the constants exist, and we, unsurprisingly, find ourselves in one in which complex life can evolve. Meissner says his team’s work “gives some credit” to this concept, but does not explain how the many universes would be generated.

“This paper strengthens the case for the fine-tuning of the universe,” agrees Luke Barnes, an astrophysicist at the University of Sydney. Meissner’s team’s model of the carbon atom is more advanced than previous efforts, he said, especially because they can change the mass of the quarks.

Then we hear, “Others are less impressed.”

Why? Because there could be universes with different parameters from ours that could support types of life we can’t even imagine:

“Maybe if you change the quark masses not by three percent but by 50 percent you could end up with a situation where life as we know it couldn’t exist, but life as we don’t know it could exist,” he said.

In short, if we can just leave evidence out of it, we can dispense with fine-tuning.

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

and How crazy it all gets when we ignore evidence in favour of speculation

Follow UD News at Twitter!

53 Replies to “See what pretzels people make of themselves, to deny fine-tuning of the universe for life?

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    News,

    VJT cited one form of John Leslie’s fly on the wall analogy the other day:

    If a tiny group of flies is surrounded by a largish fly-free wall area then whether a bullet hits a fly in the group will be very sensitive to the direction in which the firer’s rifle points, even if other very different areas of the wall are thick with flies. So it is sufficient to consider a local area of possible universes, e.g., those produced by slight changes in gravity’s strength, or in the early cosmic expansion speed which reflects that strength. It certainly needn’t be claimed that Life and Intelligence could exist only if certain force strengths, particle masses, etc. fell within certain narrow ranges. For all we know, it might well be that universes could be life-permitting even if none of the forces and particles known to us were present in them. All that need be claimed is that a lifeless universe would have resulted from fairly minor changes in the forces etc. with which we are familiar.
    (Universes, Routledge, 1989; paperback, 1996, pp. 138-9)

    I should note, extending, that a tack driving rifle is a case of a very fine tuned object, and that marksmanship does not come easily either.

    KF

  2. 2
    Andre says:

    We can’t see God therefor God does not exist…… We can’t see the multiverse, therefor the multiverse exist!

    Hahahahahahahahaha!

  3. 3
    CHartsil says:

    >Defy fine tuning

    >Defy the idea that, because there’s one planet out of trillions with life on it, the entire universe was fine tuned for life.

    You’re looking back over a series of events that, together, are highly unlikely and saying that it was impossible. Shuffle 1,024 decks of cards together then deal them out. Now calculate the odds of the order you just dealt. It’s more than mind blowing and you just did it.

  4. 4
    JimFit says:

    You’re looking back over a series of events that, together, are highly unlikely and saying that it was impossible. Shuffle 1,024 decks of cards together then deal them out. Now calculate the odds of the order you just dealt. It’s more than mind blowing and you just did it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

  5. 5
    CHartsil says:

    Jim, if that was aimed at me, that doesn’t really apply. I’m not saying anything would occur at any different frequency.

  6. 6
    JimFit says:

    CHartsil

    It is true that, given the fact that we’re here and we’re alive, we should expect to observe a life-permitting universe. This is called the Anthropic Principle. But that expectation, and our observations which confirm it, do nothing to explain why the universe is life-permitting when it didn’t have to be. A life-prohibiting universe is vastly more probable than a life-permitting one, so why does a life-permitting universe exist? What is the best explanation? Is it chance, necessity, or design? Fine-tuning cries out for an explanation, but the anthropic principle is not the answer. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is helpful once more: “While trivially true, [the anthropic] principle has no explanatory power, and does not constitute a substantive alternative explanation.”

  7. 7
    CHartsil says:

    Asking why is question begging, if it didn’t allow for life we simply wouldn’t know it in the first place.

    We’re the only known life out of at least a few hundred trillion planets. That seems pretty prohibitive to me. Again you’re looking backwards from the end of the series of collectively unlikely events. You can keep adding decks of cards until the odds of any one order is a googolplex to 1 and it still happened.

  8. 8
    JimFit says:

    Asking why is question begging, if it didn’t allow for life we simply wouldn’t know it in the first place.

    That’s the Anthropic Principle but it doesn’t answer the main question. Is the Fine Tuning due to chance, physical necessity, or design?

    Remember you can’t use an infinite causal regress because it is fallacious, you can’t escape the Ultimate cause.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....sal_chains

    Is the Fine Tuning of the Universe due to chance, physical necessity or design?

    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.

    Design

    It seems, then, that the fine-tuning is not plausibly due to physical necessity or chance. Therefore, we ought to prefer the hypothesis of design unless the design hypothesis can be shown to be just as implausible as its rivals. I’ll leave it up to you to dispute it.

    We’re the only known life out of at least a few hundred trillion planets. That seems pretty prohibitive to me.

    Why is the universe so big?

    http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectu.....rse-so-big

    Fine-Tuning For Life On Earth By Dr. Hugh Ross

    http://www.reasons.org/article.....-june-2004

    “The universe is too big, too old and too cruel”: three silly objections to cosmological fine-tuning (Part Two)

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-part-two/

  9. 9
    CHartsil says:

    I’m arguing that there’s no fine tuning in the first place.

    If there were 400 trillion mines and one had diamonds in it, you wouldn’t say those 400 trillion mines were collectively fine tuned for diamond mining.

  10. 10
    JimFit says:

    I’m arguing that there’s no fine tuning in the first place.

    Of course there is and even Atheists Scientists accept it.

    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.

    If there were 400 trillion mines and one had diamonds in it, you wouldn’t say those 400 trillion mines were collectively fine tuned for diamond mining.

    Please watch this video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDMpWcf4ee0

  11. 11
    CHartsil says:

    I’m an atheist scientist, I don’t accept it. You can say “If things were different, then things would have been different” all day long. They still weren’t, and there’s no reason they should have been.

    If there were millions of planets with intelligent life on them bombarding us with radio signals, would you consider the universe more or less fine tuned for life?

  12. 12
    tjguy says:

    Chartsil @ 10

    I’m arguing that there’s no fine tuning in the first place.

    Great hypothesis. Now go do an experiment and give us some hard concrete evidence to back it up.

    Yes, you can say that we would not be here if it is not fine tuned for life, but like Jim pointed out, that doesn’t automatically mean that our universe it happened by chance.

    There are other explanations that could just as easily explain the data – Intelligent Design being one of them.

    The only reason you reject that is because you are an atheist scientist and that explanation is outside the bounds of your worldview. You have arbitrarily limited yourself to totally natural explanations – by choice.

    And your commitment to your worldview forces you to believe in wildly amazing and miraculous things – like “It just happened by chance.”

    So, even though the universe is fit for life, you allow only one explanation for that – CHANCE.

    If you are happy believing in chance, then that’s your choice, but others of us have a more difficult ramping up our faith and chalking it all up to the god of Chance based on our experience.

    When it comes down to it, you simply do not want to see any evidence for intelligent design, so no matter what, you are happy, as an atheist scientist, to place your faith in Chance, because of course, no one can prove that it couldn’t happen.

    I’m always amazed at the double standard atheists use when dealing with miracles. They have no problem with miracles as long as God is not involved.

  13. 13
    CHartsil says:

    “Now go do an experiment and give us some hard concrete evidence to back it up.”

    I’m the skeptic here. All I’ve seen in favor of fine tuning is “If the universe were different, it would be different” and ppolish admitting that the universe will be considered to be fine tuned no matter what.

    “If you are happy believing in chance, then that’s your choice, but others of us have a more difficult ramping up our faith and chalking it all up to the god of Chance based on our experience.”

    You’re looking back over a series of events that, together, are highly unlikely and saying that it was impossible. Shuffle 1,024 decks of cards together then deal them out. Now calculate the odds of the order you just dealt. It’s more than mind blowing and you just did it.

    “I’m always amazed at the double standard atheists use when dealing with miracles.”

    Miracle? Life appeared once in an ocean of planets

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/CreationEvolutionDebate/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignOfficialPage/

  14. 14
    kairosfocus says:

    CH, the body of physics anchored in observation is there. You obviously just don’t like where the sensitivity analysis — a standard investigative procedure — points. KF

  15. 15
    CHartsil says:

    “You obviously just don’t like where the sensitivity analysis — a standard investigative procedure — points”

    >If things were different, they would be different.

    That’s all that’s been posted in defense of fine tuning thus far.

    How would one even go about falsifying the claim that the universe is fine tuned for life when it can be declared so because of one single planet that can support some life some of the time?

  16. 16
    Box says:

    CHartsil,

    suppose someone with amnesia wakes up in a spaceship. However he has no idea what a spaceship is or that there are situations other than being in a spaceship. One day he contemplates the question “why is the spaceship fine-tuned for my existence”?
    How much sense would it make if he comes up with the answer: “asking why is question begging, if it didn’t allow for life I simply wouldn’t know it in the first place” ; see #7.

  17. 17
    CHartsil says:

    The problem with your analogy being that spaceships ARE designed to support life and we know this through actually designing them. In fact, except for a few tragedies, most of the spaceships ever built have successfully supported life. So that’s a high percentage of vessels known to be designed to support life vs one planet speculated to be part of a universe designed to support life.

  18. 18
    Box says:

    CHartsil,

    the fact that a spaceship is designed is irrelevant to my point that the “I’m here ain’t I” answer doesn’t make sense.

  19. 19
    CHartsil says:

    It’s not irrelevant because you’re comparing a structure of known design to the universe which is speculated to be designed.

  20. 20
    Box says:

    CHartsil,

    it seems that we agree that “I’m here ain’t I” is no valid rebuttal to the fine-tuning of either spaceships nor universes.

  21. 21
    JimFit says:

    CHartsil okay there is no design, can you please prove me that something random DID occurred in this chain of events that leads to life to support that you are a random cosmic mistake without purpose? I mean, if the Universe wasn’t created and there wasn’t intention for life to unfold it was popped out of Nothingness, assembled itself through Randomness and we are here due to Luck, i don’t think Science works with Nothingness Randomness and Luck but with Determinism (cause and effect), if you are truly a scientist you should know that there is always a cause but you can’t have infinite past causes since the Universe began. A transcendent cause is needed and that transcendent cause is a Consciousness which we call God. I believe that our Consciousness is transcendent and that precedes Materialism (the Physical Universe) and i have reasons to believe that since now we have evidence from quantum physics that this happens. Even the Science you are doing demands a conscious observer that’s why i laugh when Atheists use the Minds of the Scientists to disprove a Mind that created the Universe, it is a paradox since every argument about the Universe needs a Mind to exist.

    Now remember, if you say that the Universe doesn’t need the God of the Gaps argument you are implying the Infinity of the Gaps argument, if you want the Universe to be Eternal then there is no way to understand it ever so it is hypocritical to say God is not a useful scenario but infinite causes are useful. At least with God the Universe has a purpose AND we can hope to understand it completely since God is not attached to the Physical world.

  22. 22
    ppolish says:

    “If there were 400 trillion mines and one had diamonds in it, you wouldn’t say those 400 trillion mines were collectively fine tuned for diamond mining”

    Heck yea that one mine is fine tuned for diamond mining. Incredibly fine tuned. But only 1 out of 400,000,000,000,000? yawn.

    Our live universe is 1 out of 400,000,000,000,000,000,
    000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
    000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
    000,000,000,000 plus plus dead ones. That is REALLY fine tuned.

    Only way to escape is on the crazy train to the Multiverse. Fine tuned crazy train btw.

  23. 23
    JimFit says:

    Multiverse Hypothesis doesn’t solve Fine Tuning, this article explains why

    http://sententias.org/2013/01/.....ne-tuning/

  24. 24
    ppolish says:

    “Far from doing away with a transcendent Creator, the multiverse theory actually injects that very concept at almost every level of its logical structure. Gods and worlds, creators and creatures, lie embedded in each other, forming an infinite regress in unbounded space.”

    From the NYTimes article linked below. Although Davies says scientists have long contemplated the multiverse, it really only kicked into high gear after 1998 – the year that the theoretical cosmological constant was actually observed in Nature. Oh boy.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04.....verse.html

  25. 25
    CHartsil says:

    “can you please prove me that something random DID occurred in this chain of events that leads to life to support that you are a random cosmic mistake without purpose?”

    Burden shifting

    “Heck yea that one mine is fine tuned for diamond mining. Incredibly fine tuned.”

    The argument isn’t that the one mine (planet) is fine tuned. The argument is that the collective of the mines (universe) is fine tuned for that one mine/planet. No word twisting or dodging, thanks.

  26. 26
    JimFit says:

    Burden shifting

    No its not since everything follows Determinism.

  27. 27
    CHartsil says:

    The claim was fine tuning, I expressed skepticism of fine tuning. It’s your burden to demonstrate it. That’s how it works.

  28. 28
    ppolish says:

    “The argument isn’t that the one mine (planet) is fine tuned. The argument is that the collective of the mines (universe) is fine tuned for that one mine/planet. No word twisting or dodging, thanks.”

    I thought your mines were universes not planets. It was not obvious what you were trying to suggest. But Science shows that a Universe with even one live planet has to be incredibly fine tuned. Do some homework.

  29. 29
    JimFit says:

    The claim was fine tuning, I expressed skepticism of fine tuning. It’s your burden to demonstrate it. That’s how it works.

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxi.....4647v1.pdf

  30. 30
    CHartsil says:

    “But Science shows that a Universe with even one live planet has to be incredibly fine tuned. Do some homework.”

    What science? There’s no remotely logical person who would think that because one planet has life on it, the universe is fine tuned for life.

  31. 31
    ppolish says:

    CH, watch this quick vid by much respected Atheist Physicist Susskind;
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....ata_player
    Fine Tuning is real, and it’s spectacular;$

  32. 32
    CHartsil says:

    Fine tuning remains specious assertion. A driveway with a plant growing in a crack wasn’t fine tuned for that plant to grow there. We were produced by the universe so it appears as if it was designed for us.

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter

  33. 33
    kairosfocus says:

    CH:

    Kindly see here, and the onward linked, especially both Robin Collins and Luke Barnes:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....inference/

    The matter is not as you seem to imagine, even after being directed to where you can find out more.

    KF

    PS: Brazen dismissal may comfort you and your peers, but others looking on at the balance on the merits will for example listen to a Nobel-equivalent prize holding astrophysicist (and life-long agnostic) such as Sir Fred Hoyle:

    From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? . . . I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has “monkeyed” with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.[F. Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16.]

    . . . and draw the very plausible conclusion that you are indulging ideologically motivated selective hyperskepticism.

  34. 34
    CHartsil says:

    Appeal to authority.

    You’re still beating the dead horse of “The universe was designed for life because .000000000000001% of it can sustain life”

    “the very plausible conclusion that you are indulging ideologically motivated selective hyperskepticism.”

    Says the person with the motive of supporting a creator.

    See; Projection

  35. 35
    JimFit says:

    You’re still beating the dead horse of “The universe was designed for life because .000000000000001% of it can sustain life”

    If the Universe was smaller there would be no life because the universe had to contain sufficient matter to form galaxies and stars, without which life would not have appeared.

    Please debunk this paper about the Fine Tuning, militant atheist Victor Stenger failed to do it and it was his field of study.

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxi.....4647v1.pdf

  36. 36
    CHartsil says:

    >If things were different they would be different.

    Yes we get it. You still have yet to give any reason as to why they should be different.

    That paper is a long drawn out version of the same thing. You’re still looking back on something that’s already happened and trying to apply odds to it.

  37. 37
    JimFit says:

    Yes we get it. You still have yet to give any reason as to why they should be different.

    That paper is a long drawn out version of the same thing. You’re still looking back on something that’s already happened and trying to apply odds to it.

    Not different, change the Hubble Constant and the Universe recollapses on itself, NO UNIVERSE AT ALL!

    It is true that, given the fact that we’re here and we’re alive, we should expect to observe a life-permitting universe. This is called the Anthropic Principle. But that expectation, and our observations which confirm it, do nothing to explain why the universe is life-permitting when it didn’t have to be. A life-prohibiting universe is vastly more probable than a life-permitting one, so why does a life-permitting universe exist? What is the best explanation? Is it chance, necessity, or design? Fine-tuning cries out for an explanation, but the anthropic principle is not the answer. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is helpful once more: “While trivially true, [the anthropic] principle has no explanatory power, and does not constitute a substantive alternative explanation.”

  38. 38
    drc466 says:

    CHartsil,

    I tried, and tried, but I just couldn’t let the “improbable events happen all the time” foolishness with the cards go unanswered.

    It is 100% true that ridiculously improbable events happen all the time – it is also 100% true that this fact is completely irrelevant to calculations of probability that a specific event (such as abiogenisis, or a fine-tuned universe, or planet, etc.) could have occurred.

    Your card deck examples suffers from two horrible flaws, that make it irrelevant:
    1) It only applies if all outcomes have equal value
    2) It denies the possibility of impossibility
    For example – the only probability that matters in your “deal cards from 1024 decks” is the probability that you will have an arrangement of cards from 1024 decks when you are done. Which probability is 100%. Because you don’t care what result you end up with – yes, the specific probability of what occurred is ridiculously improbably, but it is also meaningless.
    If you want to take your analogy to its absurd end – what is the probability that a specific grain of sand would end up in your shoe after a trip to the beach? or that you would open your eyes at the exact nanosecond that you did this morning? Or that all the atoms in the universe would occupy the exact position that they do at this exact point in time? All these have hugely improbable odds, and they are all exactly 0% pertinent to whether the universe is fine-tuned to a precise (specific) set of characteristics – because they aren’t being compared to a specific outcome, and they are all events that HAD to happen – all the atoms HAVE to occupy some position, if your eyes opened it HAD to happen at some point it time, if you get sand in your shoe it HAD to be some particular grain of sand. And none of those events relate to any specific type of outcome.

    To accept your premise that “because highly improbable events occur all the time, the fact that a specific highly improbably event occurred should not be surprising”, we would have to basically throw out the value of probability calculations altogether. What is the probability that a million people will all win the PowerBall lotto at the same time? Doesn’t matter – improbable events happen all the time! What is the probability that if I throw a deck of cards in the air, it will fall into a 7-tiered card-house? Doesn’t matter, improbable events happen all the time! Should I be suspicious if someone wins the maximum jackpot on 100-consecutive slot machine pulls in a row? Nope – improbable events happen all the time!

    Your analogy feels good to people who are ideologically committed to downplaying the relevance of probability calculations for specific events (e.g. Evolutionists), but has exactly no relevance and carries no weight with anyone who rationally considers the likelihood of specific events occurring. IOW – keep the card deck analogy in your pocket for when you’re preaching to the True-Believer Evolutionary choir, but don’t expect rational thinkers to take you seriously.

  39. 39
    CHartsil says:

    “Not different, change the Hubble Constant and the Universe recollapses on itself, NO UNIVERSE AT ALL!”

    >If it were different, it would be different. (Not existing is different)

    Still no justification behind it.

    drc

    1: No, it’s merely emphasizing that one possibility being highly unlikely doesn’t mean it can’t happen without intelligent input.

    2: Burden shifting. If you’re claiming it’s impossible that the universe could’ve turned out any other way then it’s your burden to show it.

    “Your analogy feels good to people who are ideologically committed to downplaying the relevance of probability calculations for specific events”

    Projection

  40. 40
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Guys your arguing with someone that denies that a man having a. Wrist so nde when he was times at having it with no functional brain beliefs that this isn’t good evidence for conscious awareness without a functioning brain.

    Chartsil is determined to believe what he wants despite the evidence. No different than what David Koresh and his branch davidians believed in Waco Texas .

    You can’t convince a dogmatic person no matter how good the evidence is . Some people have made up their minds no matter where the evidences leads .

    I’m sure glad doctor Antony Flew was more open minded than this .

  41. 41
    JimFit says:

    CHartsil i am starting to believe that you are a troll…

    If it were different, it would be different. (Not existing is different)

    non existent is not different, difference needs something to exist to consider it different from something else, nothingness cannot provide difference. My nothing is different from your nothing..see? It sounds stupid.

    Still no justification behind it.

    Stephen Hawking has calculated that if the rate of the universe’s expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller or bigger by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball…

    1: No, it’s merely emphasizing that one possibility being highly unlikely doesn’t mean it can’t happen without intelligent input.

    Your lottery machine must be created first to have probabilities on something physical, it can’t draw something from nothing but from something, this something began to exist therefor the Lottery Machine began to exist also.

    2: Burden shifting. If you’re claiming it’s impossible that the universe could’ve turned out any other way then it’s your burden to show it.

    The Universe couldn’t turn out differently if you change the Hubble Constant, some constants can be changed and have a different Universe but not the Hubble Constant.

    I“Your analogy feels good to people who are ideologically committed to downplaying the relevance of probability calculations for specific events”

    Projection

    Probabilities when we have absolute Nothingness? What are the probabilities for Nothing to create something?

  42. 42
    bornagain77 says:

    Psalm 119:89-91
    Your eternal word, O Lord, stands firm in heaven. Your faithfulness extends to every generation, as enduring as the earth you created. Your regulations remain true to this day, for everything serves your plans.

    Distant quasar spectrum reveals no sign of changes in mass ratio of proton and electron over 12 billion years – Feb 25, 2015
    Excerpt: A team of space researchers working with data from the VLT in Chile has found via measuring the spectrum of a distant quasar by analyzing absorption lines in a galaxy in front of it, that there was no measurable change in the mass ratio of protons and electrons over a span of 12 billion years.,,,
    Some theories suggest that dark energy, the mysterious force that has the universe continuing to expand, might be a field that evolves over time—if so, that might mean that some of the constants we take for granted, such as gravity, the speed of light, etc., might actually evolve as well. In this new effort, the researchers sought to test that idea by looking to see if the mass of protons or electrons (both of which are considered to be fundamental constants) and the ratio that describes their mass difference, changed over the course of billions of years.,,,
    Their measurements showed no deviation (with a precision of 10^–6) from the current constant, suggesting that the ratio has remained constant for at least 12 billon years. And this, the researchers claim, suggests that if dark energy is evolving, it has not done so over that time span.
    http://phys.org/news/2015-02-d.....-mass.html

    C. S. Lewis put it this way: “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-550404

  43. 43
    CHartsil says:

    40: What exactly did he know that was beyond human knowledge?

    41: Ditto. You just keep making the same assertion that things would be different with zero reasoning or justification behind it. You missed the point of the decks of cards, the point is odds.

    “Probabilities when we have absolute Nothingness? What are the probabilities for Nothing to create something?”

    If there was absolutely nothing, that’s a loaded question as there would then also be no law of causality.

  44. 44
    ppolish says:

    Great paper BA77! Evidence of the incredible fine tuning continues to be confirmed. “Dark Energy” is the PC way to describe the baddest bad boy of fine tuning – the Cosmological Constant. Many are hoping to see the Cosmological Constant “evolve” ie change over time. Nope, this evidence, like all other measurements, reveal it as a constant. An awesomely fine tuned constant. Fine tuned to one hundred plus decimal place since forever:)

  45. 45
    CHartsil says:

    ppolish are you still honestly under the impression that 1 planet out of 400 trillion containing life = the universe being fine tuned for life?

  46. 46
    ppolish says:

    Mountains of evidence, CH, mountains of evidence.

    The paper BA77 just linked to shows a great experiment meant to test fine tuning. If they showed that “dark energy” had changed – it would have been major headline news. “COSMO CONSTANT NOT FINE TUNED – IT EVOLVED!!”

    But nope, just another science paper confirming the awesome fine tuning. Boo Hiss,

  47. 47
    CHartsil says:

    >There’s a 40 billion ton mountain containing .0001oz of gold. It’s clearly fine tuned for gold mining

    >I’m on Let’s Make A Deal and 1 out of these 400 trillion doors has a car behind it. This was clearly fine tuned for me to win a car

    >One planet in a galaxy of billions of planets in a universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies harbors life. It was clearly fine tuned for life.

    Understand now?

  48. 48
    ppolish says:

    CH. imagine not just 400 trillion doors but 400 trillion raised to 400 trillion. And I pick the one door with the car. That is not luck. Do YOU understand now? Don’t feel stupid if you don’t understand. Brightest Cosmologists and Physicists are stumped too:)

  49. 49
    ppolish says:

    CH, it may help you understand how fine tuned the Universe is for life if you imagine lots of other life in the Universe. The fine tuning maths are the same regardless of the quantity of life, but it may help you grasp the fine tuning “problem” science is struggling with if you imagine lots of life.

  50. 50
    CHartsil says:

    “CH, it may help you understand how fine tuned the Universe is for life if you imagine lots of other life in the Universe.”

    >Having to imagine lots of other life.

    >There not actually being lots of other life.

  51. 51
    ppolish says:

    CH, the fine tuning for life was there even before life was there. Even if Earth life is the only life – that does not affect the fact of fine tuning for life. There are virtually infinite ways to have a lifeless universe. But only an incredibly fine tuned one to have life, any life. You can ignore/deny, but science certainly isn’t. It has them stumped. Proposing Multiverse. What else can they do? Not ignore/deny lol.

  52. 52
    CHartsil says:

    Did you ever consider it’s not there at all considering the conspicuous absence of life?

    You seem to have an attachment to fine tuning.

  53. 53
    ppolish says:

    I like Science, CH. Fine tuning is a current dilemma in Cosmology/Physics, and Design in Nature is a hot topic in Biology/GeoPhysics/ Chemistry etc. Cool stuff on UD;)

Leave a Reply