The fine tuning of the Universe.

Xluna

Does it ever make you pause and give credence to the possibility of a deity? I know it's an intellectually lazy explanation but I can't help feel that the other explanations are just as lacking in evidence and even more "far out",the multiverse ect. Maybe I just hav'nt read enough. I don't know. What do you think?

Dades

As far as we know, the only place in this universe humans can survive is on this planet, roughly between 7,000 meters above and 1 cm below sea level.

Given the mind-shattering enormity of the universe, I'd hardly call it fine-tuned.

To my mind, anything capable of creating something of such size and complexity is far beyond what our minds could comprehend, much less label. Trying to do so is pure, well, theology.

Mark Hamill

Xluna wrote: »

Does it ever make you pause and give credence to the possibility of a deity? I know it's an intellectually lazy explanation but I can't help feel that the other explanations are just as lacking in evidence and even more "far out",the multiverse ect. Maybe I just hav'nt read enough. I don't know. What do you think?

No, not ever. Even aside from the fact that changing some of the universal constants we are under doesn't actually mean you wont end up with some sort of life that is suited to new constants (I believe there was a published paper to this effect, but I dont have it), the size and the relative lack of almost anything in the universe just doesn't point to it being designed by anything (least of all a deity who is subject only to its own whims). Sure you can point to the billions of galaxies in existence, but the sheer volume of empty space between them, the empty space in them (between the stars, the stars and their planets, planets and their moons), how do you explain that in terms of design?

stevejazzx

Xluna wrote: »

Does it ever make you pause and give credence to the possibility of a deity? I know it's an intellectually lazy explanation but I can't help feel that the other explanations are just as lacking in evidence and even more "far out",the multiverse ect. Maybe I just hav'nt read enough. I don't know. What do you think?

http://homepage.mac.com/mcolyvan/papers/finetuning.pdf

Fine tuning?
Most of the world is hot or too cold, didn't you see what just happened in Haiti? It appears the universe hangs with a particular balance of chemicals, elements & gases which allow us to sustain life but perhaps there are cycles where balance is achieved and then destruction. For us what is fined tuned now might be, for distant generations a blip on the wavelength of overall time, a fingernail shaving. Given billions of years states of rest become know as balance, it is too easy to get excited about them and call them destiny. Who knows what will happen in our solar system tomorrow? Complete destruction is never off the cards.

If that doesn't satisfy you read this. We have no way really of knowing exactly what the parameters for life are as judge the whole thing from a very restricted viewpoint i.e based on our understanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Xluna

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Sure you can point to the billions of galaxies in existence, but the sheer volume of empty space between them, the empty space in them (between the stars, the stars and their planets, planets and their moons), how do you explain that in terms of design?

Yeah it does seem a half assed design job when you think about it I suppose.

topper75

Then again, if it was a design we DID understand, now that wouldn't be much of a deity would it?

The twisted paradox is that there must be some element of mystery in the design, something beyond man's comprehension, if it holds true that creation is divine.

However, this doesn't really provide proof of an interventionist deity with man as its first concern. You need other reasoning for that.

Dades

topper75 wrote: »

The twisted paradox is that there must be some element of mystery in the design, something beyond man's comprehension, if it holds true that creation is divine.

Why so?

herbiemcc

It's true that it can be mind blowing to think of the wonders of the planet and universe. I can see how it's tempting to think it has to be divine - "it's too just so complicated and hangs together so perfectly that it can't be coincidence."

It also seems to be a kind of reverse logic. If you think you know the cause and then look at how everything is, then of course things are going to match up. The sea follows the shoreline. Because it has to. To me it's like saying god made the sea so that it just touches the shore - wow. That just seems wrong instinctively.

Or bringing good old probabilities into play like someone seeing a little bit of frozen water on a leaf. They say what are the chances that the water froze in just the right shape to balance on the leaf. It's a trillion to one. But conversely the water formed that way because the leaf is shaped that way. The only possible way it could balance there is if it gradually formed in the leaf shape otherwise it wouldn't exist to even be observed.

As humans it's hard to shift long ingrained ideas. We're all guilty of thinking things that we perhaps haven't investigated properly. Most rational people would admit that though and (edit: not) claim to know the 'absolute truth'.

For me if you assume unlikely things can happen and from simple imput, huge complexity can arise then things still seem to make sense (in a far more impressive way - knowing some details just blows your mind more).

To assume the old "God did it" is a crime against humanity.

pH

Xluna wrote: »

Does it ever make you pause and give credence to the possibility of a deity? I know it's an intellectually lazy explanation but I can't help feel that the other explanations are just as lacking in evidence and even more "far out",the multiverse ect. Maybe I just hav'nt read enough. I don't know. What do you think?

A serious question, what would a "non-fine-tuned" universe look like? What rules would you use to distinguish an fine-tuned from a non-tuned one? Anybody?

Goduznt Xzst

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puddle_thinking

--amadeus--

How have we got this far into a thread like this without Douglas Adams Puddle getting a mention??!

. . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

In order for us to have evolved to the point of saying "wow look how well the Universe is fine tuned to our needs" we need to be in a universe that suits us. If it was tuned differently then it would be a different type of life form saying "wow, look how well.. etc"

herbiemcc

I suppose it depends on your definition of fine tuned.

Some people think as it is now the universe is completely perfect and balanced in every way. That doesn't seem to be the case for example if you speed up to cosmic time scale and things are crashing and bashing around, imploding and exploding everywhere (including our own sun in a while).

Others could think that's it's not fine tuned currently at all - some things happen to work together and others don't.

I suppose it's a slight catch 22 situation. For something to exist/form at all it must conform to the present conditions it finds itself in. Things that don't never exist. I suppose you could say that "history is written by the winners".

The universe appears to have some order and balance but as has been said before if it is a design, it is not a great one.

Zombrex

Xluna wrote: »

Does it ever make you pause and give credence to the possibility of a deity? I know it's an intellectually lazy explanation but I can't help feel that the other explanations are just as lacking in evidence and even more "far out",the multiverse ect. Maybe I just hav'nt read enough. I don't know. What do you think?

I regularly take time out and give credence to the idea that how I feel the universe should be like means jack sh*t to how it is

I think the more people who do this the better

Antbert

No. If this is all we know, then how do we even know it's fine tuned? We've nothing to compare it against. If there were super amazing butterflies to compare against our standard pretty symmetrical ones, maybe we wouldn't think it was all so perfect.

Anyway, I have never seen why 'god created it' is a better explanation than 'we don't really know'. If anything, that raises far more questions.

iUseVi

Interesting article in the paper edition of Scientific American this month about how you can actually make radical changes to constants and still come out with universes that could support life. You get mad universes that are missing things like certain isotopes of carbon and even some elementary particles but it does lend credence to the multi-verse hypothesis.

herbiemcc

I think that's just about the crux of the matter isn't it? To say we don't yet know isn't an admission of abject failure.

To fill that hole with a claim to know is insane. To make the most outrageously grandiose claims in the name of meek humbleness is laughable.

Trouble is them Godly folks ain't joking.

robindch

Antbert wrote: »

Anyway, I have never seen why 'god created it' is a better explanation than 'we don't really know'.

Because it appeals to the vanity of the believer?

Antbert wrote: »

If anything, that raises far more questions.

It does, but I've never seen them asked by religious people -- "god did it" announces the end of inquiry, not a step along the road.

Antbert

robindch wrote: »

Because it appeals to the vanity of the believer?

Well yes. But I've never personally seen the appeal of the explanation.

Turtwig

Complexity can arise from simple processes. The universe is not fine tuned for life; life fine tuned itself to the universe. Also, some of the "fine tuned" constants are believed to have changed over the course of universe's history.

Fine-tuned, intelligent design argument : load of shyte.

Antbert

Malty_T wrote: »

Complexity can arise from simple processes.

This could be the nerdiest thing I've posted on a forum:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set

It's a set that's defined by a mathematical formula and creates a pattern. And as you zoom in further and further it gets more and more complex. And makes pictures like on the Wiki page. Not massively relevant, but an example of complexity arising from a simple process. And I don't think God had much to do with the maths of it. Mandelbrot would probably be pissed off if he took the credit anyway.

Turtwig

Antbert wrote: »

This could be the nerdiest thing I've posted on a forum:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set

It's a set that's defined by a mathematical formula and creates a pattern. And as you zoom in further and further it gets more and more complex. And makes pictures like on the Wiki page. Not massively relevant, but an example of complexity arising from a simple process. And I don't think God had much to do with the maths of it. Mandelbrot would probably be pissed off if he took the credit anyway.

Proof at last! Atheists are nerds!
I think these videos illustrates it quite nicely.

Antbert

Delightfully nerdy! I especially like the chess one.

liamw

Malty_T wrote: »

The universe is not fine tuned for life; life fine tuned itself to the universe.

+1

1. Consider the amount of stars in the universe. The more there are, the more permuations of constants you get, the higher the probablility of at least one of those permutations sustaining life. The lottery analogy (playing it millions of times) illustrates this quite well.

2. As Malty mentioned, we tend to use reverse logic when approaching this apparent fine-tuning. Suppose we take another permutation of constants where life can also evolve. Again the process of evolution by natural selection will likely prevail BUT will most likely result in different lifeforms due to the environmental differences. If by chance a complex alien (to us) lifeform evolved they too could look back and think of the chances of the constants being so finely tuned just for them. This is like the Anthropic Principle.

3. If it was all fine tuned by an intelligent designer, he did a pretty crap job.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg

/thread

Dades

^^ That video was clearly created by Darwinist Nazis denying God's existence.

Skip to 4 minutes in it becomes obvious. :pac: