Fine Tuned For Life? Surely not! Off Topic? Definitely!

sbsquarepants

nagirrac wrote: »

Fine tuning refers to the fact that so many of the mathematical constants that define how the material universe emerged at the big bang appear to be set at just the right values to allow a universe where life can later emerge. Nothing more, nothing less. All of the research into string theory and multiverses is attempting to answer this fundamental question.

You're confusing cause and effect. The universe isn't finely tuned to allow life like us to emerge - how arrogant is that! We emerged because of environment, if it was different so would we be - if we were here at all.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In your post you say that the argument for fine tuning refers to the fact that the universe appears to be set up for life to emerge. Of course what you mean is life like ours. And life like ours is only special enough to be the point of the entire universe in religion.

If you look at it logically, we are basically lego - constructed out of the building blocks around us (hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and so on). In fact we are almost in the exact proportions that they appear in the cosmos. There is absolutely nothing strange or unique about us. Even the "huge range of diversity" we see on earth is far from it. Geneticaly we are 99% identical to chimpanzees, we are 70% identical to bananas! A lego house is 99% identical to a lego truck, it's just about how the blocks are arranged.
Life is just what happens if you have all this stuff floating about, crashing and mingling for a long enough period of time, in the correct temperature, sheilded from radiation and so on.
Look at the god damn size of the place, the sheer number of stars and correspondingly planets - it's bound to happen somewhere - i'd say it's happened in probably millions of places.

The Mad Hatter

"Look at this hole," said the puddle. "it's exactly the same size and shape as me. It must have been made just for me."

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

Good points, but why bring religion into it at all? Among astrophysicists the evidence for fine tuning at the beginning of the big bang is firmly established in much the same way as the theory of evolution is established among biologists. There will always be some dissenting opinion, but that is common in all scientific fields. You absolutely do not have to believe this is due to someone doing the tuning, the various multiverse hypotheses suggest ours happens to be the universe with these specific constants, but there may be an infinite number of other universes with different constants.

Even if you do not accept the multiverse approach there are many possible explanations for fine tuning. Our universe may have been created by an alien (to us) civilization from another universe for example. I suppose relative to our technological advancement we would call that civilization "God". We simply don't know how our universe came into being or why it is the way it is, so in my humble opinion any speculcation at this point is as good as any other.

I don't bring religion into it, fine tuning is inherently a religious argument. It has to be implying a tuner, otherwise it is a facetious, subjective (and therefore non scientific) argument about the appearance of the universe. You can't say the tuner is simply an alien of some sort, as the question will then move to how was the aliens universe or existence fine tuned for them. If their universe wasn't fine tuned then why does ours need to be?

You keep mentioning the multiverse as if that is an argument for fine tuning, even though it explicitly is not. The idea that there is an infinite number of universes actually makes it certain that life will eventually come about. Put 1000 monkeys on 1000 typewriters for all time and you will eventually get hamlet, no fine tuning required.

I don't understand how string theory specifically relates to fine tuning?

Any chance you can reference any peer review (not a book) that supports the assertion that fine tuning is firmly established amongst astrophysicists? (Ie any peer review from said scientists)

HHobo

nagirrac wrote: »

If ever there was evidence needed regarding the the closed minded worldview of atheists, this thread is it.

The argument for fine tuning is firmly rooted in science, not in philosophy. Yes, there are scientists who argue that fine tuning is evidence for a creator (Bernard Haisch, The God Theory) and scientists who argue against fine tuning to defend their dogmatic atheist position (Victor Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine Tuning), but to jump on either side of that debate is missing the point.

The list of eminent scientists who accept the fine tuning argument is exhaustive: Rees (Just 6 numbers, the book on the subject), Deutsch, Davies, Carter, Smolin, Susskind, Hawking, Guth, Greene, Penrose, Barrow, Hamilton, Sandage, Tegmark, etc. etc. Roughly half these scientists are theists / deists and the other half agnostic athiests. What they all have in common is making no dogmatic claim on what conclusion we should draw from the evidence of fine tuning. The only scientist I am aware of who openly disputes the fine tuning argument is Stenger.

If you don't mind, I'll stay with the open minded fecking stupid crowd.. and of course be accused yet again of using arguments from authority by the same people who predictably wheel out Dawkins at every opportunity.

If you want to maintain an open mind on the subject of fine tuning then start by reading "Just 6 Numbers" by Martin Rees (an atheist) and work from there.

You seem to be operating under the mistaken impression that
scientist accepts idea = idea is scientific

This is not the case. The fine-tuning argument is embarrassingly poor and utterly human-centric. I have already explained why I think so.
I have yet to hear a sensible, let alone convincing arguement for the idea. It is possible for human life to develop in the universe in which human life developed....you don't say!! It might not be possible for human life to develop in a universe human life has not developed in.... no way, you gotta be kidding me!?

I'm not disputing that even the slightest change to the universal constants might well render all life impossible. I just think this fact is zero evidence for a designer. The powerful, stunning arrogance to think that if something is suitable for you, even perfectly suitable, that you must have been the intention.
There are many species on earth whose adaptation to their enviornment is highly specified. If you were to alter the eco-system even a little they would not have evolved as they are and could not survive. Does this seem to you then, even slightly, that their enviornment was designed with this species in mind?

I don't care if you are Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein or Issac Newton. If you find this argument convincing, I think you are not reasoning very well on it.

You suggest my view on this is close-minded. You owe me a new irony meter.

McG

nagirrac wrote: »

What we know from science is that the universe is very finely tuned, otherwise we could not exist.

That's crazy talk; the life we observe is tuned via evolution for the universe, not the other way around. Who's to say that if the universe was different that different life that we can't currently imagine would have emerged.
What a ridiculous argument!

HHobo

McG wrote: »

That's crazy talk; the life we observe is tuned via evolution for the universe, not the other way around. Who's to say that if the universe was different that different life that we can't currently imagine would have emerged.
What a ridiculous argument!

The argument deals with more funadamental properties of our universe. Like gravity and the forces that hold atoms together and so on. Changes to some of these constants can make even matter as we know it impossible. Essentially, there might not even be stuff that could evolve into anything.

That said, it is still a bad argument.

nagirrac

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You keep mentioning the multiverse as if that is an argument for fine tuning, even though it explicitly is not. The idea that there is an infinite number of universes actually makes it certain that life will eventually come about. Put 1000 monkeys on 1000 typewriters for all time and you will eventually get hamlet, no fine tuning required.

I don't understand how string theory specifically relates to fine tuning?

If fine tuning is a religious argument why would professed atheist scientists not just propose it and accept it but even go to the lengths of writing books about it? Martin Rees is an atheist and yet has written the most comprehensive book on the subject.

If you actually read my posts you would see I have never made such an argument. The multiverse hypothesis provide an alternative to fine tuning, in exactly the way you describe, eventually you get the right set of parameters for a universe like ours.

String theory is not related to fine tuning, it is related to multiverses. String theory fails in a universe with 3 spatial dimensions, thus the need to expand the number of spatial dimensions which allow parallel universes. Unlike fine tuning there is no experimental evidence for multiple spatial dimensions beyond our known 3 and no evidence for parallel universes.

I am not accusing you of it but the majority of responses on this topic do not seem to grasp what fine tuning is. It has nothing to do with evolution, abiogenesis, the specific kind of life form in the universe, etc. It is solely related to the experimentally observed values of physical constants at the beginning of our universe. It is not an argument against life as we know it evolving based on the environment, in fact it supports it.

nagirrac

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Any chance you can reference any peer review (not a book) that supports the assertion that fine tuning is firmly established amongst astrophysicists? (Ie any peer review from said scientists)

This article by Luke Barnes is about the best article I have read that comprehensively covers the topic.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112/1112.4647v1.pdf

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

If fine tuning is a religious argument why would professed atheist scientists not just propose it and accept it but even go to the lengths of writing books about it? Martin Rees is an atheist and yet has written the most comprehensive book on the subject.

They don't, not the way you are presenting it. You are fundamentally misrepresenting these scientists.

The scientists you mention don't think the universe was actually fine tuned for a purpose. "Fine tuned" is a lay-man's term for the way the different properties of the universe work to form the universe we are currently in, rather than some other universe.

It's like saying "All scientists think there was a loud bang at the start of the universe" because you came across the "Big Bang" theory. :rolleyes:

Morbert

nagirrac, you are completely misrepresenting the scientific position on "fine tuning".

The constants the standard model that require "tuning" are empirical values set so that the model produces accurate predictions. They are not ontological statements about some metaphysical set of dials that are literally tuned.

The fine tuning argument, when it is presented in an intellectually honest way, amounts to the following: "Why does this life-permitting universe exist, as opposed to some other conceivable, but unrealised universe?" which is a more specific version of the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" The answer, of course, is that we don't know.

But this is where your side goes spectacularly wrong. You insist an explanation must be tendered for materialism to be a valid position, but have no answer to the equivalent question "Why is there a God, rather than nothing?"

See, at the most fundamental level, a self-contained explanation for the universe might simply not exist. The universe is not obliged to be something that can be fully understood, just as God would not be obliged to be something that can be fully understood.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

They don't, not the way you are presenting it. You are fundamentally misrepresenting these scientists.

The scientists you mention don't think the universe was actually fine tuned for a purpose. "Fine tuned" is a lay-man's term for the way the different properties of the universe work to form the universe we are currently in, rather than some other universe.

It's like saying "All scientists think there was a loud bang at the start of the universe" because you came across the "Big Bang" theory. :rolleyes:

Sorry, you are the one misrepresenting my position and frankly your analogy is typically sneering and condescending but at this stage I would not expect anything else from you.

If you go back to my post #10 I clearly say the majority of astrophysicists accept the fine tuning argument. I also identified a few scientists who use it as justification for their personal worldviews, Haisch (a theist) who argues for a creator conclusion and Stenger (an atheist) who argues that the fine tuning argument is a fallacy.

Maybe a good start is defining what the "fine tuning argument" is in scientific terms rather than lay man's terms. From the above article by Luke Barnes "The claim is that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits the evolution of intelligent life is very small". That is all the "fine tuning argument" says and the vast majority of astrophysicists, with the notable exception of Victor Stenger, accept this.

My initial mention of this topic was in response to the opening post on the original thread this thread sprang from where the poster defined themselves as "100% atheist". Given we do not know how our universe emerged and why it has the specific set of parameters it has, I do not accept that a 100% atheist position is credible. My personal worldview is independent from this observation, an observation which I believe even Dawkins would agree with.

Morbert

nagirrac wrote: »

Sorry, you are the one misrepresenting my position and frankly your analogy is typically sneering and condescending but at this stage I would not expect anything else from you.

If you go back to my post #10 I clearly say the majority of astrophysicists accept the fine tuning argument. I also identified a few scientists who use it as justification for their personal worldviews, Haisch (a theist) who argues for a creator conclusion and Stenger (an atheist) who argues that the fine tuning argument is a fallacy.

Maybe a good start is defining what the "fine tuning argument" is in scientific terms rather than lay man's terms. From the above article by Luke Barnes "The claim is that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits the evolution of intelligent life is very small". That is all the "fine tuning argument" says and the vast majority of astrophysicists, with the notable exception of Victor Stenger, accept this.

My initial mention of this topic was in response to the opening post on the original thread this thread sprang from where the poster defined themselves as "100% atheist". Given we do not know how our universe emerged and why it has the specific set of parameters it has, I do not accept that a 100% atheist position is credible. My personal worldview is independent from this observation, an observation which I believe even Dawkins would agree with.

Note that this is categorically distinct from the fine tuning argument as tendered as an argument against atheism, which claims a supernatural intelligence is required to fine tune the universe.

nagirrac

Morbert wrote: »

nagirrac, you are completely misrepresenting the scientific position on "fine tuning".

But this is where your side goes spectacularly wrong. You insist an explanation must be tendered for materialism to be a valid position, but have no answer to the equivalent question "Why is there a God, rather than nothing?"

If I am, I assure you it is not deliberate. I try and separate my personal beliefs from what science has established but on occasion they get muddled. I do think it is very healthy for scientists to speculate however.

I am not sure what you mean by "my side", perhaps you can elaborate?

If we do not know why the universe exists or how it came into being, how can one side of an discussion on the liklihood of a creator be "wrong" and the other side "right"?

nagirrac

Morbert wrote: »

Note that this is categorically distinct from the fine tuning argument as tendered as an argument against atheism, which claims a supernatural intelligence is required to fine tune the universe.

I agree, that is a philosophical argument, not a scientific argument.

Dades

^^ So do you accept that any "fine-tuning" as referenced by scientists (with the obvious exception of theistic scientists) is not a concept that should be hijacked by someone trying to show evidence for a creator outside of science?

Naz_st

nagirrac wrote: »

"The claim is that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits the evolution of intelligent life is very small"

Yes, but so what? I don't understand what this definition has to do with your original post that seemed to suggest that this above statement had some bearing on the God question?

I could rephrase your statement:

"The claim is that in the space of possible [configurations of DNA] the set that [makes me] is [of size 1]".

So? Does the almost impossible odds of my exact DNA existing mean I don't exist? Or that God does? Does it have any bearing on either question? I don't see how.

Morbert

nagirrac wrote: »

If I am, I assure you it is not deliberate. I try and separate my personal beliefs from what science has established but on occasion they get muddled. I do think it is very healthy for scientists to speculate however.

I am not sure what you mean by "my side", perhaps you can elaborate?

If we do not know why the universe exists or how it came into being, how can one side of an discussion on the liklihood of a creator be "wrong" and the other side "right"?

Just as I would argue against any inference of God from cosmology, I would similarly argue against any inference of atheism from cosmology.

nagirrac

Dades wrote: »

^^ So do you accept that any "fine-tuning" as referenced by scientists (with the obvious exception of theistic scientists) is not a concept that should be hijacked by someone trying to show evidence for a creator outside of science?

There are very few scientists who bring their religious views into their science, so not sure why you are excluding theistic scientists. Religious or deist views do not make people "good" or "bad" scientists, just as atheist views do not make people "good" or "bad" scientists.

In general terms I would agree with your point above, but for balance this also applies to Dawkins for example constantly hijacking science to make an argument for evidence against a creator. Furthermore he uses science to scorn religious beliefs when it has been demonstrated over and over in debates with leading theologians this is a subject area he is clueless on.

Fundamentally I do not like science being hijacked to defend or attack religious or spiritual beliefs and regard all hijacking as unfortunate and frankly a bit ignorant on both sides. The debate about God is a philosophical one not a scientific one, at least until we have some objective proof one way or another. I see no problem however using the fine tuning scientific argument or any scientific argument to demonstrate "philosophically" we do not know whether a creator exists or not, which is in essence what I was doing in my original post. That is an agnostic position.

nagirrac

Naz_st wrote: »

"The claim is that in the space of possible [configurations of DNA] the set that [makes me] is [of size 1]".

So? Does the almost impossible odds of my exact DNA existing mean I don't exist? Or that God does? Does it have any bearing on either question? I don't see how.

The fine tuning argument simply says that there is a very small set of physical parameters that allow life in our known universe to emerge and that is the set we have, however that came about.

You should know surely how you came about and why you have the DNA you have. It is not almost impossible odds, once your parents decided on a certain course of action, the odds of your exact DNA existing became quite high.

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

If fine tuning is a religious argument why would professed atheist scientists not just propose it and accept it but even go to the lengths of writing books about it? Martin Rees is an atheist and yet has written the most comprehensive book on the subject.

Zombrex responded to this point.

nagirrac wrote: »

If you actually read my posts you would see I have never made such an argument. The multiverse hypothesis provide an alternative to fine tuning, in exactly the way you describe, eventually you get the right set of parameters for a universe like ours.

So you are not suggesting the multiverse theory supports the argument for fine tuning? OK, this wasn't very clear, but thank you for clarifying.
What is your opinion on the multiverse theory then? Do you think it successfully contradicts the fine tuned argument?

nagirrac wrote: »

String theory is not related to fine tuning, it is related to multiverses. String theory fails in a universe with 3 spatial dimensions, thus the need to expand the number of spatial dimensions which allow parallel universes. Unlike fine tuning there is no experimental evidence for multiple spatial dimensions beyond our known 3 and no evidence for parallel universes.

There can be no evidence for fine tuning. Because, as you said, the argument is not for fine tuning its for the appearance of fine tuning. You can't present scientific evidence for something appearing to be something, (it would immediately and successfully countered by someone saying that that something appeared to be something else). You give scientific evidence for what something actually is.

nagirrac wrote: »

I am not accusing you of it but the majority of responses on this topic do not seem to grasp what fine tuning is. It has nothing to do with evolution, abiogenesis, the specific kind of life form in the universe, etc. It is solely related to the experimentally observed values of physical constants at the beginning of our universe. It is not an argument against life as we know it evolving based on the environment, in fact it supports it.

And that is a religious argument. Specifically pointing out that life (exactly like ours) will only arise with the universal constants we experience only matters if you assume life to be important (over anything else in the universe). But everything in the universe will only arise like it is with the universal constants there currently are. So why is life so special?

Besides, going by what is actually most abundant in this universe, if you are going to argue its fine tuned, then the only logical thing you can say it is fine tuned for is space/time itself.

nagirrac

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you are not suggesting the multiverse theory supports the argument for fine tuning? OK, this wasn't very clear, but thank you for clarifying.
What is your opinion on the multiverse theory then? Do you think it successfully contradicts the fine tuned argument?

In the article I posted earlier the conclusion of the author is that the universe is finely tuned for the existance of life (not a specific form of life). He goes on to speculate whether future developments in physics "would solve the problem of fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life, without the need for a multiverse". There is no conclusion reached there.

I agree with the author's conclusion as there is a wealth of supporting solid experimental evidence that is falsifiable to support it. I would enourage you if you have the time to read the article as it is a very good overview and cites every important paper published on the topic.

There is no supporting experimental evidence for string theory or the multiverse hypothesis at this time and neither can be falsified. So my conclusion has to be no, at this time I do not think the multiverse hypothesis contradicts the fine tuning argument.

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

"The claim is that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits the evolution of intelligent life is very small".

But you could equally say "The claim is that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits honey is very small". Why is life so special?

The true, non religious claim is:
"that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits our specific universe is very small".
But even if the set that permits our specific universe is unique, does that actually mean anything? No two rain drops will ever fall along the exact same path, rotate the exact same way, strike the ground with the exact same force, does this make any individual raindrop special?

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

If we do not know why the universe exists or how it came into being, how can one side of an discussion on the liklihood of a creator be "wrong" and the other side "right"?

Well one side of such an argument (no one knows the right answer) can be shown to be wrong (fallacious reasoning) but that wouldn't make the other side right (that would be a false dichotomy).

nagirrac

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But you could equally say "The claim is that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits honey is very small". Why is life so special?

The true, non religious claim is:
"that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits our specific universe is very small".
But even if the set that permits our specific universe is unique, does that actually mean anything? No two rain drops will ever fall along the exact same path, rotate the exact same way, strike the ground with the exact same force, does this make any individual raindrop special?

Read the article and we can discuss further, I am not getting into a philosophical discussion on the relative merits of raindrops or life.

The scientific (not religious) claim is: "in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits intelligent life is small".

The conclusion of the author after an exhaustive review of the literature and a thorough refutation of Stenger's falsification of the fine tuning argument is: "We conclude that that the universe is fine tuned for the existance of life". Because (I assume) sufficient evidence is not there, he does not conclude that the universe is fine tuned for intelligent life.

I would imagine most people would say life is special and intelligent life is even more special

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

In the article I posted earlier the conclusion of the author is that the universe is finely tuned for the existance of life (not a specific form of life). He goes on to speculate whether future developments in physics "would solve the problem of fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life, without the need for a multiverse". There is no conclusion reached there.

Why does the argument go from only fine tuned for life (non specific) but then to intelligent life (ie specific)?

The author says in the conclusion (pg 63):
"Anthropic coincidences, on the other hand, involve a happy consonance between a physical quantity and the requirements of complex, embodied intelligent life. The anthropic coincidences are so arresting because we are accustomed to thinking of physical laws and initial conditions as being unconcerned with how things turn out.".
This seems very similar to the intelligent design argument that human life is too complex to arise naturally, that it had to be designed, as it implies the importance of complex intelligent to physical laws and initial conditions. Even if it turned out that there is only one possible, but random universe and our permutation of constants and conditions was the one to arise, why would that assume that those constants and conditions were concerned with how things turned out?

The article also contradicts your earlier statement that the fine tuned argument is only about the appearance of fine tuning. In the conclusion (Pg 63) the author says :"We conclude that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life".

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

Read the article and we can discuss further, I am not getting into a philosophical discussion on the relative merits of raindrops or life.

It is not a philosophical discussion, its a scientific discussion. Scientifically, life is just a set of physical properties, no more special than nuclear fusion* so why would a scientific astrophysical argument centre on it?

* If anything, given that stars outnumber humans by about 30,000,000,000,000 to 1, nuclear fusion should be considered far more special than life, if you are going to talk about the universe being fine tuned for anything.

nagirrac wrote: »

I would imagine most people would say life is special and intelligent life is even more special

"Special" is a subjective human notion, so saying that humans consider themselves special is pretty irrelevant.

nagirrac

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why does the argument go from only fine tuned for life (non specific) but then to intelligent life (ie specific)?

The article also contradicts your earlier statement that the fine tuned argument is only about the appearance of fine tuning. In the conclusion (Pg 63) the author says :"We conclude that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life".

I accept my prior use of the word assume may be misleading. However, the distinction is what kind of life are we referring to.

again, the claim of the fine tuning argument is that fine tuning leads to intelligent life or "life as we know it". I would say "appears" to lead to intelligent life or "life as we know it" (my words, not the article).

"Life as we know it" is the only life we are aware of, so while fine tuning could have (and perhaps has) led to a variety of life in the universe, we only know our form of life emerged.

The fine tuning argument can logically be used to argue for the existance or for the non existance of a creator. It is used a lot by theists which I imagine is why there is such resistance from atheists to the argument.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

The fine tuning argument can logically be used to argue for the existance or for the non existance of a creator.

Can you clarify your use of the word "logically" there, since in regular logic, it's not possible to use the same facts to support opposite conclusions.

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

Can you clarify your use of the word "logically" there, since in regular logic, it's not possible to use the same facts to support opposite conclusions.

I suppose on the surface it does seem to violate the law of non-contradiction, what do you think yourself?

Theist: The universe is fine tuned for life so therefore it must have been fine tuned by some intelligent entity, that entity must be God.

Atheist: Although the universe is fine tuned for life, it is due to a natural process and requires no designer.

I don't think its a cortradiction as one case is arguing for a God cause and the other for a natural cause.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

Theist: The universe is fine tuned for life so therefore it must have been fine tuned by some intelligent entity, that entity must be God.

Atheist: Although the universe is fine tuned for life, it is due to a natural process and requires no designer.

Rephrasing these two items slightly:

Theist: (a) the universe is "fine tuned"; (b) "fine tuning" requires "an intelligence"; (c) this "intelligence" is the same deity as described in my holybook.
Atheist: (d) the universe is "fine tuned"; (e) "fine tuning" does not require "an intelligence".

I have no idea what you're trying to do here, since (a), (b) and (c) are unrelated factual claims and are not connected by logic; same for (d) and (e). And that's ignoring that (d) is a view which is not held by any atheists or scientists I know of.

Otherwise, well, recycling a post from a few years back:

Near the mid-Atlantic Ridge,
There's a hydrothermal vent,
With there lives a small amoeba
Who wondered what it meant.

He pondered all around him,
Surveying the wide, deep sea,
Then finally concluded,
"The whole lot's made for ME!".

Dades

nagirrac wrote: »

There are very few scientists who bring their religious views into their science, so not sure why you are excluding theistic scientists. Religious or deist views do not make people "good" or "bad" scientists, just as atheist views do not make people "good" or "bad" scientists.

Theistic scientists obviously believe there is a creator already so I don't think it's too unfair too assume their views on fine-tuning are somewhat fixed.

nagirrac wrote: »

In general terms I would agree with your point above, but for balance this also applies to Dawkins for example constantly hijacking science to make an argument for evidence against a creator. Furthermore he uses science to scorn religious beliefs when it has been demonstrated over and over in debates with leading theologians this is a subject area he is clueless on.

Dawkins only uses science to debunk things suggested in support of a creator. Science says nothing about a god or a creator, but religious people make claims that science will show to be simply untrue.

Regarding being clueless of theology... really? Leaving aside the fact hat he knows more about religion than the vast majority of *believers*, theology is not a subject that anyone outside of it feels they have to accept as anything but someone else's wordy nonsense. It's myth masqueraded as fact, disguised as debate.

nagirrac wrote: »

Fundamentally I do not like science being hijacked to defend or attack religious or spiritual beliefs and regard all hijacking as unfortunate and frankly a bit ignorant on both sides. The debate about God is a philosophical one not a scientific one, at least until we have some objective proof one way or another. I see no problem however using the fine tuning scientific argument or any scientific argument to demonstrate "philosophically" we do not know whether a creator exists or not, which is in essence what I was doing in my original post. That is an agnostic position.

Were you not the one to bring it up? Aren't you the one hijacking science?

Nobody knows, and ever claims to.

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

And that's ignoring that (d) is a view which is not held by any atheists or scientists I know of.

Perhaps its true of the atheists you know of, but the vast majority of astrophysicists accept that the universe is fine tuned for life with the notable exception of Victor Stenger who has been soundely rubbished in the article I posted earlier.

Read the article, there is no question the universe is fine tuned for life, the question is how that occured. It is an exhaustive review of the science relating to the fine tuning argument. If you don't have time to read the whole article at least read the introduction and conclusions (pages 62-63).

The rest of your post makes no sense to me, maybe its me. Why is it so hard to understand that the fine tuning of such a wide range of parameters (that could have any values) suggests either a designer or is a naturally occuring event?

nagirrac

Dades wrote: »

Theistic scientists obviously believe there is a creator already so I don't think it's too unfair too assume their views on fine-tuning are somewhat fixed.

OK, I give up.

If you could take off your atheist blinkers for a minute, no scientist worth his salt brings belief or disbelief in a supernatural entity into science. The proof of this is that the majority of the work done to demonstrate experimentally that the universe is fine tuned for life was done by atheists!

I did not hijack science in my opening post. I suggested to someone that described themselves as 100% atheist that their position may not have credibility, given how many open questions (fine tuning being one) there are regarding how and why the universe came into being in the fashion it did. Science may someday or may never answer these questions.

That is a purely agnostic statement and one that any agnostic athiest would understand and accept (even Dawkins with his 6.9 score), opposition to which suggests to me that much of the opposing opinion here, including your own, represents a dogmatic atheist worldview, on a forum where supposedly none exists.

If that gets me a ban, so be it.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

The rest of your post makes no sense to me, maybe its me.

I was going to try and break my last post down into even simpler pieces, but to be honest, after reading it again a few times, it's as simple as I can make it.

I'm assuming here, btw, that "fine-tuned" means "fine-tuned-for-us", the same sense that the term is used by the religious. It is not used in that sense by that small number of careless physicists who misuse semi-religious terminology to make a lously point, poorly.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

If you could take off your atheist blinkers for a minute [...] represents a dogmatic atheist worldview [...]

When I warned you against using tediously predictable sleights yesterday, I was trying to help you move on from the desperately small set of tiresome cliches that most posters here would be embarrassed to produce once, let alone with the regularity you do.

At a certain stage, and it happens very early on, most posters actually feel rather embarrassed that some other poster will continue cliche'ing away and apparently cheerfully unaware of it.

Dades

nagirrac wrote: »

If that gets me a ban, so be it.

Eh? You'll need to try harder than that.

joseph brand

nagirrac wrote: »

Nothing constructive to offer then?
Sadly predictable that attacking the poster is perfectly acceptable on this forum so long as one agrees with the dogmatic atheist mindset.
Pathetic, and almost cult like, behavior.

Said he, with his tongue wedged firmly in his cheek.

I like you, you're funny.

joseph brand

oldrnwisr wrote: »

1. Time[/B]

So far we are 13.75+/-0.11 billion years into our current universe. Our current best guess for the timeframe for the end of this universe (heat death) is approximately 10^100 years. So when we consider the length of time during this period in which life is possible we can see that the universe can only sustain life for one thousand billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billionth of the total lifespan of the universe. That's hardly fine-tuned now is it?

2. Fundamental forces

To get back to my previous post, fine-tuning proponents always talk about adjusting parameters by "a few percent" and life being impossible. So what if we start scrapping parameters entirely.

Here for example is what happens if we scrap the weak nuclear force:

A universe without weak interactions



Now, how this happened is something like this:

1. A light sensitive patch of skin develops conferring an evolutionary advantage on the creature by allowing it to distinguish light from dark.
2. Through the process of selection, the light sensitive patch becomes a shallow depression in the skin, allowing for some basic directionality, allowing the creature to sense movement and possibly evade predators.
3. Next, the increased advantage gained by directionality is exploited and the depression becomes deeper and deeper until it becomes like a pinhole camera allowing for maximum information to be gained.
4. Next, the mucus produced by the cells accumulates due to the narrowed opening.
5. Then, the mucus hardens and forms a primitive lens which acts to concentrate the incoming light.
6. After this, the cells forming the interior surface of the eye become free to move relative to the surrounding tissue, allowing for an even greater field of vision.
7. Finally, the increasing use of movement of the eye leads to the development of muscle tissue around both the eye exterior and lens, putting both under control of the creature. We now have an eye similar to our own.

I didn't believe in a god, but now I do. He is both older AND wiser. I call you the 'Platinum Poster'.

Can't believe this is my first time reading about the development of the eye. Fascinating.

Tip for the OP: If your views are counter to 'oldrnwisr', give it up. Pour yourself a whiskey, have a smoke and lay back.

nagirrac

A theist, a deist and an atheist return from the pub and find their living room inhabited by a clock, a device they have never encountered before. They eagerly take the cover off and marvel at the inner workings.

Theist: Glory to God, proof at last of my Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah/Zeus

Deist: This was obviously designed by a very intelligent being, more intelligent than I am. I wonder how it works?

Atheist: Who left the fcuking window open. That was some wind that blew through the house and made this thing out of the siht that was lying on the floor.

nagirrac

joseph brand wrote: »

Tip for the OP: If your views are counter to 'oldrnwisr', give it up. Pour yourself a whiskey, have a smoke and lay back.

I am actually going for the smoke as I prefer that first and then move on to wine and then possibly (but probably) whiskey. It has been a long tiresome day on here trying to educate people.

I am a big admirer of oldrnwiser. He is a great poster, steeped in science. His speciality and primary interest is Evolutionary Biology which means he likely hates physics, especially those waffling astrophysicists. I am sure he will read the "fine tuned" article I posted earlier and give us some of his wisdom. Don't expect it to be as much of a slam dunk though as debating evolution with some of your other much loved cannon fodder.

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

I was going to try and break my last post down into even simpler pieces, but to be honest, after reading it again a few times, it's as simple as I can make it.

I'm assuming here, btw, that "fine-tuned" means "fine-tuned-for-us", the same sense that the term is used by the religious. It is not used in that sense by that small number of careless physicists who misuse semi-religious terminology to make a lously point, poorly.

It still makes no sense, see my clock joke / analogy..

No, "fine tuned" in the scientific context means physical constants fine tuned to a very specific set of parameters that allow carbon based life to emerge in our universe. Stop the anti religious ranting and read the article.

The problem for the anti "fine tuned" crowd is as more and more evidence accumulates showing how fine tuned the universe is, it blows bigger and bigger holes through string theory and the multiverse hypothesis. After 40 years and hundreds of millions of research $ later, the string theorists are like a drowning pack of rats clinging on to a sinking ship as they see their motherload heading for the rocks.

Trust me, string theory / M-theory / multiverses is a massive load of bollox. Something that can never be experimentally tested is not science.

Sarky

You're just repeating things that have been explained to you. "Fine tuned" does not mean what you think it means. The astrophysicists you think back you up are not actually backing you up. And around and around you go.

pauldla

TwoShedsJackson

nagirrac wrote: »

A theist, a deist and an atheist return from the pub and find their living room inhabited by a clock, a device they have never encountered before. They eagerly take the cover off and marvel at the inner workings.

Theist: Glory to God, proof at last of my Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah/Zeus

Deist: This was obviously designed by a very intelligent being, more intelligent than I am. I wonder how it works?

Atheist: Who left the fcuking window open. That was some wind that blew through the house and made this thing out of the siht that was lying on the floor.

This is just embarrassing.

I suppose the possibility that someone left the clock there never entered any of their heads?

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Maybe a good start is defining what the "fine tuning argument" is in scientific terms rather than lay man's terms. From the above article by Luke Barnes "The claim is that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits the evolution of intelligent life is very small". That is all the "fine tuning argument" says and the vast majority of astrophysicists, with the notable exception of Victor Stenger, accept this.

"Fine tuned" is not a scientific argument, and if that was "all" the fine tuning argument said then it would not be called the fine tuning argument. You ignore that the vast majority of scientists, particular Hawkings, are actually ridiculing the fine tuned argument when they reference it.

For example if you look at the odds of any particular number in the lottery coming up are tiny, but it would be a fool who thinks therefore that the lottery is some how fine tuned to produce that particular result. The lay person says clearly I was meant to win the lottery, where as the scientists (someone like Hawkings) says it might appear that way but lets try and understand the processes behind the lottery system so we can figure out what really happened.

Barnes, who has a fondness for really ridiculous arguments, claims like yourself that the fine tuning argument is just a rational observation of the universe divorced of any conclusions in relation to what created but then why call it "fine tuned". Unsurprisingly also like yourself, he eventually uses it to suppose that intelligent creation is a reasonable conclusion.

This is sneaking intelligent creation in by the back door, claiming that the concept has nothing to do with asserting a creator but then amazingly ending up at the conclusion. Of course the fallacy is the assumption that life was the end goal or purpose, rather than simply something that just happened in this universe because it could, not because anything wanted it to.

The dishonesty is quite spectacular.

TwoShedsJackson

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

This is just embarrassing.

I suppose the possibility that someone left the clock there never entered any of their heads?

Who stole the cookies from the cookie jar?
I DON'T KNOW SO IT MUST BE GOD

pauldla

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

This is just embarrassing.

Actually, it puts me in mind of another old joke.

A bear hunter was out in the woods one day, stalking his prey. Suddenly he feels a paw on his shoulder, and a voice growls “You’re up here bear hunting, aren’t you? I hate bear hunters, boy, and I’m going to teach you a lesson”. And with that, the bear rips down the hunters trousers and f*cks him up the ass. The bear hunter stumbles home, crying, having been violated in the most awful way possible.

He plots revenge.

So a few days later, he goes back into the woods, armed with his high velocity rifle. No bear will do that to him and get away with it. He carefully makes his way through the woods, laying out his traps for the bear, when he suddenly feels a paw on his shoulder. “You again? I thought I taught you your lesson last time, wee man. Seems I’ll have to teach you again.” So the bear rips off the hunter’s trousers, and rapes him up the ass yet again. The hunter stumbles home, tears in his eyes, sullied beyond belief and utterly humiliated. The shame, the pain, the mortification, is almost too much. Retribution shall be his!

So after a few days, he decides the time has come to visit a terrible revenge upon his tormentor. Nothing will do him but to extract a fitting retribution upon that awful bear: that bear’s head will soon hang on his wall. He builds his hideout, lays his traps, and settles down for a long wait. Vengeance shall be his!

Two days into his stakeout, he suddenly feels a paw yet again on his shoulder, and the all-too-familiar voice growls “You don’t come up here for the hunting, do you, laddie?”

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

I accept my prior use of the word assume may be misleading. However, the distinction is what kind of life are we referring to.

again, the claim of the fine tuning argument is that fine tuning leads to intelligent life or "life as we know it". I would say "appears" to lead to intelligent life or "life as we know it" (my words, not the article).

"Life as we know it" is the only life we are aware of, so while fine tuning could have (and perhaps has) led to a variety of life in the universe, we only know our form of life emerged.

The fine tuning argument can logically be used to argue for the existance or for the non existance of a creator. It is used a lot by theists which I imagine is why there is such resistance from atheists to the argument.

Again, why is life so important? A lot of my previous posts ask this question and you have completely ignored it. All the constants and conditions that we say were tuned to bring about life also were tuned to bring about everything else. Change those constants and conditions and its not just life that would disappear, everything would be effected (assumed anything could exist).

On a scientific scale, life (as we know it) is simply a physical process.
On an astrophysical scale the process of life is out sized by the process of nuclear fusion by a factor of 30,000,000,000,000 to 1.
You might as well find a single atom of deuterium in the sea and then assume the entire ocean was fine tuned to produce it.

If the sun let off a big enough fart all life on this planet would end. Life is nothing in the universe, a side reaction the size of an electron in a test tube the size of the milky way.

Sarky

To be pedantic, life is more a process that emerges from the interactions of thousands of simpler physical processes. I wouldn't call it directly physical in itself, which is perhaps why religious people get so protective and stupid about it, but it can pretty easily be traced back to the interactions of simpler processes.

I'm not sure that people making fine tuning arguments understand the difference between things and processes, really. It might remove an awful lot of confusion if they did.

Zombrex

Sarky wrote: »

To be pedantic, life is more a process that emerges from the interactions of thousands of simpler physical processes. I wouldn't call it directly physical in itself, which is perhaps why religious people get so protective and stupid about it, but it can pretty easily be traced back to the interactions of simpler processes.

I'm not sure that people making fine tuning arguments understand the difference between things and processes, really. It might remove an awful lot of confusion if they did.

Very true, we think of life as a thing that is made, rather than a weird thing that happens as just part of the way chemistry works.

Its like watching a house burning down and thinking "Clearly the purpose of this is to make fire", rather than thinking that the fire is simply a by product of the house burning down, which was probably not done to make fire in of itself.

But then the biggest issue with the fine tuning argument is think that life is some how important or special in an objective sense, rather than simply some interest process that happens when certain chemical laws are present.