Aethelwulf Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 Just to add ...''we have no idea if this universe is the only way a universe can develop or not...'' It's not the only way a universe can develop... damn, according to the rules of quantum mechanics, you could have possibly an infinite amount of bizarre universes- that's not the argument, the argument is, how tuned this universe is to have actually came about. Why this universe for instance, out of an infinity of possible start-up conditions? There are actually many ''parameters'' we can take into consideration, like when the inflationary phase began in this universe which also has a fine tuning problem in physics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 ''Are we going there again Aethelwulf?'' Yea, why not :) Well mainly you can't back up your assertion any better than the OP, you and everyone else is welcome to their beliefs but to assert your belief is intrinsically any better than anyone else's is not supportable... ''There is simply no way you can assert this, we have no idea if this universe is the only way a universe can develop or not... '' Well that's simply not true. Many scientists have calculated and also realize that if you change any number of physical constants in the universe, the universe would be drastically different than it is today. yes, I understand, if things were different.... things would be different... and we would not be here but can you say that no other universe can develope life in some other way we can't conceive of becasue that universe is... different The fact that we are here is very poor evidence for any tuning fine or otherwise... ''Again no, as far as we know the universe might be left behind by a vast being that eats dark matter and excrete universes. You cannot make such an assertion and back it up and you know it.'' I just don't think it is unreasonable to think there is a type of intellect behind everything. It does not even need to be sentient - just a type of information which we may come to call God. Certainly in my view, I believe God to be a completely natural manifestation of the universe, perhaps the universe itself. yes and that is your view, and your view is just as valid as the OP, you cannot positively assert your view on this with out evidence any more than I or the OP can. ''Appeal from authority Aethelwulf... really? '' But why not though? The topic of God is not an easy one for even the best of people to digest and I certainly don't want to come across as if I have no brain because I simply believe it is possible. Naming Einstein and Carl just let's the audience know, even the bosses of our sciences believed it. Please google appeal from authority and get back to me on why is it a very weak position... Just to add ...''we have no idea if this universe is the only way a universe can develop or not...'' It's not the only way a universe can develop... damn, according to the rules of quantum mechanics, you could have possibly an infinite amount of bizarre universes- that's not the argument, the argument is, how tuned this universe is to have actually came about. Why this universe for instance, out of an infinity of possible start-up conditions? There are actually many ''parameters'' we can take into consideration, like when the inflationary phase began in this universe which also has a fine tuning problem in physics. Yes and again it is only evidence that these things turned out the way they did, not a reason why they did and the idea that these things were fined tuned for life or us is flawed.. If things were different... things would be different and maybe some other type of life would be staring out at a completely different cosmos we cannot conceive of and thinking, WOW! the universe had to be made just for us... hypervalent_iodine and JMJones0424 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 You like to remove any important meaning to the discussion of ''how things could have been different, if only slightly changed'' --- ''If things were different... things would be different and maybe some other type of life would be staring out at a completely different cosmos we cannot conceive of and thinking, WOW! the universe had to be made just for us... '' But in my eyes it's not as clean cut as that. If things where different, true, we would not be here to conceive it, but the inconceivable happened... unless we are you. In which case, we can all be boastful and not care that the universe actually has tremendous odds for it's own creation and the things happening inside it. Who care's right? ... If it happened it happened, what's the point of even speculating. That's your attitude. It's clumsy. It's like as if, you are expecting those who have made these calculations on the unlikely nature of existence to just drop what they are doing, simply because .... you don't like to question things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) Oh and by the way... when I said different universes, a lot of these universes wouldn't have even been able to form life. Heck, a great deal of them would have collapsed long before any life could even form. Many of them are too damn bizarre to even allow complex organic life. Edited July 18, 2012 by Aethelwulf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 You like to remove any important meaning to the discussion of ''how things could have been different, if only slightly changed'' --- ''If things were different... things would be different and maybe some other type of life would be staring out at a completely different cosmos we cannot conceive of and thinking, WOW! the universe had to be made just for us... '' There is no importance to the idea of "if things were different" it's pure speculation, nothing more... But in my eyes it's not as clean cut as that. If things where different, true, we would not be here to conceive it, but the inconceivable happened... unless we are you. In which case, we can all be boastful and not care that the universe actually has tremendous odds for it's own creation and the things happening inside it. Who care's right? ... If it happened it happened, what's the point of even speculating. What is the point of asserting something as evidence of a god when it's just speculation? All you want to do is add another layer of complexity that answers no questions what so ever... That's your attitude. It's clumsy. It's like as if, you are expecting those who have made these calculations on the unlikely nature of existence to just drop what they are doing, simply because .... you don't like to question things. Quite the contrary, i question everything, no one said anything about dropping what they are doing but asserting this type of speculation as somehow evidence for a god is just... speculation... Oh and by the way... when I said different universes, a lot of these universes wouldn't have even been able to form life. Heck, a great deal of them would have collapsed long before any life could even form. Many of them are too damn bizarre to even allow complex organic life. Almost certainly, but again to endorse the concept of god by saying "if things were different" is not anything but... speculation... it is not evidence... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) ''There is no importance to the idea of "if things were different" it's pure speculation, nothing more... '' Sure,for the most part, you can speculate on different conditions the universe could have arose in. But this only adds to the point, because we have to speculate on those conditions because we are here. Not speculating these conditions, is lazy. And in a sense, is crazy not to realize how statistically improbable this single universe is. Going about with an attitude of ''it simply is'' is not just boring, but a bit arrogant. ''What is the point of asserting something as evidence of a god when it's just speculation? All you want to do is add another layer of complexity that answers no questions what so ever...'' Maybe you missed my Carl Sagan quote. He states, that if God exists, and it was nature itself, then it would be crazy to deny it. I call you out either crazy or simply not willing to read my version of God. I had this problem before, concerning posters who did not read what I said carefully enough. ''Quite the contrary, i question everything, no one said anything about dropping what they are doing but asserting this type of speculation as somehow evidence for a god is just... speculation...'' Again, Carl said it was not speculatory, indeed, it would be insane to deny quantum mechanics if this is what we call God. ''Almost certainly, but again to endorse the concept of god by saying "if things were different" is not anything but... speculation... it is not evidence.'' It's not speculation. Based on the physical laws we know today, we know many of these universes would have been incapable for life. Using the speculation card only works when you have no evidence. We have evidence, we live in this entire universe which is evidence enough that some lucky turn of the dice brought it about. Edited July 18, 2012 by Aethelwulf Turtle 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 ''There is no importance to the idea of "if things were different" it's pure speculation, nothing more... '' Sure,for the most part, you can speculate on different conditions the universe could have arose in. But this only adds to the point, because we have to speculate on those conditions because we are here. Not speculating these conditions, is lazy. And in a sense, is crazy not to realize how statistically improbable this single universe is. Going about with an attitude of ''it simply is'' is not just boring, but a bit arrogant. ''What is the point of asserting something as evidence of a god when it's just speculation? All you want to do is add another layer of complexity that answers no questions what so ever...'' Maybe you missed my Carl Sagan quote. He states, that if God exists, and it was nature itself, then it would be crazy to deny it. I call you out either crazy or simply not willing to read my version of God. I had this problem before, concerning posters who did not read what I said carefully enough. ''Quite the contrary, i question everything, no one said anything about dropping what they are doing but asserting this type of speculation as somehow evidence for a god is just... speculation...'' Again, Carl said it was not speculatory, indeed, it would be insane to deny quantum mechanics if this is what we call God. ''Almost certainly, but again to endorse the concept of god by saying "if things were different" is not anything but... speculation... it is not evidence.'' It's not speculation. Based on the physical laws we know today, we know many of these universes would have been incapable for life. Using the speculation card only works when you have no evidence. We have evidence, we live in this entire universe which is evidence enough that some lucky turn of the dice brought it about. Aethelwulf, are you aware that the fine tuning argument is old and has been repeatedly kicked to the way side? The entire universe is evidence of god? How so, how is this any different than a theist saying the existence of the earth and complex ecosystem is evidence of god? Seriously dude, you can believe what you want, you can have any opinion you want but you cannot have your own facts... Fine tuning is not evidence of a god, we don't eve know if a universe can be any way but the way ours is. you cannot assert that the universe could have been another way, you can only say that if it was different it would be different... Speculate all you want but you cannot use speculation as evidence of anything much less a god... And while I admire Sagan quite a bit his speculations are no better than anyone else's along these lines... an appeal to authority is not evidence either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Aethelwulf, are you aware that the fine tuning argument is old and has been repeatedly kicked to the way side? The entire universe is evidence of god? How so, how is this any different than a theist saying the existence of the earth and complex ecosystem is evidence of god? Seriously dude, you can believe what you want, you can have any opinion you want but you cannot have your own facts... Fine tuning is not evidence of a god, we don't eve know if a universe can be any way but the way ours is. you cannot assert that the universe could have been another way, you can only say that if it was different it would be different... Speculate all you want but you cannot use speculation as evidence of anything much less a god... And while I admire Sagan quite a bit his speculations are no better than anyone else's along these lines... an appeal to authority is not evidence either... Most of the fine tuning theorists look in the wrong place and are often supported by devout christians trying to prove God. A good example is the complexity of an eye-argument. Today of course, most scientists generally agree that an eye can come about by natural processes. The things I am talking about, are really about quantum mechanics. Like the question of how a universe simply... appears from a pool of an infinite amount of start-up conditions. There is no consensus today by scientists on how to answer this question, but that doesn't mean there hasn't been attempts (The parallel universe theory was used to try and ''get around'' the problem of how this universe seems unique - that is, an infinite amount of possible universes did come about and took away any special meaning). It's a real question which posits a strange reality, because when we think about the chances they truly are staggering. Now you can call it a type of fine-tuning all you want. There are other types of fine tuning that are taken to be real today in the context of physics, one of them I have already mentioned, which is the inflation fine tuning. In fact, Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". And certainly, an appeal to authority may be looked upon with disgrace (it's not something I do often) but Moon, I explained why I did it. I am certainly not stupid, I have a brain. Just there could be a stigma when someone reads this and go.. ''oh look, there is another fine tuning theorist who thinks he knows what he is talking about.'' Well, actually, in the context of my history on the subject I do and if I have to name a few famous people who believed that there was some kind of superintelligence in the universe, then sure, I will name them. ... so at the heard of it, I am a quantum mechanical fine tuning follower... not really one of these who looks at the complexity of life and goes ''Oh gee whiz!!'' Just keep in mind that there are several fine tuning arguments that make the conditions of this universe just so and that physicists today generally agree on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) Aethelwulf, are you aware that the fine tuning argument is old and has been repeatedly kicked to the way side? I'd like to say, on the whole, this statement is utterly false and misleading and no one should take it seriously. Quantum mechanics, as explained has several fine tuning arguments that no one has ''kicked to the side''. They are considered REAL problems in the context of modern theoretical fundamental sciences. Edited July 18, 2012 by Aethelwulf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 I should say, that Paul had a little more to add... I should mention it because it is important: "...the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 I should say, that Paul had a little more to add... I should mention it because it is important: "...the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires". I don't care what Paul has to say if it's not evidence... Aethelwulf, i do understand that if the universe and it's constants and or other details were a tiny bit off we would not be here. I understand that if the Earth hadn't collided with a Mars sized body we wouldn't have the Moon to stabilize our planet's tilt and boil away excess water the Earth might have ended up a mini Neptune and not Earth like at all... I understand these concepts... What i am questioning is your assertion that these fine tuning parameters is positive evidence for a god, no matter what you call it a universe wide hyper intelligence is not supported by the "if things were different... they would be different" argument... Can you support the god concept you are pushing with anything other than if things were different they would be different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 I don't care what Paul has to say if it's not evidence... I don't think you understand, these are not ''whimsicle'' claims. This is the best kind of evidence you are being offered - this is quantum mechanics. I understand you don't want to hear it, but not doing so just tells me your mentality on the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 ...Based on the physical laws we know today, we know many of these universes would have been incapable for life. life as we know it. what we don't know is, as what we don't know does. Using the speculation card only works when you have no evidence. We have evidence, we live in this entire universe which is evidence enough that some lucky turn of the dice brought it about. I offer the modest proposal that our Universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time. ~ Alan Guth Moontanman 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 I don't think you understand, these are not ''whimsicle'' claims. This is the best kind of evidence you are being offered - this is quantum mechanics. I understand you don't want to hear it, but not doing so just tells me your mentality on the subject. Please don't be insulting Aethelwulf, it's not tolerated here either... I am not questioning that the universe appears to be fine tuned I am questioning your assertion that god did it... If you cannot support the assertion that god did it with anything more than "If things were different... things would be different" argument then you need to back away and say it's your opinion or belief... asserting it as evidence is just not supported by your argument... I think you are taking the authority quotes out of context and assigning meaning to them the actual speakers do not share with you. But it doesn't matter because what someone else believes is not evidence... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 The things I am talking about, are really about quantum mechanics. Like the question of how a universe simply... appears from a pool of an infinite amount of start-up conditions.How the universe appears from a pool of possibilities is not the same as why this particle realm of possibilities rather than any other. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the sense of wonder one can get if you sit back for a moment and think how remarkably different things would be if even the simplest of physical constants were just slightly different. Ultimately, however, I think it's important to keep one thing in mind. Given an infinite amount of time for universes to arise and given a finite amount of time necessary for a universe to evolve, not only is this particular flavor of universe inevitable, but it is inevitable that a universe exactly like this one arise an infinite number of times. Of course it's a whimsical argument. I find the fact that the universe is "finely tuned" just slightly more remarkable as the fact that I happen to have been born on my birthday. And not just on my birthday, but I was born EXACTLY at the time and date written on my birth certificate. Aethelwulf and Moontanman 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Of course it's a whimsical argument. I find the fact that the universe is "finely tuned" just slightly more remarkable as the fact that I happen to have been born on my birthday. And not just on my birthday, but I was born EXACTLY at the time and date written on my birth certificate. Indeed, the fine tuning argument doesn't work for much of anything that is totally random, but will there ever be another JMJones? Or Moontanman? At least I have a song... I'm immortal :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 life as we know it. what we don't know is, as what we don't know does. I offer the modest proposal that our Universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time. ~ Alan Guth Life seems to be pretty much carbon-based. True, there might be life with other elements involved - but we are not just inferring on the chemical makeup of the universe - we are also talking about the very nature of how this universe arose from an infinite amount of states dictated by the wave function [math]\psi[/math]. As for Alan Guth's explanation, I have explained saying the universe simply is without any special meaning is boring and does not give even an ounce of importance to otherwise, well-known statistical elements surrounding this universes creation. Also, we know today in modern cosmology, the universes creation is a lot more complicated than it ''simply being''. It involves potentials as well, the kind I have been elaborating on for a while now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.