Aethelwulf 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. Then you clearly don't seem to be understanding the argument or the physics involved. Clearly, you being born on your birth date is not one of any kind of statistical significance, since there is a child born every minute on the Earth, nor are we compelled to think a universe jumps into existence every time a quantum action takes place in the Copenhagen Interpretation. If universes are indeed jumping into existence each time something happens, then by all means, you and I have a solution to this problem. But we don't know this and not many take parallel universes that seriously. A statistician will tell you there is nothing important with you being on your birth date, after all, someone had to. But when you are dealing with one universe which arose from an infinite amount of possibilities, that's when things are at odds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 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... I don't just appeal to authority, I have stood my ground and explained to you, this is not mere speculation as you like to wrap it up as. This is quantum physics, something you don't seem to be understanding. I have explained, without appealing to authority, there are several fine tuning arguments in quantum mechanics and cosmology which is recognized and taken seriously by mainstream... .. whereas you, who would like to deceive everyone into thinking they are antiquated and can be kicked to the side. Which is patently false. 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 just appeal to authority, I have stood my ground and explained to you, this is not mere speculation as you like to wrap it up as. This is quantum physics, something you don't seem to be understanding. No, I did not say that your figures are speculative, I do indeed understand that part of it, the assertion that is supports the concept of a god is what I call speculative.. I have explained, without appealing to authority, there are several fine tuning arguments in quantum mechanics and cosmology which is recognized and taken seriously by mainstream... Again, I do understand that but asserting the fine tuning argument as evidence of god is speculation... all it is evidence of is if things were different things would be different... .. whereas you, who would like to deceive everyone into thinking they are antiquated and can be kicked to the side. Which is patently false. They can indeed be kicked aside if you are offering them as evidence for god... the fine tuning is not evidence of fine tuning by a god or anything else any more than JMJones's birth can be evidence for god... My birth maybe :rolleyes: Are we failing to communicate here so badly that neither of us understand the other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Then you clearly don't seem to be understanding the argument or the physics involved. Clearly, you being born on your birth date is not one of any kind of statistical significance, since there is a child born every minute on the Earth, nor are we compelled to think a universe jumps into existence every time a quantum action takes place in the Copenhagen Interpretation. If universes are indeed jumping into existence each time something happens, then by all means, you and I have a solution to this problem. But we don't know this and not many take parallel universes that seriously. A statistician will tell you there is nothing important with you being on your birth date, after all, someone had to. But when you are dealing with one universe which arose from an infinite amount of possibilities, that's when things are at odds.I am glad you assign no particular statistical significance to the moment of my birth. Why then do you do assign statistical significance to the physical constants of this universe? Also, what does the Copenhagen Interpretation have to do with the fine tuning argument? The fine tuning argument sees a particular statistical significance to the fundamental constants of this universe, regardless of whether or not the Copenhagen Interpretation or the many worlds interpretation is relevant to this universe. Moontanman 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 No, I did not say that your figures are speculative, I do indeed understand that part of it, the assertion that is supports the concept of a god is what I call speculative.. Again, I do understand that but asserting the fine tuning argument as evidence of god is speculation... all it is evidence of is if things were different things would be different... They can indeed be kicked aside if you are offering them as evidence for god... the fine tuning is not evidence of fine tuning by a god or anything else any more than JMJones's birth can be evidence for god... My birth maybe :rolleyes: Are we failing to communicate here so badly that neither of us understand the other? But what is my definition of God... what is the definition of Einsteins God and Carls God? The way you make it sound, is that ''God'' is completely out of the question... but I have clearly demonstrated time and time again, God is what we call the physical laws of the universe. If you could understand this, then saying there is no evidence for God is folly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 I am glad you assign no particular statistical significance to the moment of my birth. Why then do you do assign statistical significance to the physical constants of this universe? Also, what does the Copenhagen Interpretation have to do with the fine tuning argument? The fine tuning argument sees a particular statistical significance to the fundamental constants of this universe, regardless of whether or not the Copenhagen Interpretation or the many worlds interpretation is relevant to this universe. Let's get the quantum mechanics out the way first. In the Copenhagen interpretation, there are no parallel universes. When I said, universes coming alive when a single quantum action occurs, is part and parcel of the parallel universe theory Everett introduced. You flip a coin 100 times, you create about [math]10^{30}[/math] universes! This is why I mentioned the Copenhagen Interpretation, let alone being the most accepted interpretation in physics, based from this view, there are not other universes which solve the dichotomy of how this universe arose from an infinite amount. Now, why do I assign a statistical importance to the constants of the universe? This is part of the quantum physics fine tuning scenarios. This is why. But then, you are not reading me, you are asking questions which I have already explained, another example of someone not listening to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Oh and keep in mind, this ''infinite pool'' of possible universe set-up conditions that could have happened, isn't exactly about the physical constants per se. It's about how quantum mechanics is applied to the first instant of time, and how the universe is very much like an atom, with a smeared wave function of probabilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 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. I just liked this post by accident, I am just saying this to show I hold no solidarity for the remarks you made on your birth date. These statements where made out of a complete misunderstanding of the statistics of the universe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Let's get the quantum mechanics out the way first. In the Copenhagen interpretation, there are no parallel universes. When I said, universes coming alive when a single quantum action occurs, is part and parcel of the parallel universe theory Everett introduced. You flip a coin 100 times, you create about [math]10^{30}[/math] universes! This is why I mentioned the Copenhagen Interpretation, let alone being the most accepted interpretation in physics, based from this view, there are not other universes which solve the dichotomy of how this universe arose from an infinite amount. Now, why do I assign a statistical importance to the constants of the universe? This is part of the quantum physics fine tuning scenarios. This is why. But then, you are not reading me, you are asking questions which I have already explained, another example of someone not listening to me.On the contrary, I am reading you, and I am, again, asking you to explain why you use the Copenhagen Interpretation to support your view that there is some significance to the particular value of the physical constants in the universe we inhabit. Would not the Copenhagen Interpretation, if valid in this flavor of universe with our own special physical constants, apply just as well in any other flavor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 On the contrary, I am reading you, and I am, again, asking you to explain why you use the Copenhagen Interpretation to support your view that there is some significance to the particular value of the physical constants in the universe we inhabit. Would not the Copenhagen Interpretation, if valid in this flavor of universe with our own special physical constants, apply just as well in any other flavor? Iv'e explained this. I will do it one more time because I am usually quite patient. Parallel universes can give a straight cut answer why this universe came into existence from an infinite amount of start-up conditions - that answer being, each possibility which could have been, was. So instead of dealing with one universe, you have an infinite amount of universes which came into existence at the big bang. I mention the Copenhagen Interpretation because it is, the model I work with - and that being said, is the most accepted theory we have without the need to invoke parallel universes, so we are still left with the initial problem ---- how did this universe appear out of so many possible start-up conditions dictated by the wave function of probabilities... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 how did this universe appear out of so many possible start-up conditions dictated by the wave function of probabilities...Again, I maintain that this is not a fine-tuning question, unless you meant, "how did this particular universe appear out of so many possible start-up conditions dictated by the wave function of probabilities..." In which case, we are left again with my initial complaint. Why is this question fundamentally different than me asking why was I born when I was born? Or better, aren't I fortunate to have been born when and where I was born, and to the parents I was born to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Again, I maintain that this is not a fine-tuning question, unless you meant, "how did this particular universe appear out of so many possible start-up conditions dictated by the wave function of probabilities..." In which case, we are left again with my initial complaint. Why is this question fundamentally different than me asking why was I born when I was born? Or better, aren't I fortunate to have been born when and where I was born, and to the parents I was born to? Well think about it. I explained why your case isn't important. There is a child born every minute. If the universe was only one universe out of an infinite amount of possibilities, then this is very very different. If all universes that could have been possible did come about into existence, then there is no importance attached to it. Why is this hard for you to understand? The universe example is a ''freak condition'' which came into existence. You being born is not a freak condition, people are born all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) Also, in a biological sense, we know why you were born - it has a biological reason. You didn't just sporadically pop into existence, you were born to your mother. The universe however, has no answer how it came about, which also adds to the mystery on top of the one's I mentioned. (Even if we had the answer how the universe came into existence, we'd still need to explain why it was this universe out of the deep potential of infinite initial start-up conditions which must have been at the disposal of nature). Edited July 18, 2012 by Aethelwulf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) The universe example is a ''freak condition'' which came into existence.What evidence do you have for this? EDIT because my initial response was too flippant: You dismiss my complaint because people are born all the time, it is unremarkable that I was born with my characteristics because given enough time, someone with my characteristics would have been born. How then have you eliminated that correlation to the universe? If you assume the universe to be unique, then I find it unremarkable that the universe has unique characteristics. Edited July 18, 2012 by JMJones0424 Moontanman 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 What evidence do you have for this? EDIT because my initial response was too flippant: You dismiss my complaint because people are born all the time, it is unremarkable that I was born with my characteristics because given enough time, someone with my characteristics would have been born. How then have you eliminated that correlation to the universe? If you assume the universe to be unique, then I find it unremarkable that the universe has unique characteristics. ''Your characteristics?'' LOL... is this a joke? There are plenty people with ''your characteristics.'' You are just being subjective and thinking that you are... somehow important out of the 6 billion people who actually inhabit this Earth. Anyway... what are you wanting me to show proof to you about? You do realize that the current accepted theory of the universe came about from a single point in which spacetime expanded, this is called the Big Bang. On top of this, scientists apply the rules of quantum mechanics to this ''point'' meaning that the universe experiences quantum effects as well. This means that the wave function dictated that the universe arose from a possible infinite amount of conditions. Applying quantum mechanics to the beginning of the universe has been most best shown by Hawking in his application of quantum cosmology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 And, to add... not only is the Big Bang the beginning of the universe, but we presuppose there are no other universes. If all possible kinds of universes came into existence, then yes, you'd have a solution to the problem. But as it stands, parallel universes isn't as widely accepted as the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 I have however just remembered there is another solution, the Bohmian Interpretation of quantum mechanics. In this interpretation, the wave function collapsed at the big bang, meaning that every possible universe which would have been smeared in the beginning, did not exist. But... this theory is hardly mainstream. 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.