|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3833 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can science say anything about a Creator God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3833 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
You missed the point of my post. The salient points were two questions that expose the problems with your technique. Your response was to restate the technique whose flaws I was exposing. This is a prime example of what I was talking about earlier, that you're not engaging the criticisms we're providing. Here are the two questions I asked: How do they determine what ranges of values are possible for each parameter?And, how do they determine what the probability of each possible value is? Yes, and I thought I addressed those issues by saying there are science papers on each of the parameters in question. Each parameter has to be treated differently. I cannot deal with all of them here. I don't really think that is what you are expecting me to do, is it? In an effort to move the discussion forward, assume for a moment that the science papers I mention are able to answer your questions to your satisfaction. If nothing else, think of this as a thought experiment. Let's say the scientists who examined each of these parameters has come to a reasonably accurate picture of the range of values and a probability distribution. (In the few I have looked at closely, the probability is uniform just like the roll of a dice.) Knowing that individual rare occurrences happen in nature, but combinations of rare occurrences are rare - what level of fine-tuning would you say can reasonably be chalked up to random natural events (null hypothesis)? And what level of fine-tuning would you say is beyond random chance and chaotic natural processes (alternate hypothesis)? Yes, I know I'm asking the same question.
Standard practice in science is to record values from a sample of data points (in this case, the sample would be a bunch of universes), and assume that the values in the entire population of interest (in this case, the population would be all universes) are distributed the same way as in the sample. Then, you can use the statistics of your sample to infer the parameters of your population. But, this obviously doesn't apply in this context, since the sample can only have a single data point. With only one data point, you can't resolve a probability distribution. So, how do you determine what the probability distribution looks like? You are asking good questions. Actually, it is possible to model many types of universes with different shapes and compositions of matter. The vast majority of model universes end up as black holes, very high entropy. Recently, computer simulations have been working on dark energy. Interesting reads here and here. I will number your next questions so I can answer them specifically.
1. So, how do we know which parameter values are most conducive to supporting life? 2. Do we examine a bunch of universes, and see which ones support the most life? 3. Do we take random life forms from our universe and subject them to the conditions of different universes? 4. Or, do we just assume that parameter values close to our universe's values are the best for supporting life? 1. First, you look at what life requires: stellar evolution, rocky planet correct distance from its star, carbon, water, sunlight, atmospheric oxygen mixture, etc. Then we look at what parameters will allow these to exist in our universe.2. No. 3. No. 4. No. BTW, you might be interested in the entire field of astrobiology. It is a fascinating scientific field, in part because we don't have any life forms from other planets to study yet. But the astrobiologists think about possible life forms and they look for planets on which life might possibly form. I know Penn State and Univ of Washington have active astrobiology departments. Unfortunately, the universe as a whole is not very conducive to life. It seems the placement of our planet in the galaxy is very fortuitous. A number of planets have been discovered that researchers initially thought might have life on them, but in every case they discovered something about the planet which made it unsuitable for life. Of course, there are billions more star systems to search but planets within the goldilocks zone are rare and have always come up empty. But stay tuned, I'm certain more discoveries are just around the corner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Let's say the scientists who examined each of these parameters has come to a reasonably accurate picture of the range of values and a probability distribution. Let's not, 'cos they haven't. Maybe you should try to base your argument on true things instead of false things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: That would specifically be for life as we see it on Earth, not the more general concept of life. So I think that you already have a big problem there. Not to mention the fact that the oxygen content of Earth's atmosphere is more a consequence of life than a requirement for it. (And as a side note, doesn't Ross argue for at least some of THOSE conditions as an example of "fine tuning" too ? If our universe needs divine assistance to produce suitable conditions for life then it isn't as finely tuned as you'd like to say). Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
DT writes: A puddle is perfectly fine-tuned to fit into the hole it's in. It seems as if you're setting up a false dichotomy.
And what level of fine-tuning would you say is beyond random chance and chaotic natural processes (alternate hypothesis)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
designtheorist writes:
Gravity is not a force. Discussing its strength has absolutely no meaning in Modern Physics. No physicist in his right mind will say gravitation is fictional or "the strength of gravity is an arbitrary number and is clearly not fine-tuned." Frank Wilczek has said:
Frank Wilczek writes:
In modern physics gravity has no strength. A given amount of mass simply generates a given amount of spacetime curvature, that amount is completely fixed, with no tuning possible (In fact tuning would be meaningless, but that's a long story). The real question is why do you have to build up such a huge volume of matter before you have enough mass to generate a good bit of gravity. We see that the question [posed] is not, "Why is gravity so feeble?" but rather, "Why is the proton's mass so small?" For in natural (Planck) units, the strength of gravity simply is what it is, a primary quantity, while the proton's mass is the tiny number [1/(13 quintillion)]This question really comes down to why are nucleons so light. Since nucleons are light you need a lot of atoms to build up any mass. However both nucleons are light due to the same physics, the physics of quarks and gluons, that is quantum chromodynamics. So we really only need to ask why one of them, the proton, is so light. Which is really a question for quantum chromodynamics and which has already been answered. Basically in quantum field theory, the smaller a particle is, the heavier it is. A proton's size is determined by the distance at which the gluon fields, being generated by the quarks inside the proton, reach a certain strength. Gluon fields get stronger away from the quarks (unlike an electric field, which gets weaker at large distances). When the gluon field is of a great enough strength it completely "seals in" the quarks in a self contained unit, the proton. However it takes a significant distance for the gluon fields to become strong, significant relative to the size of the quarks. This is because relativity and quantum mechanics together forbid the fields from growing more quickly than logarithmically in distance from the quarks. So the necessary strength isn't achieved until a very large distance, hence the proton is quite large and hence it has a low mass. Weakness of gravity explained.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
DT writes:
No, you have not. You claimed things. That's it.
Yes, and I thought I addressed those issues by saying there are science papers on each of the parameters in question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3833 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
Let's not, 'cos they haven't. Maybe you should try to base your argument on true things instead of false things. Have you done any reading at all on the topic of the fine-tuned universe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Hey, DT, you're the one who claimed that those papers are available.
Do you have the references to the scientific papers you read? Claiming that Yes, and I thought I addressed those issues by saying there are science papers on each of the parameters in question. is not good enough. List them and let's discuss them all one by one. Could you provide references to them? Let's do it one by one. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3833 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
That would specifically be for life as we see it on Earth, not the more general concept of life. So I think that you already have a big problem there. Not to mention the fact that the oxygen content of Earth's atmosphere is more a consequence of life than a requirement for it. Actually, most of the items listed would be necessary for any advanced life. If you don't have stellar evolution and nucleosynthesis, you don't get any heavier elements. Yes, there are discussions about non-carbon-based life, but these are silicon-based life is not likely at all.
(And as a side note, doesn't Ross argue for at least some of THOSE conditions as an example of "fine tuning" too ? If our universe needs divine assistance to produce suitable conditions for life then it isn't as finely tuned as you'd like to say). I'm not certain what you are referring to. And your logic doesn't make sense. If our universe needs divine assistance to produce suitable conditions for life and gets those conditions by divine assistance, that is the very definition of fine-tuning. It is almost as if you are trying to argue against fine-tuning because the universe needs fine-tuning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3833 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
A puddle is perfectly fine-tuned to fit into the hole it's in. It seems as if you're setting up a false dichotomy. And you are arguing from the perspective of the multiverse which we have already seen is not science. If it is not testable, it is not science. Even Victor Stenger would not stoop to using the multiverse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3833 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
Really? You want to defend Victor Stenger?
Frank Wilczek writes: We see that the question [posed] is not, "Why is gravity so feeble?" but rather, "Why is the proton's mass so small?" For in natural (Planck) units, the strength of gravity simply is what it is, a primary quantity, while the proton's mass is the tiny number [1/(13 quintillion)] I have no problem with Frank's comment here. Read it again. "The strength of gravity simply is what it is." That is not what Stenger is saying. Stenger is saying the gravitational field may not be real and the strength of gravity can be whatever we want it to be. That's ridiculous. You write:"Gravity is not a force" and "In modern physics gravity has no strength." Not true. Gravity does have strength and it operates over very large distances, quite different from the strong nuclear interaction. If Frank Wilczek is the authority you are citing, you disagree with your authority. He admits gravity has strength and you don't. Look, we need to get back to discussing the topic of this thread which is "Can science say anything about a Creator God?" I will set up a different thread to discuss the weaknesses in Stenger's book.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Again, designtheorist, you answer doesn't make sense at all.
designtheorist writes: Puddles are testable. And they are 'perfectly fine-tuned'. And there's no 'intelligent designer' involved. And you are arguing from the perspective of the multiverse which we have already seen is not science. If it is not testable, it is not science. Even Victor Stenger would not stoop to using the multiverse.
A puddle is perfectly fine-tuned to fit into the hole it's in. It seems as if you're setting up a false dichotomy.
And you are arguing from the perspective of the multiverse which we have already seen is not science. If it is not testable, it is not science. Even Victor Stenger would not stoop to using the multiverse. Word salads won't change that. Doesn't matter how many times you deny that fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
NoNukes writes: Do you have something new to say? We already know, and you've all but admitted that Stenger's labeling of gravitational force as fictional is entirely correct. designtheorist writes: No. See message 300 above. I've read your denial that general relativity is correct which was posted after I questioned you. What's pretty clear is that you are well aware that Stenger's statements are correct based on general relativity, and that you'd like us to dismiss that truth in order to make Stenger appear to be an idiot. I'll also note that your new defense of your position is entirely different from your original statements which attempted to distinguish between attractive force and field. In other words, you are once again shown to be a fraud.
designtheorist writes: On a cosmological level, General Relativity is more precise than Newtonian physics. On a cosmological level, the concept of attraction is not used. But on the surface of the planet, the concept of attraction is very helpful. On a cosmological level, gravity's attractive force is not just "not used" it is described as fictitious, and of course that is exactly the application we are discussing. Your comments would apply equally well to the centrifugal force. It is used in calculations, but we know that it is fictitious. Let's identify some more nonsense:
This just shows Stenger is writing as an atheist and not as a scientist. A scientist will take a position and stick with it. Stenger was not able to do that. No, designtheorist. That's not what a scientist does. Given that he doesn't know and has no evidence one way or another, he idoes not attempt to with denying a multi-verse. Forcing crap into a fixed idea is what you do, and not what scientists do. Stenger's book is designed to address a specific criticism of fine tuning. That he does not address others is not a weakness. But I can see that neither reason nor requests for answers will sway you, so I'll be posting a summary and leaving you twisting in the wind. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: You're missing both more exotic possibilities - and not considering that changing constants could enable different forms of life.
quote: Hugh Ross seems to argue that the Earth is unique in the universe. And my logic is fine. If the universe isn't capable of producing something then it obviously isn't fine-tuned to produce that thing. At least not successfully.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3833 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
Participants in this debate may be interested to read this news story on fine-tuning.
It appears researchers are building on Hoyle's observations of about 60 years ago. Unfortunately, the paper is behind a paywall but the abstract is here.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024