Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Commitment to atheism results in bad science - The Victor Stenger Example
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 1 of 21 (695820)
04-09-2013 1:28 PM


Title: Commitment to atheism results in bad science - The Victor Stenger Example
Forum: Is It Science?
Not all atheists are bad scientists. But when one’s commitment to atheism trumps his commitment to science, the result is very bad science.
Among the strongest scientific evidences for the existence of God are the low entropy Big Bang and the fine-tuned universe. When scientists who are committed to atheism have attempted to combat these arguments, they have resulted in extremely bad science.
The example I want to debate today is Victor Stenger and his book The Fallacy of Fine-tuning: Why the universe is not designed for us. It is clear that Stenger’s devotion to atheism has caused him to leave the realm of science in his attempt to defeat theism.
Usually, scientists (who are predominantly atheists) are willing to admit that certain parameters in the universe (strength of gravity, strength of the electromagnetic force, strength of the strong and weak interactions, mass of the electron, etc.) are extremely fine-tuned; but are they unwilling to identify the cause of the fine-tuning. In the case of Victor Stenger, he is willing to admit that if fine-tuning were real it would be a problem for atheists, but he is unwilling to admit fine-tuning exists. Here is a quote from his book:
For years now theists have thought they have the final, killer scientific argument for the existence of God. They have claimed that the physical parameters of the universe are delicately balanced — fine-tuned — so that any infinitesimal changes would make life as we know it impossible. Even atheist physicists find this so-called anthropic principle difficult to explain naturally, and many think they need to invoke multiple universes to do so. — Victor Stenger, Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, p. 37
Stenger allows that atheists have to resorted to the multiple universes argument to combat fine-tuning. This Stenger will not do. Stenger calls the multiverse is an untested hypothesis and refuses to rely on it himself. But Stenger seems to want to hold the multiverse in reserve just in case the arguments presented in his book fail. And the arguments in his book fail completely. Setting aside the obvious hyperbole ("current models strongly suggest ours in not the only universe") in the passage below, Stenger makes promises he cannot keep:
Cosmologists have proposed a very simple solution to the fine-tuning problem. They current models strongly suggest that ours is not the only universe but part of a multiverse containing an unlimited number of individual universes extending an unlimited distance in all directions and for an unlimited time in the past and future. If that’s the case, we just happen to live in than universe which is suited for our kind of life.
The universe is not fine-tuned to us; we are fine-tuned to the universe.
Now, theists and many nonbelieving scientists object to this solution as being nonscientific because we have no way of observing a universe outside our own, which we will see is disputable. In fact, a multiverse is more scientific and parsimonious than hypothesizing an unobservable creating spirit and a single universe. I would argue that the multiverse is a legitimate scientific hypothesis, since it agrees with our best knowledge
Now I mention this only for completeness.
Although I believe it is adequate to refute fine-tuning, it remains an untested hypothesis. My case will not rely on speculations beyond well-established physics nor on the existence of multiple universes. I will show fine-tuning is a fallacy based on our knowledge of this universe alone.
Stenger, Fallacy, pp. 23-24
The obvious hyperbole ("current models strongly suggest ours in not the only universe") shows Stenger would like to use any tool possible to defeat theism, but he has to admit that the multiverse is not really science. He claims he "will not rely on speculations beyond well-established physics" and yet he claims the gravitational field may not be real or that we can make it whatever we want it to be.
Recall these classic Stenger quotes:
"The moon is probably real. But the gravitational field does not have to be." P. 53, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning.
"In most physics textbooks you will read that gravity is the weakest of all forces, many orders of magnitude weaker than electromagnetism... We see this is wrong. Recall that the gravitational force is fictional, like the centrifugal force." P. 151
"In short, the strength of gravity is an arbitrary number and is clearly not fine-tuned. It can be anything we want it to be." P. 152
Perhaps it is not yet clear to you that Stenger is well off the beaten path when it comes to physics of gravity. It should be a hint that he admits that his views differ from physics textbooks, but let’s look closer at the evidence.
There are different ways of looking at gravity. Unfortunately for Stenger, he screws them all up.
There are two (or arguably three) scientific views of gravity. In Newtonian physics, gravity is calculated by attraction. Newtonian physics works in most situations. NASA used Newtonian physics to calculate travel to the moon. In Newtonian physics, gravity is a constant. It works very well on the surface of earth and between the earth and moon.
Here's a good definition from Wise Geek: "Newton's first law states that the force of gravity between two masses is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, or mathematically: F=G(m1m2/d2), where G is a constant."
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.
In General Relativity, in place of attraction physicists talk of the "gravitational field." This refers to the extent space is warped by the presence of planetary bodies. Within GR, there is no attraction. This is not the same as saying there is no force. But pay attention to the statement Stenger makes. He does not just deny gravity's attraction, he denies the gravitational field. The gravitational field does represent a force.
Take this definition from Wikipedia:
"In physics, a gravitational field is a model used to explain the influence that a massive body extends into the space around itself, producing a force on another massive body. Thus, a gravitational field is used to explain gravitational phenomena, and is measured in newtons per kilogram (N/kg). In its original concept, gravity was a force between point masses. Following Newton, Laplace attempted to model gravity as some kind of radiation field or fluid, and since the 19th century explanations for gravity have usually been sought in terms of a field model, rather than a point attraction."
The problem for Stenger is that he writes: "The moon is probably real. But the gravitational field does not have to be." P. 53, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning.
"In short, the strength of gravity is an arbitrary number and is clearly not fine-tuned. It can be anything we want it to be." P. 152
The force created by this gravitational field is not fictional. It cannot be changed by my whim or Stenger’s whim. We cannot make it whatever we want it to be - as Stenger says. These statements are absolutely indefensible. Ask Cave Diver.
The third view of gravity is not well-established, but it is the view from quantum field theory. It theorizes the attraction (or gravitational field) is mediated by a massless particle known as a graviton. This view has some problems, but perhaps some day the graviton will be discovered.
Stenger's comments violate all three scientific views of gravitation. He is completely outside the lines. 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."
Luke Barnes has written a scholarly paper assessing Stenger’s book. The entire paper is worth reading but Barnes begins evaluating Stenger’s discussion of gravity on page 12.
Robin Collins, a philosopher who also studied physics at a high level, has also written a critique of Stenger’s book.
Stenger has written a defense of his book that claims Barnes has misunderstood the book.
Stenger writes: Barnes disagrees with my referring to gravity as a fictitious force. We call the centrifugal and Coriolis forces fictitious because we can find a reference frame in which they are not observed. I point out that the same is true for the gravitational force. An observer in a falling capsule, such as a spacecraft in orbit, experiences no gravitational force In his theory of general relativity, Einstein replaced the gravitational force with paths along geodesics in curved space-time. That is, there is no gravitational force in general relativity. Certainly, gravity is a real phenomenon. However, the gravitational force is fiction. In this and most of Barnes’ other comments, we don’t disagree on the physics so much as how to characterize and interpret it. P.6-7.
This is complete hogwash and has no relationship to Stenger’s comments in his book. The book plainly calls the gravitational field fictional. His comments are not limited to specific situations, such as a spacecraft (which still exerts a gravitational field although it is very small and imperceptible). No, in the book Stenger clearly calls gravitation into question because he does not want the strength of gravity to be used to show the fine-tuning of the universe.
Stenger's book is full of very bad science. His commitment to atheism has forced him to take positions which he admits are different from the physics textbooks.
Edited by designtheorist, : Trying to fix the link to Luke Barnes paper. It is found at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112/1112.4647v1.pdf
Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 04-09-2013 1:57 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 04-10-2013 8:05 AM designtheorist has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


(3)
Message 2 of 21 (695827)
04-09-2013 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by designtheorist
04-09-2013 1:28 PM


Not promotable
Others may give this another look. However, I sure won't promote something where you just repeat yourself yet again, have ignored replies to all of this already and show utter lack of comprehension or even much reading ability.
Good luck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by designtheorist, posted 04-09-2013 1:28 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by designtheorist, posted 04-09-2013 2:47 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 3 of 21 (695834)
04-09-2013 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
04-09-2013 1:57 PM


Re: Not promotable
This is not just a repeat of earlier comments. I link to a scientific paper by Barnes which expounds on my criticisms and provides many others.
I also link to a criticism by Robin Collins.
I probably could have provided more criticisms myself but I could not force myself to finish reading the book. It is that bad.
Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 04-09-2013 1:57 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 4 of 21 (695903)
04-10-2013 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by designtheorist
04-09-2013 1:28 PM


Hi DesignTheorist,
I read AdminNosy's rejection before reading your opening post, and I was surprised that such brevity followed such length, but then I read your opening post and understood. The characteristics that are raising concerns among moderators in your other thread are shared by this proposal.
I found your interpretation of the Stenger quote from pages 23-24 to be most puzzling, as if we were not interpreting English the same way, and this problem is also plaguing your Can science say anything about a Creator God? thread:
designtheorist writes:
The obvious hyperbole ("current models strongly suggest ours in not the only universe") shows Stenger would like to use any tool possible to defeat theism,...
How is Stenger's statement about current models "obvious hyperbole"? You're interpreting a statement of simple fact as being fraught with information about motivational factors, such as the need to defeat theism. Before I could promote this thread we'd have to reach a common understanding on what simple statements like this one from Stenger mean.
...but he has to admit that the multiverse is not really science.
I interpreted Stenger as saying the opposite but that he wasn't going to rely on it. Again, before I could promote this thread we'd have to reach a common understanding of what the simple English means. We want to avoid having threads where people end up discussing the meaning of English.
"The moon is probably real. But the gravitational field does not have to be." P. 53, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning.
People have been attempting to explain to you that gravity is just the shape of space-time as modified by mass and that there is no gravitational field in GR, but you have ignored this and are ignoring it again here. People aren't saying there's no such thing as the phenomenon we call gravity, and sometimes you seem to understand this and sometimes you don't, and this is very confusing. I can't promote a thread that just continues the confusion. I need to see something clear and consistent. For example, you say this:
In General Relativity, in place of attraction physicists talk of the "gravitational field."
Which is wrong. GR physicists do not talk of the "gravitational field." And then what follows isn't consistent with what you just said:
This refers to the extent space is warped by the presence of planetary bodies. Within GR, there is no attraction. This is not the same as saying there is no force.
You're correct about the bending of space-time by mass, but saying that there's no attraction but there is a force is not something I can make sense of, and none of this supports your claim that GR recognizes a gravitational field. This is just too contradictory and confusing. I can't promote a thread where I can't even figure out how to interpret you're description of your position.
You can advocate any position you like here, the more controversial the better. It's great when the site has lots of messages and traffic. But from the very beginning I've said that we won't have nonsense threads here at EvC Forum, and it's one reason we have the thread proposal process. If you can propose a thread that I can understand, not agree with, just understand, and that isn't nonsense, then I will promote it.
AbE: I'm being told I'm conflating force and field myself, so to be more clear I'm simply attempting to follow what Son Goku said in his Message 364:
Son Goku writes:
Secondly, gravity is not a force in General Relativity. There is no gravitational potential field acting on an object and causing it accelerate, unlike an electric field or a strong nuclear field.
This is stated in every single major textbook on the subject. If you want I'll provide you with quotes from the most commonly used graduate textbooks on General Relativity.
Edited by Admin, : AbE.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by designtheorist, posted 04-09-2013 1:28 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by designtheorist, posted 04-12-2013 12:18 PM Admin has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 5 of 21 (696135)
04-12-2013 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Admin
04-10-2013 8:05 AM


Hello Percy
Thank you for taking an interest. The obvious hyperbole is that while the multiverse has been hypothesized, it is wrong to overlook the problems and state models "strongly suggest" the multiverse. If the models strongly suggested it, there would be no reason for Stenger to refuse to use it.
People have been attempting to explain to you that gravity is just the shape of space-time as modified by mass and that there is no gravitational field in GR...
Any definition involving general relativity uses the term "gravitational field." See "In general relativity the gravitational field is determined by solving the Einstein field equations" from Wikipedia.
As I explained in Message 300, there is a difference in terminology between Newtonian physics and General Relativity. Newton spoke of attraction of masses. General relativity does not use that term, but uses "gravitational field" to refer to how the spacetime fabric is warped by mass.
Returning to Wikipedia:
In general relativity the gravitational field is determined by solving the Einstein field equations,[8]
Here T is the stress—energy tensor, G is the Einstein tensor, and c is the speed of light,
These equations are dependent on the distribution of matter and energy in a region of space, unlike Newtonian gravity, which is dependent only on the distribution of matter. The fields themselves in general relativity represent the curvature of spacetime. General relativity states that being in a region of curved space is equivalent to accelerating up the gradient of the field. By Newton's second law, this will cause an object to experience a fictitious force if it is held still with respect to the field. This is why a person will feel himself pulled down by the force of gravity while standing still on the Earth's surface. In general the gravitational fields predicted by general relativity differ in their effects only slightly from those predicted by classical mechanics, but there are a number of easily verifiable differences, one of the most well known being the bending of light in such fields.
Refer to any textbook on general relativity and you will see the gravitational field is always accepted as real. The effects of the gravitational field may be so small as to be imperceptible without instruments, such as the example of a man inside a spacecraft. There is not really a zero gravity situation as the man and the spacecraft are flying at the same rate of speed and it seems to be zero gravity.
While it is beyond current technology, it is theoretically possible to create a gravitational field inside a spacecraft by using high density materials to create a gravitational field. See Wikipedia:
"Another way artificial gravity may be achieved is by installing an ultra-high density mass in a spacecraft so that it would generate its own gravitational field and pull everything inside towards it. Technically this is not artificial gravityit is natural gravity, gravity in its original sense. An extremely large amount of mass would be needed to produce even a tiny amount of noticeable gravity. A large asteroid could exert several thousandths of a g and, by attaching a propulsion system of some kind, would qualify as a space ship, though gravity at such a low level might not have any practical value. An advantage of such system was proposed in Charles Sheffield's McAndrew Chronicles, where a disc of 100 m diameter and 1 m thickness of degenerate matter weighting 1300 billion tons have 1 g 246 m away for gravity at zero acceleration, and can be used to cancel out the acceleration of 50 g at 0 m.[10] The disadvantage of such system is that the mass would obviously need to move with the spacecraft; if the spacecraft is to be accelerated significantly, this would greatly increase fuel consumption. Because gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the center of mass, it would be possible to have significant levels of gravity with much less mass than such an asteroid if this mass could be made much denser than current materials like degenerate matter. In principle, small charged black holes could be used and held in position with electromagnetic forces. However, carrying a sufficient quantity of mass to form significant gravity fields in a spacecraft is well beyond current technology."
You have understand that the purpose of Stenger's argument is call into question the use of Einstein's field equations in calculating the strength of gravity soon after the Big Bang. Every competent physicist understands these equations. Martin Rees uses them in his book Just Six Numbers. Steven Weinberg uses them in The First Three Minutes: A Modern View Of The Origin Of The Universe. Hawking and Penrose used them in their papers. All of these guys are atheists and they are better physicists than Stenger. All these guys say the strength of gravity is finely tuned to the strength of the electroweak interaction or we would not have the universe we know and love.
Stenger says the Einstein field equations should not be used to say the universe is finely-tuned because "gravitational field does not have to be" real and gravity "can be anything we want it to be." This is false. It is demonstrably false. It is egregiously false.
My position is not "nonsense." There may have been times when I did not express myself well, but my position makes sense is in line with traditional physics. Even Stenger admits that his position disagrees with physics textbooks.
Now can we promote the thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 04-10-2013 8:05 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by designtheorist, posted 04-12-2013 1:38 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 7 by Admin, posted 04-12-2013 4:34 PM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 6 of 21 (696146)
04-12-2013 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by designtheorist
04-12-2013 12:18 PM


Re: Hello Percy
I should point out there is a huge difference between "fictitious" in normal parlance and "fictitious" when speaking of forces. Stenger attempts to use this confusion to his advantage.
Stenger writes "The moon is probably real. But the gravitational field does not have to be."
Here Stenger is trying to say the gravitational field is not real. This is just not true. Whether we understand the gravitational field precisely is another question. Until Einstein most people thought Newton's idea of gravity was correct. It is possible a new theory of gravity may come on the scene which is even more precise than general relativity. But to say the gravitational field does not have to be real is very, very misleading. In fact, it is wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by designtheorist, posted 04-12-2013 12:18 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(3)
Message 7 of 21 (696157)
04-12-2013 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by designtheorist
04-12-2013 12:18 PM


Re: Hello Percy
designtheorist writes:
The obvious hyperbole is that while the multiverse has been hypothesized, it is wrong to overlook the problems and state models "strongly suggest" the multiverse.
But the models *do* strongly suggest a multiverse. You said Stenger had left the realm of science, yet this seems an accurate statement, and it's certainly not hyperbole.
If the models strongly suggested it, there would be no reason for Stenger to refuse to use it.
Stenger explains (in words that you quoted) that many object to the multiverse as being unscientific, and so he will not use it even though he believes it "more scientific and parsimonious than hypothesizing an unobservable creating spirit and a single universe," since if he uses it in his arguments some people, such as yourself, will simply dismiss them as equally unscientific. Stenger is in effect saying that the argument against design is so strong that he doesn't even need the multiverse argument.
But more importantly, you said "he has to admit that the multiverse is not really science," and if you think the passage you quoted says this then one of us doesn't understand simple English.
About the gravitational field, I'm just trying to follow Son Goku who explained that there is "no gravitational potential field acting on an object and causing it to accelerate, unlike an electric field or a strong nuclear field." That's not to say that there's no such thing as a gravitational field, but rather than being something like an electric field which is mediated by photons it is just something with vector values at every point in space (i.e., a field), the values falling out of the Einstein field equations.
Your seem to have two main objections to Stenger. One is his claim that gravity is fictitious, but this seems a pretty common view within physics. The other is his claim that there doesn't have to be a gravitational field. Can you elaborate on this view? All we have so far is just the statement you quoted and no context or any of the explanation.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by designtheorist, posted 04-12-2013 12:18 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by designtheorist, posted 04-12-2013 7:17 PM Admin has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 8 of 21 (696161)
04-12-2013 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Admin
04-12-2013 4:34 PM


Re: Hello Percy
Regarding the obvious hyperbole, I am sorry if I am not being clear. Let me try again. Stenger claims current models "strongly suggest" the multiverse. I strongly disagree. The standard cosmology is the lambda cold dark matter cosmology. This cosmology does not suggest the multiverse at all.
If you want to look at other cosmological models, you can read about them here. Most of these models are no longer in the running, but you will see that none of them require a multiverse.
The model most associated with the multiverse is string theory (or M theory). I'm not a string theory hater. It may be that string theory is on the right track. But it would be a mistake to think string theory has been established or confirmed by observation. Even if string theory is someday confirmed by observation, it does not require a multiverse from colliding branes.
To an informed observer, Stenger's comment that current models "strongly suggest" the multiverse is obvious hyperbole. To other readers, perhaps the hyperbole is not so obvious. But it is still hyperbole.
Stenger is in effect saying that the argument against design is so strong that he doesn't even need the multiverse argument.
Yes, it's true that you could take Stenger's words in this manner. The problem, of course, is that Stenger has to reject the physics in physics textbooks to get to his position. So his argument really doesn't work.
About the gravitational field, I'm just trying to follow Son Goku who explained that there is "no gravitational potential field acting on an object and causing it to accelerate, unlike an electric field or a strong nuclear field." That's not to say that there's no such thing as a gravitational field, but rather than being something like an electric field which is mediated by photons it is just something with vector values at every point in space (i.e., a field), the values falling out of the Einstein field equations.
First, I'm not certain what Son Goku is trying to say. Second, it's possible what he is trying to say is incorrect. Third, if he thinks his statement confirms all of Stenger's conclusions, he is wrong.
You mention "That's not to say that there's no such thing as a gravitational field..." Yes, but Stenger is saying the gravitational field does not have to be real. Any real scientist will have a problem with that statement.
You go on "...but rather than being something like an electric field which is mediated by photons it is just something with vector values at every point in space (i.e., a field), the values falling out of the Einstein field equations." Yes, but quantum field theory does hypothesize gravity being mediated by massless gravitons. We don't have a fully formed quantum theory of gravity yet and perhaps we never will.
More important is Stenger's comment that we can make the strength of gravity whatever we want it to be. This is clearly false. We do not have the ability to change the strength of gravity.
"General Relativity and Newton's gravitational theory make essentially identical predictions as long as the strength of the gravitational field is weak, which is our usual experience. However, there are several crucial predictions where the two theories diverge, and thus can be tested with careful experiments." See Gravitation and the General Theory of Relativity
Einstein's Field Equations are fixed. The situation may change depending on the mass involved, but the equations are fixed. We cannot change them with our whim as Stenger claims.
Your seem to have two main objections to Stenger. One is his claim that gravity is fictitious, but this seems a pretty common view within physics. The other is his claim that there doesn't have to be a gravitational field. Can you elaborate on this view? All we have so far is just the statement you quoted and no context or any of the explanation.
I have two main problems with Stenger. When he speaks of fictitious forces, he is trying to persuade the reader that the gravitational field has no reality. This is a problem. You cannot say "The moon may be real but the gravitational field does not have to be." That's just ridiculous.
My second problem with Stenger is that he says we can make the strength of gravitation whatever we want it to be and therefore it is not fine-tuned. This is also ridiculous. Every physicist who has looked at this agrees that the ratio between the strength of gravity just after the Big Bang was finely-tuned to the "oomph" of the Big Bang and the strength of the electroweak interaction. If the strength of gravity was just a little stronger, the universe would have collapsed in on itself and become a black hole. If the strength of gravity was just a little weaker, the expansion of the universe would have happened too quickly and the galaxies and stars would never have formed. The universe would have been a sparsely populated field of hydrogen. Every physicist agrees with this.
Now, can we promote this thread?
Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Admin, posted 04-12-2013 4:34 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Admin, posted 04-13-2013 3:28 AM designtheorist has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 9 of 21 (696180)
04-13-2013 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by designtheorist
04-12-2013 7:17 PM


Re: Hello Percy
designtheorist writes:
Now, can we promote this thread?
I've focused primarily on a couple specific claims you make regarding Stenger, but there's an overarching issue, and though I have mentioned it I think it's time to make it the primary focus.
Every time you quote Stenger and offer an interpretation, it seems to me a misinterpretation of simple English. So when you interpret Stenger without quoting him I suspect the same problem is at work, especially when I specifically ask for context and don't get it. I won't promote a thread that would just be an argument about what a scientist really thinks, or what his words really mean.
If you'd like to have a thread that takes the position that we shouldn't listen much to scientists whose views are largely out of step with the mainstream, that would be okay. Or if you'd like to discuss multiverse theories, I could promote that thread.
But if you want me to promote this thread then you'd have to actually quote Stenger advocating the positions you're attributing to him, such as rejecting the physics in physics textbooks. You're making points about what Stenger believes with little tidbits like this:
Stenger writes:
The moon is probably real. But the gravitational field does not have to be.
But your reluctance to provide a fuller context is not reassuring, and when we do take a peak it leaves us with no confidence at all in your claims. Here's some of the fuller context around that quote:
Stenger at great length writes:
Now, none of this should be interpreted as meaning that physics is not to be taken seriously. When I say physical models are human inventions, I mean the same as if I were saying that the camera is a human invention. Like the camera, the models of physics very usefully describe our observations. When they do not, the model or the camera is discarded. I am simply repeating what many philosophers have pointed out over the centuries, that our observations are not pure but are operated on by our cognitive system composed of our senses and the brain that analyzes the data from those senses. Those models need not correspond precisely, or even roughly, to whatever reality is out therealthough they probably do at least for large objects. The moon is probably real. But the gravitational field does not have to be.
Now, this may seem like pedantic philosophizing, but it is important when we start talking about God fine-tuning the parameters of our models. Why should quantities that are simply human artifacts used in describing nature have to have external forces setting their values?
Still, I realize that I open myself up to some tough questions by taking this point of view. If the models and parameters are just human inventions, why should they have anything to do with objective reality? Well, they are not arbitrary since they have to agree with observations, not just roughly but with quantitative accuracy. Furthermore, I have already admitted that the moon is probably real. Where do I draw the line? Let's say macroscopic bodies that we see with unaided eyes are real. Does that mean that bacteria we can see only with a microscope are imaginary? No biologist would let me get away with that.
It is not until you get to the submicroscopic quantum level that the reality issue comes up. There, our models include things such as virtual particles with imaginary mass and wave functions that propagate instantaneously throughout the universe. Later, after we have developed physics ideas further, I will delve a little into speculative metaphysics just to show that a plausible and consistent, if unprovable, picture exists for the reality behind observations.
Now, no doubt we disagree about what this simple English means. It would not surprise me if, for example, you claimed that this really is an argument that the gravitational field does not exist rather than stage setting prior to delving into a deeper discussion of the nature of reality. But as I said, we're not going to have a discussion about what simple English means.
Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by designtheorist, posted 04-12-2013 7:17 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by designtheorist, posted 04-13-2013 8:13 AM Admin has replied
 Message 11 by designtheorist, posted 04-13-2013 9:34 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 10 of 21 (696187)
04-13-2013 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Admin
04-13-2013 3:28 AM


Re: Hello Percy
Every time you quote Stenger and offer an interpretation, it seems to me a misinterpretation of simple English. So when you interpret Stenger without quoting him I suspect the same problem is at work, especially when I specifically ask for context and don't get it. I won't promote a thread that would just be an argument about what a scientist really thinks, or what his words really mean.
Could you be specific? How am I misinterpreting his remarks? What do you think Stenger is saying when he writes "The moon is probably real. But the gravitational field does not have to be?" You have provided greater context for the statement, but I fail to see how the greater context changes my understanding that Stenger is calling into question the reality of the gravitational field.
Stenger seems to have a habit of saying bizarre things and then trying to pull them back. But that does not change the fact that he said them or the fact that his argument rests upon the bizarre statement that he made.
For example, if you could show me that Stenger could arrive at gravity not being finely tuned without calling into question the reality of the gravitational field or without the bizarre claim that we can make gravity be whatever we want it to be, then you might have a point. But the fact is that these bizarre statements are absolutely essential to Stenger's position. You cannot get to Stenger's position that gravity is not finely-tuned without them.
You have not even dealt with the fact that Stenger admits his position is contrary to physics textbooks. Stenger writes:
"In most physics textbooks you will read that gravity is the weakest of all forces, many orders of magnitude weaker than electromagnetism... We see this is wrong. Recall that the gravitational force is fictional, like the centrifugal force." P. 151
This quote should be a drop dead giveaway that Stenger is out in left field and he knows it. So we see Stenger admitting that he disagrees with physics textbooks.
However, in Stenger's paper defending his book, he writes "I have no significant disagreements with that literature (the literature on the fine-tuning problem) and no prominent physicist or cosmologist has disputed my basic conclusions." This statement is not true. Stenger has significant disagreement with physics textbooks regarding gravity. He claims not to disagree with fine-tuning literature and yet the book was written to contradict the fine-tuning literature. How can he say he has no problem with the fine-tuning literature when his entire book calls fine-tuning a fallacy?
Do you see the problem? He is talking out of both sides of his mouth. By the way, have you looked to see who endorsed his book? Not a single prominent physicist or cosmologist has endorsed it. Richard Dawkins endorsed it, but he knows nothing of cosmology.
Also, Stenger writes: "In short, the strength of gravity is an arbitrary number and is clearly not fine-tuned. It can be anything we want it to be." P. 152 Stenger's argument that we can make the strength of gravity "anything we want it to be" is based on his claim that it is a fictitious force. But we cannot make the strength of the centrifugal force "whatever we want it to be" just because it is a fictitious force.
Luke Barnes has written a long scientific article criticizing Stenger's book. I linked to this paper in my opening post (although I notice now the link is not working properly. You have remove the evcforum bit from the beginning to get it to work properly.) Barnes's criticisms are far greater and more detailed than mine. Neither his criticisms nor my criticisms are "about a misinterpretation of simple English" nor "about what a scientist really thinks, or what his words really mean." My criticisms, and Barnes's, of Stenger's words go directly to the heart of his argument that fine-tuning is just a fallacy.
It seems to me that I am being asked to win this debate before it is even promoted. How often does it happen that someone wants to debate something, has scientific literature on his side, and still there is a long debate on whether it should be promoted or not?
Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.
Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Admin, posted 04-13-2013 3:28 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Admin, posted 04-13-2013 9:50 AM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 11 of 21 (696194)
04-13-2013 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Admin
04-13-2013 3:28 AM


Re: Hello Percy
I won't promote a thread that would just be an argument about what a scientist really thinks, or what his words really mean.
By this statement, I think you mean that you do not want to host debates over semantics - differences without a distinction, splitting hairs, etc. Am I correct?
I think I am. At any rate, Stenger is an unusual case because he uses words in ways to change their meaning. I was just re-reading Barnes paper criticizing Stenger and found this interesting quote:
This argument commits the fallacy of equivocation — the term 'invariant' has changed its meaning between LN1 and LN2. The difference is decisive but rather subtle, owing to the different contexts in which the term can be used. p.8
This is the same type of thing Stenger does with the term "fictitious." Fictitious means one thing when applied to forces and something quite different when applied to most everyday life.
Of course, this is more than just semantics. This is the logical fallacy of equivocation. Stenger uses it almost like a skill he has studied and developed.
I hope your policy does not prevent debates involving this logical fallacy.
Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Admin, posted 04-13-2013 3:28 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 12 of 21 (696195)
04-13-2013 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by designtheorist
04-13-2013 8:13 AM


Re: Hello Percy
designtheorist writes:
Every time you quote Stenger and offer an interpretation, it seems to me a misinterpretation of simple English. So when you interpret Stenger without quoting him I suspect the same problem is at work, especially when I specifically ask for context and don't get it. I won't promote a thread that would just be an argument about what a scientist really thinks, or what his words really mean.
Could you be specific? How am I misinterpreting his remarks? What do you think Stenger is saying when he writes "The moon is probably real. But the gravitational field does not have to be?" You have provided greater context for the statement, but I fail to see how the greater context changes my understanding that Stenger is calling into question the reality of the gravitational field.
This is an example of my concern that promoting this thread would just lead to long and senseless discussions of what some simple passages in English mean. Your request for an explanation of how I believe you're misinterpreting Stenger is reasonable, and I would fulfill this request had I the time or inclination, but since I have neither I can only repeat that because your interpretations of simple English tend to be so at variance with everyone else's that I cannot promote this thread.
designtheorist writes:
You have not even dealt with the fact that Stenger admits his position is contrary to physics textbooks. Stenger writes:
"In most physics textbooks you will read that gravity is the weakest of all forces, many orders of magnitude weaker than electromagnetism... We see this is wrong. Recall that the gravitational force is fictional, like the centrifugal force." P. 151
This quote should be a drop dead giveaway that Stenger is out in left field and he knows it. So we see Stenger admitting that he disagrees with physics textbooks.
I provided the surrounding context of your quote about the gravitational field, perhaps you could provide the surrounding context for this one, which would be all of the very short section 7.2. Then please explain how his analysis is a rejection of physics textbooks rather than just a more detailed and nuanced perspective. Pay particular attention to when he says, "The gravitational force depends on the masses and charges of the particles. N1 is only the ratio of the two forces for a system made of a proton and an electron, as in the hydrogen atom. It is not the relative strength of the gravitational and electrical forces in all cases. In fact, there is no universal way we can describe the strength of the gravitational force."
Luke Barnes has written a long scientific article criticizing Stenger's book. I linked to this paper in my opening post (although I notice now the link is not working properly. You have remove the evcforum bit from the beginning to get it to work properly.)
You can edit your post and fix the link.
It seems to me that I am being asked to win this debate before it is even promoted. How often does it happen that someone wants to debate something, has scientific literature on his side, and still there is a long debate on whether it should be promoted or not?
No, you're being asked to demonstrate that your interpretation of Stenger is based on things he's actually said rather than misinterpretations. So far you haven't given me any confidence that promoting this thread wouldn't result in one long argument about what Stenger's writings in his Fine Tuning book really mean.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by designtheorist, posted 04-13-2013 8:13 AM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by designtheorist, posted 04-13-2013 12:53 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied
 Message 14 by designtheorist, posted 04-13-2013 2:11 PM Admin has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 13 of 21 (696209)
04-13-2013 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Admin
04-13-2013 9:50 AM


Re: Hello Percy
I appreciate your call for greater context for Stenger's quote on p. 152. I think the greater context puts Stenger's quote in an even less favorable light. But I think the main is issue is the personal animosity against me. For this reason, I want to turn to criticisms of Stenger published in the scientific literature by Luke Barnes.
Barnes is a working scientist associated with the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich, Switzerland and Sydney Institute for Astronomy and School of Physics in Sydney, Australia. His paper is titled The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
The following are selected quotes from Barnes's paper. I leave them for you without comment in the hope you will be able to consider them with less emotion and more reason than if I commented directly.
Barnes
General Relativity: We now turn to Stenger’s discussion of gravity.
Ask yourself this: If the gravitational force can be transformed away by going to a different reference frame, how can it be real? It can’t. We see that the gravitational force is an artifact, a fictitious force just like the centrifugal and Coriolis forces {If there were no gravity} then there would be no universe. . . {P}hysicists have to put gravity into any model of the universe that contains separate masses. A universe with separated masses and no gravity would violate point-of-view invariance. . . . In general relativity, the gravitational force is treated as a fictitious force like the centrifugal force, introduced into models to preserve invariance between reference frames accelerating with respect to one another. - Stenger, p.79-80, 234
Barnes comments These claims are mistaken. The existence of gravity is not implied by the existence of the universe, separate masses or accelerating frames. P.12
From this starting point, via a generalization of the separation of geodesic deviation from Newtonian gravity, we link the real, non-fictitious properties of the gravitational field to Riemann tensor and its contractions. In this respect, gravity is not a fictional force in the same sense that the centrifugal force is. We can always remove the centrifugal force everywhere by transforming to an inertial frame. This cannot be done for gravity. P.13
We can now identify the additional assumptions that Stenger needs to derive general relativity. Given general covariance (or PoVI), the additional assumptions constitute the entire empirical content of the theory. Even if we assume the equivalence principle, we need additional information about what the gravitational properties of matter actually do to spacetime. These are the dynamic principles of spacetime, the very reasons why Einstein’s theory can be called geometrodynamics. Stenger’s attempts to trivialize gravity thus fail. We are free to consider the fine-tuning of gravity, both its existence and properties. P. 13
Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Admin, posted 04-13-2013 9:50 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 14 of 21 (696210)
04-13-2013 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Admin
04-13-2013 9:50 AM


Re: Hello Percy
Here is another criticism from Barnes.
4.5 The Amplitude of Primordial Fluctuations
Q, the amplitude of primordial fluctuations, is one of Martin Rees’ Just Six Numbers. In our universe, its value is Q (roughly equal) 2 x 105, meaning that in the early universe the density at any point was typically within 1 part in 100,000 of the mean density. What if Q were different?
If Q were smaller than 10-6, gas would never condense into gravitationally bound structures at all, and such a universe would remain forever dark and featureless, even if its initial ‘mix’ of atoms, dark energy and radiation were the same as our own. On the other hand, a universe were Q were substantially larger than 10-5 — were the initial ripples were replaced by large amplitude waves — would be a turbulent and violent place. Regions far bigger than galaxies would condense early in its history. They wouldn’t fragment into stars but would instead collapse into vast black holes, each much heavier than an entire cluster of galaxies in our universe. . . . Stars would be packed too close together and buffeted too frequently to retain stable planetary systems. (Rees, 1999, pg. 115)
Stenger has two replies. Firstly:
{T}he inflationary model predicted that the deviation from smoothness should be one part in 100,000. This prediction was spectacularly verified by the Cosmic Bakground Explorer (COBE) in 1992 {FOFT 106}. . . While heroic attempts by the best minds in cosmology have not yet succeeded in calculating the magnitude of Q, inflatioin theory successfully predicted the angular correlation acros the sky that has been observed. {FOFT 206}
Barnes comments:
Note that the first part of the quote contradicts the second part. We are first told that inflation predicts Q = 10-5, and then we are told that inflation cannot predict Q at all. Both claims are false. A given inflationary model will predict Q, and it will only predict a life-permitting value for Q if the parameters of the inflation potential are suitably fine-tuned. As Turok (2002) notes, to obtain density perturbations of the level required by observations . . . we need to adjust the coupling mu {for a power law potential mu phi } to be very small, ~ 10-13 in Planck units. This is the famous fine-tuning problem of inflation; . . . Rees’ life-permitting range for Q implies a fine-tuning of the inflation potential of ~ 10-11 with respect to the Planck scale. Tegmark (2005, particularly Figure 11) argues that on very general grounds we can conclude that life-permitting inflation potentials are highly unnatural.
Stenger’s second reply is to ask:
. . . is an order of magnitude fine-tuning? Furthermore, Rees, as he admits, is assuming all other parameters are unchanged. In the first case where Q is too small to cause gravitational clumping, increasing the strength of gravity would increase the clumping. Now, as we have seen, the dimensionless strength of gravity alphaG is arbitrarily defined. However, gravity is stronger when the masses involved are greater. So the parameter that would vary along with Q would be the nucleon mass. As for larger Q, it seems unlikely that inflation would ever result in large fluctuations, given the extensive smoothing that goes on during exponential expansion. {FOFT 207}
Again Barnes comments:
There are a few problems here. We have a clear case of the flippant funambulist fallacy — the possibility of altering other constants to compensate the change in Q is not evidence against fine-tuning. Choose Q and, say, alphaG at random and you are unlikely to have picked a life-permitting pair, even if our universe is not the only life-permitting one. We also have a nice example of the cheap-binoculars fallacy. The allowed change in Q relative to its value in our universe (an order of magnitude) is necessarily an underestimate of the degree of fine-tuning. The question is whether this range is small compared to the possible range of Q. Stenger seems to see this problem, and so argues that large values of Q are unlikely to result from inflation. This claim is false, and symptomatic of Stenger’s tenuous grasp of cosmology. The upper blue region of Figure 4 shows the distribution of Q for the model of Tegmark 2005, using the physically natural expectation (equation here). The mean value of Q ranges from 10 to almost 10000. . .
The fine-tuning of Q stands up well under examination. P. 32-34.
So, that ends the Barnes section. I will make a few comments here.
In his book, Stenger takes issue with Rees. Barnes points out that Rees does not provide all of the evidence available regarding Q because his book was targeting a popular audience. More extensive work in the scientific literature was done by Rees and Tegmark together, Tegmark alone, Bousso, and Garriga & Vilenkin.
I would like to thank Barnes for pointing out how Stenger contradicted himself. You can see this several times throughout the book. In the abstract Stenger wrote in his paper defending himself from Barnes, Stenger writes:
Luke Barnes has written a lengthy, highly technical review of the scientific literature on the fine-tuning problem. I have no significant disagreement with that literature and no prominent physicist or cosmologist has disputed my basic conclusions.
This is quite an amusing quote to me. First, no prominent physicist or cosmologist has endorsed his book either. Second, Stenger claims not to have a disagreement with the literature on the fine-tuning problem yet he wrote a book titled The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning. If Stenger has no problem with the literature, why is he claiming Martin Rees is wrong?
Stenger’s ability to hold two opposing viewpoints at the same time is amazing.
Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.
Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.
Edited by designtheorist, : I hate my typos!
Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Admin, posted 04-13-2013 9:50 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Admin, posted 04-13-2013 3:43 PM designtheorist has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 15 of 21 (696218)
04-13-2013 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by designtheorist
04-13-2013 2:11 PM


Re: Hello Percy
Hi DesignTheorist,
I think I briefly mentioned that I have limited time. I made the time to familiarize myself with the arguments from your opening post, and I will make more time to work with you if you'd like respond to the lines of inquiry I was pursuing.
But if you're going to go off in new directions then I can't really justify making that much time available to familiarize myself with yet more technical issues. Please stay focused on your original thread proposal and attempt to address the issues I raised.
About this from Message 13:
designtheorist writes:
But I think the main is issue is the personal animosity against me.
There is no personal animosity against you in this thread. The problem is that the views you attribute to Stenger are not expressed in the quotes you provided, and a thread with that kind of fundamental problem will not be promoted.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by designtheorist, posted 04-13-2013 2:11 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by designtheorist, posted 04-13-2013 5:02 PM Admin has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024