Summations Only

* sighs *Virtual particle - WikipediaStop making stuff up.You know what would be nice? It would be nice if creationists took a passing interest in the things they talk about.

Let's look at some of the problems of the fine-tuning argument.(1) Some of the things that are claimed to be fine-tuned just aren't. We can look at those on a case-by-case basis when and if any of its advocates start producing specific arguments.(2) We simply don't know how many universes there are. By definition, we can see only one. This would be true if there were lots. This would be true if there were an infinite number of them.There are some ideas in physics which seem to imply that there are lots. I don't consider any of these ideas to be definitely proven, but equally we can't rule it out.(3) The fine-tuning argument implicitly assumes that when the universe was formed, any imaginable combination of independent physical constants was equally likely. But we don't know that --- this is one of the many things we don't know about the formation of the universe. To use an analogy, suppose you draw an ace of hearts from a pack of cards. The chances of that, you would say, are 1/52. But you can only say that because you know the composition of a deck of cards. What if there was only one card in the deck? What if there were 52, but they were all the ace of hearts?Now, since we know so little about how universes come into existence, we do not, so to speak, know the composition of the deck.(4) Physicists have pointed out a flaw in the fine-tuning argument as follows: the arguments for fine-tuning always seem to involve seeing what would happen if you changed one constant while leaving all the rest exactly the same, seemingly establishing that there is only a small patch of what we might call "universe space" in which life can flourish. But what if several of them were different? There might be large chunks of "universe space" in which life is perfectly possible.(5) The Puddle Fallacy. The fine-tuning argument assumes that the life we're talking about has to be a lot like us. Now this is something that's really beyond anyone's abilities to say; no-one can really contemplate the possible biology of a universe unlike ours and say that there couldn't be any.Now the significance of this point is that if there are lots of potential universes in which intelligent beings could be sitting about saying "Golly, this universe is well-adapted to us", then it is of no particular interest that we can say it in the universe we happen to live in.(6) The having-your-cake-and-eating-it problem. The puzzle about fine-tuning is that the universe seems to be peculiarly well adapted to produce the conditions for life. But creationists claim that it isn't. For example, I once saw a pamphlet from the Jehovah's Witnesses which adduced the fine-tuning article on one page, and a couple of pages later asserted that star formation was impossible and must have required a miracle. But in that case the universe is fine-tuned against life.It is conceivable that fine-tuning did require one big miracle; but if fine-tuning exists, then it does away with the requirement for lots of little miracles. It implies deism rather than the book of Genesis.Indeed, the fine-tuning argument could be stood on its head and used as an argument against fiat creationism. A creator God could presumably have chosen any physical constants he wanted; and then he could have brought about things like stars and planets and elements heavier than helium by doing miracles. So why, we might ask, did he choose just those physical constants which allow scientists to produce naturalistic explanations for these things? He would have no actual need to do so, so did he do it just to dick around with scientists?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Sure. But the thing is that even if a lifeless universe was a zillion times more probable than one with life, the probability is zero that we'd be sitting around discussing this issue in a lifeless universe and saying: "Yeah, we don't exist. Statistically, this is exactly what we should expect."

Many of your quotations don't actually say that. I presume you have also made up whether they're atheists or not, as is your wont. Top of your list is Sir James Jeans, what makes you think he was an atheist? So, they're not things he wrote. I thought so. Perhaps you could make less stuff up in future. Either that, or the physicist knows more about physics than you do. I wouldn't dream of it.

This is not an answer to what I wrote. The idea that there is only one also cannot be falsified. Therefore, if cannot be considered science. Therefore, no scientific argument can be based on that assumption. Therefore, the fine-tuning argument is not science. You have failed to understand the thing that you're trying to reply to. The question is not what would happen if the strength of gravity was different, but whether our universe was, so to speak, drawn from a deck of universes containing universes in which it is different. You have no reason for thinking that it was. You do not know the composition of the deck. Just because you can imagine a universe doesn't mean that it could have existed rather than our own: to know that you'd need to know a great deal more about the mechanism by which universes come into existence than you do. You'll pardon me if I don't bow to your expertise in physics, but that's 'cos you don't have any. In our universe, all the life we know of (from a sample of one planet) does depend on carbon bonds. In another universe, life could be based on the squachination of frumium. I don't think anyone's in a position to say. I didn't. I identified stupid religious apologists as being stupid religious apologists.

Does he supply a complete list? So, we should listen to him when you think he's right, 'cos he's so smart, but ignore him when you think he's wrong, 'cos he's so dumb. Either that or you can't read minds. Quoty quote? Either that, or he knows more physics than you do.

Well, he's right, isn't he? The moon probably does exist --- do you deny it? But we have more trouble with models of physics involving things that we can't see. For example, the many-universes model of quantum mechanics works just fine, but would you claim that there are many universes? How about you address his argument using the vast knowledge of physics you don't have? Well, I understand his point. Would you like me to explain it to you?

So you can appeal to his authority unless you want to ignore him. How nice for you.

Really? I was under the impression that they were written by the scientist Victor Stenger. Now, would you like to argue that the moon probably doesn't exist, or will you let him have that one? I was asking for an argument, you've supplied me with rhetoric. Hmm, let's ask physics professor Robert Lambourne, shall we? On page 165 of his book Relativity, Gravitation and Cosmology, he writes: "talking of the 'pull' of gravity or gravitational 'attraction' would be quite wrong, since there is no gravitational 'force' in general relativity".Likewise physicist Rickard M. Jonsson, in his paper "Visualizing curved spacetime" writes: "Notice, however, that there is no gravitational force in general relativity."Similarly, the physicist Edmund Bertschinger, in his Introduction to Tensor Calculus for General Relativity, writes: "From the viewpoint of GR, there is no gravitational force. Rather, in the absence of electromagnetic and other forces, particles follow the straightest possible paths (geodesics) through a spacetime curved by mass."Isn't google great? Or you could just have used Wikipedia: "Phenomena that in classical mechanics are ascribed to the action of the force of gravity (such as free-fall, orbital motion, and spacecraft trajectories), correspond to inertial motion within a curved geometry of spacetime in general relativity; there is no gravitational force deflecting objects from their natural, straight paths." His point is that the figure you get is produced by making a fairly arbitrary comparison of two things. As he writes: "Barnes similarly misrepresents the case I make against one of the most common, fine-tuning claims, that gravity is 39 orders of magnitude weaker than electromagnetism, and, if this were not so, we would not exist. I point out the elementary physics fact that this is only true for a proton and electron. In general, the relative strength of the two forces depends on the masses and charges of the particles involved."This is evidently true. If, for example, you used a proton and an antiproton, you'd get a different figure.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Okay, let's start at the beginning. Have you ever looked up at the night sky and seen a shiny thing looking something like this?

I was unaware that you had ever made any important comments. I'm not inclined to take your word for that, as I have no confidence either in your research skills or in your ability to distinguish a successful refutation of a hypothesis in physics from a hole in the ground.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I've done that.

That's not an assumption, that's an observation.

Yes I did. This is, of course, not true. If the field is a only useful accounting device, then the accountancy can still work.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This is, of course, not true. Nor, of course, does it accurately represent Stenger.