These are simply philosophical speculations of a scientist, perhaps because he wants to avoid the implications of fine-tuning.
Just about everyone in the field, including Paul and Stephen, are fully aware that a multiverse scenario is somehwere between a distinct possibility and an almost certainty: from the exceptionally generic string landscape, through chaotic/eternal inflation, bubble-nucleation, and even just plain old boring classic inflation (where the multiverse is simply the vast multiplicity of observable-universe-sized volumes of the hyper-sized universe.) Fine-tuning is a thing of the past. Barrow and Tipler's CAP is over twenty years old, and was a good read in the late eighties - now it's all a bit tired.
Just about everyone in the field, including Paul and Stephen, are fully aware that a multiverse scenario is somehwere between a distinct possibility and an almost certainty
Since you have no problems about enterloping on to my thread, Ill return the favor.
A distinct possibility and ALMOST certainty, is the same as saying you know nothing at all. Why dont you just say you dont have a real clue about any of what is actually out there. wouldnt that be easier than all the crapola
Why dont you just say you dont have a real clue about any of what is actually out there.
EMA, when you get to the point of actually understanding 1% of what we are talking about, get back to me. 'Till then, stick to your talking snakes - it's more your level.
EMA, when you get to the point of actually understanding 1% of what we are talking about, get back to me. 'Till then, stick to your talking snakes - it's more your level.
Then why did you bother in the first place, are you afraid talking snakes might have actually been real
Oh no you dont understand, I dont pretend to understand cosmology, Im simply trying to demonstrate that you dont understand the issues you dealing with in other thread, but you pretend like you do. ill stay clear if you will, how does that sound to you?
Also if these imaginary multivereses were an actual reality, Im betting there is another CD, that is you, for all intents and purposes, except that in that universe, (as all things are opposite), that CD is actually a friendly person. What say ye?
Then why did you bother in the first place, are you afraid talking snakes might have actually been real
He has passed on from those childish beliefs.
Oh no you dont understand, I dont pretend to understand cosmology, Im simply trying to demonstrate that you dont understand the issues you dealing with in other thread, but you pretend like you do.
Since he is a physicist, and you are not, guess who I'm betting my money on...
Also if these imaginary multivereses were an actual reality, Im betting there is another CD, that is you, for all intents and purposes, except that in that universe, (as all things are opposite), that CD is actually a friendly person. What say ye?
That this demonstrates that you indeed do not grasp the issue.
I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
quote:Yes, you have yet to mention that any of them have done anything other than speculate. ... It would be interesting to know where he published them. You should also note that the previously referenced work points out that varying one "constant" at a time isn't the only possibility and if your friend George did that then he didn't demonstrate that the other work is wrong at all.
Did you read and understand my quote of George Smoot in Message 129? It is essentially a layman's summary of the work which led to his Nobel prize. Nobel prizes are not awarded for speculation or simulation, but for discoveries based on data. George didn't "vary constants;" he measured the extremely small spatial anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation.
Did you read and understand your own reference of Adams? He seems to be doing only limited simulations (no observations or measurements), looking only at the physics of star formation. He seems to ignore the bigger question of the fine-tuning of the Big Bang itself, and whether or not the universe allows enough time for stars to form. For our universe to create stars and last to the present, the energy density of the Big Bang needed to be fine-tuned to about 1 part in 10^120, an incredibly precise tuning. Adams does not address this.
The context of my remarks (and Peg's?) is not evolution. I was discussing cosmological and physical parameters and was quoting experts in these fields.
Same difference. Species evolved to match existing conditions.
If conditions were different, species would have evolved differently, no?
And then, wonder of wonders, they would be "fine tuned" for those other conditions!
"Fine tuning" is nothing more than god of the gaps apologetics mixed liberally with personal incredulity.
Not so. Cosmological fine-tuning has nothing to do with evolution.
In order to have complex life, one needs complex molecules. In order to have complex molecules, one needs heavy elements (light elements like hydrogen and helium can't make complex molecules). In order to make heavy elements, one needs stars (and to disperse the elements one needs supernovae). In order to form stars and allow them to live long enough to form heavy elements and to supernova, one needs a Big Bang with an extremely precisely fine-tuned energy density.
But fundamentally, they don't really explain why it behaves this way.
No, GR explains precisely why gravitation behaves the way it does. GR lies at a much deeper level than simple gravitation.
GR is a certainly more fundamental description, but I maintain that it is still only a description, not really a cause. Based on your comments, you will probably disagree with me.
Note that this is a philosophy-of-science question, not a science question. There are good scientists on both sides. It seems to me that theists (including the pioneers of modern science, such as Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, etc) tend to take my position, while atheists tend to take your position.
quote:Barrow and Tipler's CAP is over twenty years old, and was a good read in the late eighties - now it's all a bit tired.
I realize that Barrow and Tipler is dated. I mentioned it because it was the first well-known book on the topic. There are a number of more recent books on the same topic by Jastrow, Davies, and others.
I think god/s may be possible, but I have no certainty on this issue.
I think nobody has. This doesn't stop some folk from saying they certainly do exist (or not), however.
The empirical objective evidence is that they do exist. Some people wonder why.
They can wonder all they like. The problem lies in the fact that there is no evidence of a god putting them there, so saying he must have is not a position I think someone should take.
I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
But since naturalistic explanation don't preclude the gods' existences, you're not showing that they don't exist.
I am starting to despair at your lack of comprehension. Preclude? I am not saying, and never ever have said, that any god concept definitely does not exist. I am saying that any given god concept is more likley to be the product of human invention than true.
We know as a fact that humans can invent gods. There is no such factual basis for thinking gods might exist. In fact there is no evidential basis whatsoever.
CS writes:
I'm saying that you haven't shown that they were false. We can show that the specific descriptions are inaccurate, but that doesn't show that gods don't exist.
CS writes:
Straggler writes:
When are we going to get past this eternal conflation of knowing with believing and of proof with evidence?
Maybe when you realize I'm not doing it?
You just did do it. Twice: "that doesn't show that gods don't exist" etc.
If you're not showing that gods don't exist then how are you evidentially justifying that they don't!?
Nothing that is innately irrefutable can be shown to definitely not exist. You cannot show that the Easter Bunny, Santa, The Immaterial Pink Unicorn or any other such entity does not exist. But that doesn't stop us having a high degree of confidence in considering them to be the products of human invention rather than real entities. And no this isn't just "subjective world view". It is based on the exceptionally well evidenced fact that humans are able to invent such concepts and the more complex but also objectively evidenced reasons for them doing so.
The only indication we have that any gods even might exist are the claims and beliefs of humans. We have previously agreed that no claim operates in a vacuum of all evidence. Likewise claims about gods and deities don't exist in a vaccum. They exist in the complex environment of human culture, psychology etc. But we never even get as far as examining any of that stuff because you and RAZD are so dogmatically set on the "absence of evidence" line that you simply deny the possibility of a naturalistic answer involving human invention is any more or less evidenced than your preferred god answer. But this is an act of denial on your part. We know human brains exist and we know they are capable of inventing gods.
The question "Why is human belief in gods widespread" can be answered by a near infinite array of possible explanations. But only some of those have a factual evidential foundation (the naturalistic explanations involving human brains and their abilities). Most conceivable explanations (magic moonbeams, fluctuations in the matrix, the existence of gods etc. etc.) have no evidential basis at all.
Isn't considering the evidenced possibilities over the unevidenced as more likely a rational conclusion?
Well, how about this, found this movie on youtube today while browsing some of my favourite channels, what a coincidence, eh?
Refutes the "fine-tuned " argument, and references actual work by scientists showing that it is not unlikely for a universe to form capable of supporting life even if conditions are set randomly in the beginning. Anyway, enjoy:
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
Great movie! Especially Germans must have gotten the message.
The descriptions of ways to die on different planets was very humorous, and I also liked the comparisons with swimming pools, cranes and planes and so on. Very instructive.
quote:Well, how about this, found this movie on youtube today while browsing some of my favourite channels, what a coincidence, eh?
So you're going to try to refute world-renowned scientists and Nobel laureates with YouTube?? This should be interesting.
quote:Refutes the "fine-tuned " argument,
Not at all. The narrator either fundamentally misunderstands or intentionally misrepresents fine-tuning arguments. No fine-tuning argument implies that the entire physical universe is suitable for life. I wonder if he has actually read the book by McGrath that he highlights?
quote:and references actual work by scientists
There are two references to scientific papers. (Plus the book by McGrath, who has a PhD in molecular biophysics.)
quote:showing that it is not unlikely for a universe to form capable of supporting life even if conditions are set randomly in the beginning. Anyway, enjoy:
They do not show this at all!
Adams has already been discussed. His investigation was limited to star formation, and specifically did not consider the cosmic expansion rate. From his paper:
Fred Adams writes:
This paper has focused on stellar structure properties. ... In future work, another issue to be considered is coupling the effects of alternate values of the fundamental constants to the cosmic expansion, big bang nucleosynthesis, and structure formation. Each of these issues should be explored in the same level of detail as stellar structure is studied in this work.
Harnik et al likewise restricted their simulations to a single phenomenon (electroweak interactions). As they changed the electroweak coupling, they fine-tuned other parameters to "follow our Universe" and allow for long-lived stars. They conclude that the electroweak interaction can have a wide range of values and still lead to universes similar to our own (so long as other parameters are fine-tuned). They stress that this situation would probably not apply to the extremely fine-tuned cosmological constant (CC). They speculate that its 10^120 level of fine tuning might be reduced by about three orders of magnitude, to 10^117. That's still an extremely fine-tuned parameter!
Neither of these papers supports the claims of the narrator.
™ Version 4.2
