Thoughts On Robin Collins and the Many Universe Generator

But we've established that you've based your "greater topic" on the premise that the universe is fine-tuned; since this premise isn't known to be true, your topic is rather void. We're still in the part where you should be defending your premises, but you refuse to do that.Instead, you make stupid assertions and then balk when they're refuted effortlessly. You drop a smokescreen of pointing fingers and accuse everyone of "distracting attention" when all you've done is drag up irrelevancies to distract attention from your failure to actually support your points.If you want to move on, that's fine. I just need you to admit that you have no idea if the universe is fine-tuned or not; and that not all scientists believe that to be the case. Surrender those points, and I will address your inital post as though the "fine-tuning" premise was true.

Yeah, but if we find out it's behind door #3, then it the wave function collapses so we don't know where it's going next.......I thought THAT was the uncertainty principle..........

Oooooook, perhaps a redefinition of "fine-tuned" is an order......Can we agree that there are many physical aspects of our universe which are thought to be variable and that are precisely set at levels to allow the evolution of material life? Can we agree that we have no reason to believe that non-material life can evolve? Then we can agree that "that's just the way it is" isn't a viable explaination for the existence of our universe......because there have either got to be an infinity of universes or unknown natural forces which determine that this is the only type of universe that CAN exist.....right?If we can agree on the above, then we agree on Collins' definition of the fine-tuned universe. All scientists? No, not all scientists believe that.......I was never implying that literally all scientists did.But the vast majority do believe, even if they won't use the term "fine-tuned" because of its theistic implications, that the universe either one of an infinity of universes, the vast majority of which couldn't support life, or that there are unknown natural forces which require that only a universe like ours can exist.

It's more like this. Three doors, three positions, one Dodge Charger (it's a joke; charge, get it?). We have no idea where the car is, and the car obeys quantum mechanics (late model).We go up to door one. We can't look through a keyhole, or anything, but we hear the engine running (that's a weak observation, for purposes of argument), but at about one-third the usual volume.We go up to door two. Same deal. Same with door 3. Because we don't know which door the car is behind - because it would break the law for us to know - the car is behind all three doors at once. The car exists in an "eigenstate." This eigenstate is described by the wave functions we've been discussing.When we open one of the doors, the eigenstate collapses, potentially only partially (as in, it might still be in two places at once instead of three), or possibly completely. When we open the door with the car, the wave function has completely collapsed, and the car is discreetly in one place. Obviously, the sound of the engine returns to normal, and we no longer hear it through the other doors.

???This is exactly what I've been arguing against the whole time. No, we can't agree to this. We have no idea that the aspects are variable in any way; we have no idea that they're set to any kind of precision; we have no idea that they have to be set this way to allow for life. I've only been arguing against this for almost 300 posts. What on Earth made you think that restating it would be compelling to me? Did you not think I understood what you meant by "fine-tuning"? You didn't have to imply it, you came right out and said it. You said that "no scientist believes that the universe is not fine-tuned for life." Unsupported assertion. By what means did you come to knowledge about what these scientists believe? Did you ask? Did anyone?

But when we LOOK at an electron, don't we know exactly where it is? We just don't know where it's going next, correct? Again, why can't that just be explained as the quanta moving too quickly for us to detect its movement, so that it only appears to be in three places at once?

Yes we do, because we know exactly (in theory) how the material universe evolved........for instance, we know that a star that burns out in a million years (as stars would if gravity was much greater) don't have time for planets to form around it...... Can you PLEASE stop speaking Webster English and start speaking in the vernacular? Ya know, the language where just because you say "all" doesn't mean you mean LITERALLY all........ Do you disagree that most scientists think the universe evolve the way it did for a REASON?

for instance, we know that a star that burns out in a million years (as stars would if gravity was much greater) don't have time for planets to form around it......And what is that suppose to prove? that example doesn't provide any evidence of fine-tuning.

Do I have to explain everything to you people? If gravity is greater, planets can't form.......if planets can't form, life can't evolve.......therefore, a universe with the right level of gravitational force is fine-tuned......

em.. no that doesn't follow at all - as a number of people have explained to you.

quote:

---

Do I have to explain everything to you people?

---

That's suggesting that you have explained something.. which you haven't.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 10-18-2004 07:47 PMYou did read post 274 - right?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 10-18-2004 07:48 PM

How many times do I have to state that NO material life can exist if certain tuning principles aren't observed.........how many times do I have to state that there is no reason to believe that there is such a thing as naturally evolving non-material life?

Yes, please explain that.Why can't planets form if gravity is greater?If planets can't form, why can't life evolve?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

removed by editor - because it's just not worth it.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 10-18-2004 07:51 PM

Look up the "two-slit" experiment. This is the classic demonstration of quantum behavior, where a single electron passes through two slits simultaneously and interferes with itself. A) Too complicated. Superposition of states is much simpler, and just as explanitory.
B) Contradicted by the uncertainty principle.
C) Why would the particles do that? Where does their momentum come from? What knocks them in and out of space in exactly the right place?

BECAUSE STARS BURN TOO QUICKLY!!!!!!!!! BECAUSE MATERIAL LIFE NEEDS PLANETS TO EVOLVE ON!NOW STOP ASKING SHORT-BUS QUESTIONS!