|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Constant balance - 11/12/2008 6:37:51 PM
|
|
|
BookerG
Posts: 91
Status: offline
|
One of the best arguments against the naturalism of Big Bang/evolutionary theories, I think, is the fine tuning of the universe. There's an article at Discover right now proposing the multiverse theory as the one real option to explain it. Elsewhere I recall seeing claims that the probability that all of the universe's constants would have the right balance to make stars, planets and life possible was something like ten to the 150th power to one against. I don't put much credence in that number, because there's no legitimate way to calculate the odds. Suffice it to say the odds are extremely slim. And evolutionists seem to have pretty much pretended this problem didn't exist until the theory of the multiverse gave them a way to save naturalism from complete ridicule.
Multiversers say it doesn't matter how high the odds are because with enough universes, perhaps an infinite number of them, there are bound to be many that just happen to have the right balance.
My take on that is that it actually barely budges the odds in favor of our naturalistic existence.
For example, if gravity were just slightly stronger, stars would burn out too fast for life to evolve. If it were slightly weaker, stars would not form the heavier elements. The intersection of those two circles of viable gravitational constants gives us the tiny number of potential universes where the value is just right. But who says the circles had to intersect. Consider all the conditions that the universe had to meet for life to be possible. Think of the ranges of all the universal constants that permit those conditions as overlapping circles. Our universe sits in the tiny, tiny space where all the circles overlap. Every condition necessary for life establishes a circle that could just as easily fall outside the acceptable ranges determined by other conditions necessary for life, and then life would be impossible no matter how many universes there are.
That means, if (just for the sake of argument) the odds of all the constants having the right balance is one in 10 to the 150th power, then the odds are probably about one in 10 to the 149th power that no universe would be capable of supporting life, and even an infinite multiverse wouldn't make a difference.
Another way to say it is, if there are 20 finely balanced constants, couldn't there just as easily be a 21st constant, which would almost certainly throw off the whole balance no matter what its value was? And an infinite number of universes would still result in 0 universes with life. Having a multiverse only nudges the odds in our favor if a balance was possible in the first place, which still seems incredibly slim to me.
Given that life is possible, a multiverse might make it virtually a certainty, but that's an enormous given which naturalism has no answer for, other than the somewhat pointless anthropic principle.
Do my ramblings make any sense?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/12/2008 8:58:09 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 2031
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
You assume that the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution automatically rule out a God who ultimately created everything.
They don't.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/13/2008 3:18:00 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3075
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
The fact that God ultimately created everything automatically rules out BBT and ToE!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/14/2008 9:09:26 AM
|
|
|
robto
Posts: 103
Joined: 10/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BookerG
One of the best arguments against the naturalism of Big Bang/evolutionary theories, I think, is the fine tuning of the universe. There's an article at Discover right now proposing the multiverse theory as the one real option to explain it. Elsewhere I recall seeing claims that the probability that all of the universe's constants would have the right balance to make stars, planets and life possible was something like ten to the 150th power to one against. I don't put much credence in that number, because there's no legitimate way to calculate the odds. Suffice it to say the odds are extremely slim.
Hi, BookerG. I have to agree with you here - any calculation of the odds of any particular value or range of values of any physical constant is pretty much pure speculation, IMO.
quote:
And evolutionists seem to have pretty much pretended this problem didn't exist until the theory of the multiverse gave them a way to save naturalism from complete ridicule.
Several problems here:
-"Evolutionists" don't talk about the fine tuning problem at all; it's cosmologists, astrophysicists, and particle physicists who worry about these things. Evolution has to do with how life developed on earth, it has nothing to do with the big bang, or the formation of the galaxy, sun, and earth. Completely different realms of science.
- Fine tuning issues have been around for a long time, since long before the multiverse concept was developed, I'm pretty sure. The multiverse is only the latest attempt to deal with them.
- I don't think anyone involved in these debates sees them as a way to save "naturalism" from ridicule. I don't think the naturalism/creationism debate is even on the radar screen for most of these folks. For most practising scientists (even Christian ones), there isn't any point to such a debate, because science is the search for naturalistic explanations of phenomena. Miraculous events cannot be subjected to scientific investigation becuase they are not replicable.
I could be wrong about this, of course. I would be interested if you know of any quotes from scientists working in the field (not journalists or popularizers) who see the multiverse as part of a naturalism/supernaturalism conflict.
quote:
Multiversers say it doesn't matter how high the odds are because with enough universes, perhaps an infinite number of them, there are bound to be many that just happen to have the right balance.
My take on that is that it actually barely budges the odds in favor of our naturalistic existence.
For example, if gravity were just slightly stronger, stars would burn out too fast for life to evolve. If it were slightly weaker, stars would not form the heavier elements. The intersection of those two circles of viable gravitational constants gives us the tiny number of potential universes where the value is just right. But who says the circles had to intersect. Consider all the conditions that the universe had to meet for life to be possible. Think of the ranges of all the universal constants that permit those conditions as overlapping circles. Our universe sits in the tiny, tiny space where all the circles overlap. Every condition necessary for life establishes a circle that could just as easily fall outside the acceptable ranges determined by other conditions necessary for life, and then life would be impossible no matter how many universes there are.
That means, if (just for the sake of argument) the odds of all the constants having the right balance is one in 10 to the 150th power, then the odds are probably about one in 10 to the 149th power that no universe would be capable of supporting life, and even an infinite multiverse wouldn't make a difference.
Another way to say it is, if there are 20 finely balanced constants, couldn't there just as easily be a 21st constant, which would almost certainly throw off the whole balance no matter what its value was? And an infinite number of universes would still result in 0 universes with life. Having a multiverse only nudges the odds in our favor if a balance was possible in the first place, which still seems incredibly slim to me.
Given that life is possible, a multiverse might make it virtually a certainty, but that's an enormous given which naturalism has no answer for, other than the somewhat pointless anthropic principle.
Do my ramblings make any sense?
I don't follow your argument here. However, I agree that the multiverse concept doesn't really solve the fine tuning problem, for the simple reason that it cannot be experimentally verified. The other "universes" in the multiverse are, by definition, unreachable from our universe, so we will never know if they are there. The sole point of contact between our universe and the multiverse is the early instants of the big bang. Now, it MAY turn out that multiverse theories give unique predictions about the big bang that cannot be replicated in any reasonable non-multiverse theory. But I doubt that very much.
In the end, I think the multiverse amounts to postulating an infinite number of unobservable entities in order to explain (poorly) a few observed properties of the universe - a bad deal under Occam's razor. But postulating a single unobserved entity (God) doesn't seem much better, if neither can be experimentally tested.
_____________________________
The Theory of Almost Everything: Everything you always wanted to know about elementary particles but were afraid to ask
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/14/2008 11:07:28 AM
|
|
|
BookerG
Posts: 91
Status: offline
|
I wasn’t assuming BBT and TofE must be naturalistic, I just meant that my argument in this thread is with naturalism and not the theories themselves.
I'm not a scientist, and I normally avoid participating in the Science and Origins threads because I don't have the background to make a real contribution here. I just saw the Discover article and wanted to know if anybody else saw this big hole in the multiverse theory as a solution to the fine-tuning problem.
quote:
-"Evolutionists" don't talk about the fine tuning problem at all; it's cosmologists, astrophysicists, and particle physicists who worry about these things. Evolution has to do with how life developed on earth, it has nothing to do with the big bang, or the formation of the galaxy, sun, and earth. Completely different realms of science.
I brought in evolution because the claim is that the universe is fine tuned not just for stars but for life. If the constants were changed even the tiniest bit, if the weak force or the mass of a proton was changed at all, oxygen would no longer be oxygen. There’s no way to know what chemical properties all the elements and molecules would have, but the incredible interworking of current organic chemistry would be shot. Would some other form of life based on some other molecular order be possible? Obviously I can’t rule it out, but I don’t buy the idea that life is easy.
quote:
- Fine tuning issues have been around for a long time, since long before the multiverse concept was developed, I'm pretty sure. The multiverse is only the latest attempt to deal with them.
Was there any theory or explanation other than, “well, we’re here, and if we weren’t here we wouldn’t be asking the question, so the question is moot”? Was there any admission or discussion in scientific literature other than in philosophic discussion of the vague anthropic principle?
quote:
- I don't think anyone involved in these debates sees them as a way to save "naturalism" from ridicule. I don't think the naturalism/creationism debate is even on the radar screen for most of these folks. For most practising scientists (even Christian ones), there isn't any point to such a debate, because science is the search for naturalistic explanations of phenomena. Miraculous events cannot be subjected to scientific investigation becuase they are not replicable.
They wouldn’t see it that way, but without some explanation that is capable of raising the odds considerably, I don’t see how naturalism has a leg to stand on. If anything happened today for which the only natural explanation is that some event beat the odds of 1 in 10 to the 150th power, could anyone say it was just lucky with a straight face?
I have never had any problem with science being the search for naturalistic explanations of phenomena, with miracles and God lying outside the realm of science because they are not replicable. But scientists don’t just say theirs is the best naturalistic explanation, they say naturalism is the only explanation. They say evolution is fact, not just the best way to interpret the data without relying on miracles or God.
Imagine a crime committed in a locked room. Only two people were present. One of them says I did it. But he’s the ambassador from France, so the police can’t arrest him, question him, or investigate him. So they arrest the other guy, and at his trial they never mention the ambassador as even a possible suspect. So there was only one guy in the room, and the jury convicts him. Is that justice? Science can’t investigate God, but is it then fair to say naturalism must be responsible?
quote:
I don't follow your argument here.
One more try: suppose we eliminated one of the universal constants completely. Suppose there was no gravity, or no weak force, or electrons had no charge. Stars, planets and life would be impossible, no matter how you balance the remaining constants.
Or suppose that the only way to create the heavy elements was if gravity was immensely strong, and the only way to make stars was if gravity was extremely weak. Stars, planets and life would be impossible, no matter how you balance all the constants.
Life itself depends on the unique, incredibly complex interaction of molecular properties that I think are even more finely balanced than the recipe for stars and planets. But because it’s so complex, I can’t say what would happen if the balance were changed.
But an infinite number of universes does not make a life-producing universe more likely unless existence itself won an incredibly lucky lottery that made a balanced universe possible.
The multiverse isn’t science. It’s faith in an unseen, unknowable, unprovable being upon whom we depend for our very existence. The only difference between the multiverse and God as a scientific theory is that God is alive.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/14/2008 12:07:43 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3075
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Really? How so? Really! Naturalism is fundamental dogma for BBT and ToE. Naturalism is the antithesis of creationism. Theistic evolution is therefore an impossible oxymoron.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/14/2008 2:18:16 PM
|
|
|
robto
Posts: 103
Joined: 10/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Really? How so? Really! Naturalism is fundamental dogma for BBT and ToE.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your logic here is:
BBT and TOE explain the development of the universe and the biosphere without reference to God. Therefore, if BBT and TOE are correct, there is no God.
The argument is of the form "A does not imply B. Therefore, A implies NOT B." This is fallacious reasoning. "The fact that you are wet does not imply that it's raining. You are wet, therefore it's not raining."
quote:
Naturalism is the antithesis of creationism. Theistic evolution is therefore an impossible oxymoron.
I'll let the theistic creationists defend themselves. But tell me if you would agree with the following statement:
"If there are natural laws, then there is no God."
BookerG: I hope to respond to your post when I have more time.
_____________________________
The Theory of Almost Everything: Everything you always wanted to know about elementary particles but were afraid to ask
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/16/2008 12:38:21 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 273
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: robto
- I don't think anyone involved in these debates sees them as a way to save "naturalism" from ridicule. I don't think the naturalism/creationism debate is even on the radar screen for most of these folks. For most practising scientists (even Christian ones), there isn't any point to such a debate, because science is the search for naturalistic explanations of phenomena. Miraculous events cannot be subjected to scientific investigation becuase they are not replicable. Now that's where the Darwinist bunch fail. Science is not about getting only naturalistic explanations for everything. It is about finding the most reasonable explanation for natural phenomena, remaining naturalistic only so far as possible under the circumstances.
This is why methodological naturalism fails as true science.
Put it this way: Suppose living organisms really were designed by a supernatural entity, could methodological naturalism discover this? No, absolutely not. Why? Because it has an a priori commitment to excluding anything that points to super nature.
Could ID? Yes. Why? Because it's a priori commitment is not to purely naturalistic explanations but rather to simply go where the evidence points.
If the evidence points an unknown super intelligence then go there, examine the question, whether it be natural (aliens) or supernatural (God or gods).
Now here's how the materialists approach this:
quote:
Question: What do you call a person who hypothesizes an unseen intelligent being and searches outer space for confirming material evidence?
Answer: A scientist.
Question: What do you call a person who hypothesizes an unseen intelligent being and searches inner space for confirming material evidence?
Answer: A religious pseudo-scientific quack. 
The 1st answer refers of course to SETI or any other such scientific program. Go figure huh.
_____________________________
"The formation within geological time of a human body, by the laws of physics..., starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components." Kurt Godel
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/16/2008 12:47:40 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 273
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
The fact that God ultimately created everything automatically rules out BBT and ToE! I don't see how it rules out BBT. That is the only valid theory that coincides with the Genesis 'in the beginning God...' Of course the theory isn't perfect but creationists ought to stop hammering against it and start using it. BBT says the universe had a beginning and thus is not eternal and thus had to have an adequate cause. Again coincidental with Genesis. Genesis 1 is an explosion of power, life and indeed joy. In fact my Hebrew professor told me that each producing after it's kind could be paraphrased as something akin to, "the apple trees appled, the roses rosed, the lions lioned,...." all in an explosion of great joy in fresh life given by the creator.
In fact, the reason why they are trying so hard to find a 'better' theory is because the materialists among them don't like the BBT precisely because of it's metaphysical implications!! And that is why one editor of the widely respected science mag, Science, called on scientists to look for different theory! He didn't like the metaphysical implications of the BBT! Talk about objectivity! And that is at least one of the reasons we're now constantly hearing about untestable theories like multiverses, string theory.... Anything but the BBT in the minds of these incorrigible materialists, because it points them to Gen 1:1 !!
< Message edited by GHitch -- 11/16/2008 12:53:44 PM >
_____________________________
"The formation within geological time of a human body, by the laws of physics..., starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components." Kurt Godel
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/17/2008 9:11:12 PM
|
|
|
robto
Posts: 103
Joined: 10/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BookerG
I brought in evolution because the claim is that the universe is fine tuned not just for stars but for life. If the constants were changed even the tiniest bit, if the weak force or the mass of a proton was changed at all, oxygen would no longer be oxygen. There’s no way to know what chemical properties all the elements and molecules would have, but the incredible interworking of current organic chemistry would be shot. Would some other form of life based on some other molecular order be possible? Obviously I can’t rule it out, but I don’t buy the idea that life is easy.
But that's just the problem - we don't have any way of assessing if life is "easy" or "hard", or if adjusting the constants would make life less probable or more probable.
quote:
quote:
- Fine tuning issues have been around for a long time, since long before the multiverse concept was developed, I'm pretty sure. The multiverse is only the latest attempt to deal with them.
Was there any theory or explanation other than, “well, we’re here, and if we weren’t here we wouldn’t be asking the question, so the question is moot”? Was there any admission or discussion in scientific literature other than in philosophic discussion of the vague anthropic principle?
I don't think it's fair to complain that the anthropic principle is a vague philosophical idea. After all, the idea of fine tuning is itself a vague philosophical idea. If you don't have a way of calculating how probable a given set of natural constants is, then you can't really claim the universe is fine tuned. And the only way to calculate such probabilities is to go to some sort of multiverse theory, where many different values can arise in different branches. So if you rule out the multiverse because it's too iffy in its calculations, you also rule out any discussion of fine tuning itself.
quote:
One more try: suppose we eliminated one of the universal constants completely. Suppose there was no gravity, or no weak force, or electrons had no charge. Stars, planets and life would be impossible, no matter how you balance the remaining constants.
Or suppose that the only way to create the heavy elements was if gravity was immensely strong, and the only way to make stars was if gravity was extremely weak. Stars, planets and life would be impossible, no matter how you balance all the constants.
But we KNOW this isn't the case. There's no point in bringing the probability that life is impossible under ANY circumstances, because we KNOW life is possible under at least ONE set of circumstances, namely, the ones we have in our universe.
Going back to your OP:
quote:
Given that life is possible, a multiverse might make it virtually a certainty, but that's an enormous given which naturalism has no answer for, other than the somewhat pointless anthropic principle.
And that "given" is something that's completely unarguable: life IS possible, because we're here. So I don't see this as a "hole" in the multiverse idea.
quote:
The multiverse isn’t science. It’s faith in an unseen, unknowable, unprovable being upon whom we depend for our very existence. The only difference between the multiverse and God as a scientific theory is that God is alive.
So why is God the better hypothesis, if this is correct?
_____________________________
The Theory of Almost Everything: Everything you always wanted to know about elementary particles but were afraid to ask
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/17/2008 9:25:58 PM
|
|
|
robto
Posts: 103
Joined: 10/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
Now that's where the Darwinist bunch fail. Science is not about getting only naturalistic explanations for everything. It is about finding the most reasonable explanation for natural phenomena, remaining naturalistic only so far as possible under the circumstances.
This is why methodological naturalism fails as true science.
Put it this way: Suppose living organisms really were designed by a supernatural entity, could methodological naturalism discover this? No, absolutely not. Why? Because it has an a priori commitment to excluding anything that points to super nature.
Could ID? Yes. Why? Because it's a priori commitment is not to purely naturalistic explanations but rather to simply go where the evidence points.
If the evidence points an unknown super intelligence then go there, examine the question, whether it be natural (aliens) or supernatural (God or gods).
So, you decided I'm worth debating after all, Hitch? OK, then.
You're right: if the true answer is "God did it", science will never discover that fact. Not just under the assumptions of methodological naturalism, but under ANY assumptions.
The reason is that science deals with rules and laws. If God created life miraculously, according to no rules or laws of nature, then science is just out of luck. There is no way to discover a miracle scientifically.
Why not? Because a miraculous origin leaves no traces. Or, rather, it can leave any traces it likes - it's a miracle, after all. It's like those folks who say that God created the earth with all the fossils and geological layers already in place. Sure, it COULD have happened that way, but science would never be able to prove it happened that way.
So if the miraculous answer is the correct one for the origin of life, we will never discover it scientifically. We may work for centuries and always remain baffled, or we may find a naturalistic answer that fits the clues that God has (falsely) left for us - chemical signatures in rocks, microfossils, etc. - and think we've got the answer. The same could be claimed of any other branch of science: maybe stars DON'T shine because of nuclear fusion, maybe it's a miracle, and all the neutrinos are just thrown in to confuse us. But if that's the true answer, we will never find it by scientific means.
_____________________________
The Theory of Almost Everything: Everything you always wanted to know about elementary particles but were afraid to ask
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/18/2008 12:58:34 AM
|
|
|
HocusPocus
Posts: 17
Joined: 11/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BookerG
One of the best arguments against the naturalism of Big Bang/evolutionary theories, I think, is the fine tuning of the universe. There's an article at Discover right now proposing the multiverse theory as the one real option to explain it. Elsewhere I recall seeing claims that the probability that all of the universe's constants would have the right balance to make stars, planets and life possible was something like ten to the 150th power to one against. I don't put much credence in that number, because there's no legitimate way to calculate the odds. Suffice it to say the odds are extremely slim. And evolutionists seem to have pretty much pretended this problem didn't exist until the theory of the multiverse gave them a way to save naturalism from complete ridicule.
Multiversers say it doesn't matter how high the odds are because with enough universes, perhaps an infinite number of them, there are bound to be many that just happen to have the right balance.
My take on that is that it actually barely budges the odds in favor of our naturalistic existence.
For example, if gravity were just slightly stronger, stars would burn out too fast for life to evolve. If it were slightly weaker, stars would not form the heavier elements. The intersection of those two circles of viable gravitational constants gives us the tiny number of potential universes where the value is just right. But who says the circles had to intersect. Consider all the conditions that the universe had to meet for life to be possible. Think of the ranges of all the universal constants that permit those conditions as overlapping circles. Our universe sits in the tiny, tiny space where all the circles overlap. Every condition necessary for life establishes a circle that could just as easily fall outside the acceptable ranges determined by other conditions necessary for life, and then life would be impossible no matter how many universes there are.
That means, if (just for the sake of argument) the odds of all the constants having the right balance is one in 10 to the 150th power, then the odds are probably about one in 10 to the 149th power that no universe would be capable of supporting life, and even an infinite multiverse wouldn't make a difference.
Another way to say it is, if there are 20 finely balanced constants, couldn't there just as easily be a 21st constant, which would almost certainly throw off the whole balance no matter what its value was? And an infinite number of universes would still result in 0 universes with life. Having a multiverse only nudges the odds in our favor if a balance was possible in the first place, which still seems incredibly slim to me.
Given that life is possible, a multiverse might make it virtually a certainty, but that's an enormous given which naturalism has no answer for, other than the somewhat pointless anthropic principle.
Do my ramblings make any sense?
The universe is fine-tuned by definition no matter how it turned out. If any number of the constants were different, a different universe would result that is fine-tuned according to these new constants.
You may object that this may be true, but our universe is fine-tuned for life to exist. You are correct, but this is simply a matter of how we define life, so of course life as we define it would not exist if the constants were different. Rather, if the constants were changed, then the universe would be perfectly fine-tuned to allow whatever entities that arise to exist (I will call these entities X).
So we have the same situation: In a universe fine-tuned for the existence of X, if any constant is changed, X could not exist.
It seems people who find the fine-tuning argument to be valid place some sort of cosmological value on life.
< Message edited by HocusPocus -- 11/18/2008 1:07:26 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/18/2008 1:02:17 AM
|
|
|
HocusPocus
Posts: 17
Joined: 11/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
In fact, the reason why they are trying so hard to find a 'better' theory is because the materialists among them don't like the BBT precisely because of it's metaphysical implications!! And that is why one editor of the widely respected science mag, Science, called on scientists to look for different theory! He didn't like the metaphysical implications of the BBT! Talk about objectivity! And that is at least one of the reasons we're now constantly hearing about untestable theories like multiverses, string theory.... Anything but the BBT in the minds of these incorrigible materialists, because it points them to Gen 1:1 !!
Can you please provide a source.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/18/2008 10:50:30 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3075
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Can you please provide a source. Transcendent God created time (in the beginning), space (the heavens), and matter (the earth) - Genesis 1:1. You really should check out the Source yourself, HP!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/18/2008 12:04:13 PM
|
|
|
HocusPocus
Posts: 17
Joined: 11/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Can you please provide a source. Transcendent God created time (in the beginning), space (the heavens), and matter (the earth) - Genesis 1:1. You really should check out the Source yourself, HP!
That's cute, but you apparently didn't read the part of GHitch's statement that I quoted when asking for a source. Please try to refrain from making assumptions in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/18/2008 12:22:17 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3075
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
You can call it "cute" if you wish - that's your assumption. I call it Truth! We all will make assumptions regarding origins "science", so neither of us is in compliance with your request.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/18/2008 12:49:20 PM
|
|
|
HocusPocus
Posts: 17
Joined: 11/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
You can call it "cute" if you wish - that's your assumption. I call it Truth! We all will make assumptions regarding origins "science", so neither of us is in compliance with your request.
You still aren't getting it (and no, calling it cute is not an assumption, it's an opinion).
Your assumption was that my asking for a source was regarding the origin of life. You are incorrect, and if you had read the part of GHitch's post that I quoted when asking for a source rather that making an assumption, you would realize this.
So, what I suggest you do is go back and read what I quoted when asking for a source, and then try to figure out where you went wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/18/2008 1:08:27 PM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 94
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Rather, if the constants were changed, then the universe would be perfectly fine-tuned to allow whatever entities that arise to exist (I will call these entities X).
This presumes, of course, that this fictional universe would support ANY kind of life by whatever definition, which is a very, very, very big presumption. But at least this speculation is right in-line with the Discover multiverse theory; totally untestable.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/18/2008 1:35:24 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 526
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
quote:
Rather, if the constants were changed, then the universe would be perfectly fine-tuned to allow whatever entities that arise to exist (I will call these entities X).
This presumes, of course, that this fictional universe would support ANY kind of life by whatever definition, which is a very, very, very big presumption. But at least this speculation is right in-line with the Discover multiverse theory; totally untestable.
If you want to argue that the universe is fine-tuned, you must presume that these fictional universes could exist. Also totally untestable.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/18/2008 2:09:15 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7598
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
If you want to argue that the universe is fine-tuned, you must presume that these fictional universes could exist. Also totally untestable.
Actually it is the other way around; the universe is certainly fine-tuned, to say it got that way by happenstance would require the conjectured existence of other universes.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/18/2008 2:42:49 PM
|
|
|
BookerG
Posts: 91
Status: offline
|
Suppose you’re put in front of a firing squad. A hundred rifles are pointed at you. The order is given and the guns all fire. You’re still standing. You say, “Wow, what are the odds that all those guys would miss?” A naturalist would say, if they hadn’t missed I wouldn’t be standing here asking the question, so it’s impossible to calculate the odds. Maybe I’m the billionth man to stand here so it was inevitable that they’d miss eventually. Besides, I also have to consider all the different forms my consciousness could take if they did shoot me; maybe they hit me in the head and I’m hallucinating; maybe there’s an afterlife that I wouldn’t even recognize as life.
I think the much simpler, and far more likely, answer is that they missed on purpose. And although I can’t calculate the odds or know how many people they’ve shot, the fact that the odds are long seems to me to support my theory. The more guns, the better my theory. (And if there are firing squads that can’t possibly miss, so much the better). Apparently that makes me irrational, because you can’t calculate the probability of intention.
“There's no point in bringing the probability that life is impossible under ANY circumstances, because we KNOW life is possible under at least ONE set of circumstances, namely, the ones we have in our universe.”
String theory, they say, has 10 to the 500th possible universes. If one of them doesn’t fit with our observations, then that just means we’re one of the many others. But what if we could examine every single one of those possible universes and it turns out that not one of them could produce intelligent life. You say it’s irrelevant because we KNOW life is possible under at least ONE set of circumstances. I say it would mean throwing out string theory. Only if you think naturalism MUST be a possible explanation (or if the only thing that can convince you otherwise is concrete, specific probabilistic proof, an oxymoron) would you say that there’s no point in considering its possible impossibility.
I’m thinking of the number 123,456. Did I pick a number at random, or did I choose it intelligently?” The number looks suspiciously non-random. If the number was anything other than 123,456, you don’t know whether I would have kept picking til I got 123,456 or I would have just asked you about that other number (if it was unique in any way), or I wouldn’t have said anything at all. What are the odds of intent? I know you can’t answer the question based on probability. And yet, in general, the more orderly the number, isn’t there more reason to think it was chosen on purpose? And even if the odds of fine-tuning are not one in ten to the 150th power, I would venture that the real figure is still astoundingly high, maybe much higher than that.
What if you know that I have a thousand different ways that I could choose a number randomly, and 999 of those methods are incapable of producing the number 123,456? What if none of them was capable of producing the number? It’s still not possible to answer my question with exact probabilities. But I think it’s relevant because it says that if I stuck with my original method, there’s a 99.9% chance that a multiverse–keep picking til you get the right number–wouldn’t have helped. We KNOW that either I used method 1000 or I picked the number intelligently. My only question is whether Keep Picking is a reasonable explanation, and whether the possibility of impossibility makes the multiverse less than the sure bet explanation of fine-tuning that it might seem to be when we say we KNOW that one set of values makes life possible therefore we KNOW that an infinite number of universes makes life inevitable.
The only point I was trying to make is that all the multiverse has going for it is that it raises the probabilities. If the probabilities are immaterial, then the multiverse is immaterial; and since it has no evidence for it, it is unscientific. If the probability were 0 then a multiverse wouldn’t help. I know the probability that we exist is 1, but that doesn’t mean that the probability that naturalism works is 1, it just makes probability calculation problematic.
“You're right: if the true answer is "God did it", science will never discover that fact. Not just under the assumptions of methodological naturalism, but under ANY assumptions. The reason is that science deals with rules and laws. If God created life miraculously, according to no rules or laws of nature, then science is just out of luck. There is no way to discover a miracle scientifically.”
Yet scientists who claim that evolution is fact, not theory, or who ridicule creationism as unscientific, never say that their argument is based purely on philosophical or methodological assumptions. Can you imagine any top scientific journal admitting that if the truth doesn’t fit our naturalistic methodology and assumptions, we would rather be wrong? We’re not looking for the truth, just a version of reality that fits neatly into our own worldview.
I lost my car keys. I've been searching the whole house for them, well, except for the basement because the light's burnt out, so my search method of just looking around won't work down there. As a scientist I would rather search upstairs forever, and keep insisting that I'm getting closer all the time, than to accept the possibility that the truth might be in the one place my search method doesn't work, or to admit that if the keys are there, that another search method might find them, might have already found them.
< Message edited by BookerG -- 11/18/2008 2:54:25 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/18/2008 3:13:29 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 526
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
If you want to argue that the universe is fine-tuned, you must presume that these fictional universes could exist. Also totally untestable.
Actually it is the other way around; the universe is certainly fine-tuned, to say it got that way by happenstance would require the conjectured existence of other universes.
No. If this universe is the only possible universe, you can't say it is fine-tuned. Without the other possibilites, it isn't fine-tuned, it is the only way it could be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Constant balance - 11/18/2008 3:22:58 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7598
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
No. If this univers | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
