(August 20, 2015 at 11:04 am)lkingpinl Wrote: I am not taking it out of context.

Yeah you are.

Quote: Hawking is indeed saying this universe is fine tuned.  He explains in detail why.

Where? You really are reading a totally different piece of writing to what I am. I am honestly bewildered how you come to that conclusion, how anyone can, when his entire point is about how the universe does not need a creator and is not designed. It's like me saying "god is an asshole" and you saying "so you acknowledge god is real", when you already know I'm an atheist and everything I've said prior would indicate I don't believe god is real. 

Quote: However, he comes to a conclusion to explain it away:

"Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitat—now the entire observable universe—is just one of many.

Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation."

So he has a theory that this universe is one of many infinite possible universes and because of that, the fine-tuning is irrelevant.  But its a theory.  It is not fact.  Also I agree with him that IF the multiverse theory were true then yes it would reduce the fine-tuning for life to be a simple matter of chance/inevitability.  But multiverse theory is far from proven.  Let's stick to just this universe.  It is fine tuned for the existence of our lives.  If there are multiverses then we simply hit the lottery of all of the perfect properties for us to be here. If you want to believe in infinite parallel/alternate universes, that is your prerogative, I do not.

How can you interpret this so stupendously wrongly?

You say the multiverse theory is used to explain away this 'miracle of fine tuning', but can't seem to grasp very basic English stating otherwise. It's not used to explain away fine tuning of any sort. Can you even read the following?

Quote:That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning.

I wouldn't mind but you quoted it yourself.

I guess by your logic, the fact that this article uses the term 'miracle of fine tuning' also means that miracles are believed by Hawking. Right? 

In order for him to 'explain away' fine tuning, he'd have to believe it to be fine tuned in the first place. He simply doesn't. Does not. Never said so and I doubt he ever will. Just like how you can't get the irony in him calling his book "the Grand Design", you can't get why he'd talk about fine-tuning in the way he does.

I come back to the earlier quote from the article:

Quote:Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design."

That is not the answer of modern science.

You need to take the entire article into context. Yes, the multiverse theory is an explanation of why the universe appears to be fine-tuned, but there is still no real insinuation that the universe actually is fine-tuned. The whole point of the article in the first place is that there are explanations for the way things are other than god. Everything Hawking says, every point, both in his books and lectures supports this and flies in the face of your flagrant misrepresentations.

The very fact you would try to use Hawking, or anything he's said to support your notion that the universe is designed, is more than a little insulting to our intelligence.

The problem I'm seeing is a common one. Theists refer to science and scientists as an authority whenever it supports their narrative. But as soon the science/scientist contradicts their narrative, we are told they are just wrong. Supernatural explanations are arbitrarily inserted instead with no justification, without considering any other current or future possible natural explanation.

If I give you some sort of initial intelligent creator for free, I'd love to know how any theist disregards the entire infinity of possibly deistic creators, and then narrows down the infinity of possible interventionist creators to a handful of story book characters. Why is it sensible to assume any book just happens to have information about a god lying around in it? Especially as a deistic God would obviously not do this at all.

Then of course, even if the God was somehow actually responsible for the communication, that doesn't mean it's correct either. Presumably gods can deceive us.

(August 19, 2015 at 11:28 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: Here is a snippet from the article.

---

A player’s move was determined by evaluating the presumed quality of the resulting future positions. The evaluation function was structured as an artificial neural network comprising an input layer, three internal processing (hidden) layers, and an output node (Figure 2). The first internal processing layer was designed to indicate the spatial characteristics of the checkerboard without indicating explicitly how such knowledge might be applied. The remaining internal and output neurons operated based on the dot product of the evolvable weighted connections between nodes and the activation strength that was emitted by each preceding node. Each node used a hyperbolic tangent (tanh, bounded by ±1) with an evolvable bias term. In addition, the sum of all entries in the input vector was supplied directly to the output node, constituting a measure of the relative piece differential.

---

Notice the words "structured" and "designed". The programmers set value to moves that produced positive results so that the programs evolution function could examine the possible moves and learn from the past what has provided the most favorable outcome.

I think you're misinterpreting things, but we could argue this until dooms day with no result. So I'll leave you with the last word.

(August 20, 2015 at 5:50 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(August 19, 2015 at 11:28 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: Here is a snippet from the article.

---

A player’s move was determined by evaluating the presumed quality of the resulting future positions. The evaluation function was structured as an artificial neural network comprising an input layer, three internal processing (hidden) layers, and an output node (Figure 2). The first internal processing layer was designed to indicate the spatial characteristics of the checkerboard without indicating explicitly how such knowledge might be applied. The remaining internal and output neurons operated based on the dot product of the evolvable weighted connections between nodes and the activation strength that was emitted by each preceding node. Each node used a hyperbolic tangent (tanh, bounded by ±1) with an evolvable bias term. In addition, the sum of all entries in the input vector was supplied directly to the output node, constituting a measure of the relative piece differential.

---

Notice the words "structured" and "designed". The programmers set value to moves that produced positive results so that the programs evolution function could examine the possible moves and learn from the past what has provided the most favorable outcome.

I think you're misinterpreting things, but we could argue this until dooms day with no result. So I'll leave you with the last word.

I'm quite sure we could but i appreciate the respectful back and forth jorg

It doesn't matter if there is a multiverse or not. It just pushes the problem back.

If there is a multiverse then there must also be a set of uniform principles governing the generation of individual universes. Those principles would have to be fine-tuned in order to produce the particular universe in which we find ourselves. If you now turn around and appeal to a single source of infinite potency capable governing this process then you've already given up the game for a first cause/unmoved mover/necessary being.

(August 21, 2015 at 5:35 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: It doesn't matter if there is a multiverse or not. It just pushes the problem back.

Not really. It just places the hope of ever knowing many details forever out of reach.

(August 21, 2015 at 5:35 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: If there is a multiverse then there must also be ..

Got to stop you there. How could you possibly know what there has got to be? I don't think anyone does or is in any position to ever find out. From what vantage point do you think it would ever be possible to finish that sentence?

I know theists generally tend to see impediments to scientific inquiry as stages where belief/theology can come to the rescue. But surely you can see how questionable a god-of-the-gaps patch would look here.

(August 21, 2015 at 5:35 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: It doesn't matter if there is a multiverse or not. It just pushes the problem back.

So does God. God would have to be fine tuned as well in order to produce the universe we have here.

(August 21, 2015 at 10:29 pm)Irrational Wrote: God would have to be fine tuned as well in order to produce the universe we have here.

Irrational, your name suits you well. Only contingent beings can be fine-tuned. God is not a contingent being, therefore your objection does not apply.

(August 21, 2015 at 5:53 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote:

(August 21, 2015 at 5:35 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: If there is a multiverse then there must also be ..

Got to stop you there.  How could you possibly know what there has got to be?

That's a slightly deceptive edit, Whateverist. I did not use the multiverse as the premise of a proof for God. The speculative theory of the multiverse is an argument of convenience for atheists who do not want to face-up to the obvious implications of a fine-tuned universe. My point was that the multiverse theory provides no such opportunity. The theory says that the particular fundamental forces and constants of our universe need not have been as they are. The natural laws governing an adjacent universe could be otherwise. The whole theory resolves into one of two positions, either 1) reality is absurd or 2) meta-laws govern the process of universe generation. If the atheist takes the first option then he undermines the very idea of rationality. If he takes the second, he must acknowledge that fine-tuning is a real aspect of, not only our universe, but of the multiverse as a whole.

(August 22, 2015 at 10:30 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(August 21, 2015 at 10:29 pm)Irrational Wrote: God would have to be fine tuned as well in order to produce the universe we have here.

Irrational, your name suits you well. Only contingent beings can be fine-tuned. God is not a contingent being, therefore your objection does not apply.

And the multiverse is not a contingent entity, take that!

We all struggle with irrationality from time to time, you included.