M-theory=unlimitedposibilities=Allahdidit
M-theory=umlimitedposibilities=Yahwehdidit
M-theory=unlimitedposibilities=Brahamadidit
M-theory=unlimitedposibilities=Thormakeslightening

Give it up Steve, you have as much evidence for your pet deity as anyone else with a different pet deity.

SteveII Wrote:]Except the multiverse a) isn't science and b) does not remove the question what fine-tuned the multiverse to be able to reliably spit out trillions of universes with varying physical laws and constants?

Hello, SteveII.  If you'd be willing, I'd appreciate some clarification from you about fine-tuning.  First, is the argument for fine-tuning attributing some kind of conscious or even human-like agency to the creation of the universe? Second, is it possible that the argument for fine-tuning could be inadvertently trying to make reality conform with a specific way of humanistic thinking rather than actually trying to understand how reality works? Also, if fine-tuning is uncertain on a universal scale, then would it be premature and somewhat short-sighted to apply this way of thinking to trillions of galaxies?

SteveII Wrote:Regarding the probability, I understand your point that if we do not know the range, we cannot assign probability. However, why isn't the range of possible values unlimited? What factor(s) could constrain the constants of the universe before the universe? Or are you saying that one constant could be a restraint on another before the universe existed? Why?

Physicists posit a multiverse for the expressed reason to overcome the odds of getting the constants we have? Are you saying they are wrong?

I'm saying you're misrepresenting them. That isn't why a multiverse was posited, it had nothing to do with explaining fine tuning, it was a possible explanation of observations, and there's more than one multiverse hypothesis, including one to explain quantum physics.

'We don't know' are the words you should be paying attention to. We don't know why the values are the way they are, what the ranges could be, if they could only have the values they have, or if they are completely random. You can't base a claim that the values aren't chance or necessity on 'We don't know'. It means 'we don't know'. 'We don't know, therefore we can eliminate chance and necessity' isn't even wrong, just nonsensical.

(March 31, 2017 at 9:16 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

SteveII Wrote:Regarding the probability, I understand your point that if we do not know the range, we cannot assign probability. However, why isn't the range of possible values unlimited? What factor(s) could constrain the constants of the universe before the universe? Or are you saying that one constant could be a restraint on another before the universe existed? Why?

Physicists posit a multiverse for the expressed reason to overcome the odds of getting the constants we have? Are you saying they are wrong?

I'm saying you're misrepresenting them. That isn't why a multiverse was posited, it had nothing to do with explaining fine tuning, it was a possible explanation of observations, and there's more than one multiverse hypothesis, including one to explain quantum physics.

'We don't know' are the words you should be paying attention to. We don't know why the values are the way they are, what the ranges could be, if they could only have the values they have, or if they are completely random. You can't base a claim that the values aren't chance or necessity on 'We don't know'. It means 'we don't know'. 'We don't know, therefore we can eliminate chance and necessity' isn't even wrong, just nonsensical.

QM and string theory and m theory do not prop up fine tuning, and even if it did, which it does not, again, neither Steve or Roadrunner or Neo, or MK or Atlas for that matter, theists of all religions are still stuck with "which one" because they all still claim their pet deity fills in the gap. Science if running away from the idea that a god is necessary in any case.

They spend so much time trying to retrofit science after the fact because that comforting lie is more important to protect than a inconvenient reality.

SteveII Wrote:

Jörmungandr Wrote:How did we get from your claiming that there is no debate that the physical constants can take on different values to this?  That the matter was not settled was my whole point.  You're simply agreeing with me.

I did some reading on M-theory. First, there is not one bit of physical evidence for it. Second, it posits as many as 10^500 different possible membranes (parallel universes) that could be right next to us. With that many universes--each with a different possibility of constants, it does not address the fine-tuning issue of why ours is the way it is. Third, it is not clear that whatever created the 'cosmic landscape' (multiverse?) would not have to have been finely tuned to create universes with laws and structure (kicking the can upstairs). Fourth, since it is very much in question whether the theory can ever be tested, isn't it just philosophy and not science?

How could a multiverse create a universe without laws and structure?

How would a near-infinite number of universes not address the issue of one having the values our has by chance? If you're literally asking why we're in the one that allows us to exist, you need to take a break.

It's theoretical physics, which would more properly be named 'hypothetical physics'. It has to fit what we already know and the math has to work, but it ain't necessarily so. It uses the scientific toolbox, and (hypothetically) the hypotheses generated may be possible to test someday.

---

Neo-Scholastic Wrote:I really don't see how multiverse theory changes anything. As SteveII said, if you add up all the different "universes" into one totality that becomes the the universe. That new bigger universe still must be ordered in such a way to produce this "little" old universe. Also, it doesn't really help the skeptical cause to say everything can be explained naturally and then say there are other universes with alternative natures. Seems odd.

You seem disingenuous, so there's that. If a sewer spat out an unusually-colored lump, you could say it was fine tuned to that with your 'logic'.

Can you give an example of a universe that you would NOT consider fine-tuned?

(March 31, 2017 at 9:26 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: You seem disingenuous, so there's that.

By adding the qualifier 'seem', you also seem to be giving me the benefit of the doubt. I appreciate that.

(March 31, 2017 at 9:26 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Can you give an example of a universe that you would NOT consider fine-tuned?

A "Loony Tunes" world would not be fine-tuned. And the comic book universes of Marvel and DC have fairly arbitrary physical laws. The LEGO movie worlds are clearly fine-tuned but the mystery remains as to how modular blocks and pieces produce living conscious beings like Bat Man.

Nevertheless your point is well taken and that is why I am not a fan of the fine-tuning argument as commonly presented. To my mind, whether the physical constants are uniquely suited to life is not particularly important. To me the two important parts of the argument are: 1) the observation that the physical constants at least appear to be contingent (i.e. they could have been otherwise) and 2) the universe seems to manifest a rational order.

SteveII sets up three options (necessity, chance, and design) to explain why the universe appears contingent and rationally ordered. As for me, my posts have admittedly been dancing around my position rather than laying it out in a straightforward way. And my position is this: these three options are not mutually exclusive.

There is a difference between chance and chaos (in the classical sense). A cartoon world is chaotic (in that anything can happen) and any consistency in it comes from a designer (like Chuck Jones) that imposes order on that chaos or suspends it, as when Coyote finds himself suspended in mid-air until gravity finally kicks in. And not to strain the analogy too much, but if Chuck Jones doesn't design and draw a frame then that part of the cartoon world simply doesn't exist. Chance, on the other hand, operates on a definable set of possible random outcomes. That set of possible random outcomes is constrained by necessity, such as 2d6 producing only whole numbers between 2 and 12. The world of a craps table obeys a higher level of order, i.e. the rules of the game set-up by the players.

So the way I see it, the physical universe displays necessity, chance, and design. Chance because the unique features of this physical universe, its constants etc., could have been otherwise. Necessity because the potentials it is able to manifest seem limited. And designed because the limitations on potential appear prescribed by a higher rational order.

(March 31, 2017 at 10:52 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(March 31, 2017 at 9:26 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: You seem disingenuous, so there's that.

By adding the qualifier 'seem', you also seem to be giving me the benefit of the doubt. I appreciate that.

(March 31, 2017 at 9:26 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Can you give an example of a universe that you would NOT consider fine-tuned?

A "Loony Tunes" world would not be fine-tuned. And the comic book universes of Marvel and DC have fairly arbitrary physical laws. The LEGO movie worlds are clearly fine-tuned but the mystery remains as to how modular blocks and pieces produce living conscious beings like Bat Man.

Nevertheless your point is well taken and that is why I am not a fan of the fine-tuning argument as commonly presented. To my mind, whether the physical constants are uniquely suited to life is not particularly important. To me the two important parts of the argument are: 1) the observation that the physical constants at least appear to be contingent (i.e. they could have been otherwise) and 2) the universe seems to manifest a rational order.

SteveII sets up three options (necessity, chance, and design) to explain why the universe appears contingent and rationally ordered. As for me, my posts have admittedly been dancing around my position rather than laying it out in a straightforward way. And my position is this: these three options are not mutually exclusive.

There is a difference between chance and chaos (in the classical sense). A cartoon world is chaotic (in that anything can happen) and any consistency in it comes from a designer (like Chuck Jones) that imposes order on that chaos or suspends it, as when Coyote finds himself suspended in mid-air until gravity finally kicks in. And not to strain the analogy too much, but if Chuck Jones doesn't design and draw a frame then that part of the cartoon world simply doesn't exist. Chance, on the other hand, operates on a definable set of possible random outcomes. That set of possible random outcomes is constrained by necessity, such as 2d6 producing only whole numbers between 2 and 12. The world of a craps table obeys a higher level of order, i.e. the rules of the game set-up by the players.

So the way I see it, the physical universe displays necessity, chance, and design. Chance because the unique features of this physical universe, its constants etc., could have been otherwise. Necessity because the potentials it is able to manifest seem limited. And designed because the limitations on potential appear prescribed by a higher rational order.

QM nor string theory or m theory are claiming a "loony tunes" world. The problem with all religions when they shit their pants because science is constantly filling in the gaps with natural answers, do not understand that scientific language is not the same definition that the theist wants it to be.

Loony is thinking an old unscientific book of myth is a science textbook, that is loony. 

Same bullshit mistake theists make with the word "theory" . It is not a mere guess as theists want it to be. In scientific terms it is a definition of repeated experimentation that has repeated confirmed observations over time. QM does not claim anything goes like a theist wants it to be. It certainly points to things that laypeople think of as "freaky"  but it is not there to justify Allah or Thor or Yoda.

QM paints things we are not used to thinking about as laypeople, but it is not magic, it is math, not hocus pocus. It is not there to prop up the bible or koran or Torah or Vedas or Buddha.

(March 31, 2017 at 8:44 am)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote:

SteveII Wrote:]Except the multiverse a) isn't science and b) does not remove the question what fine-tuned the multiverse to be able to reliably spit out trillions of universes with varying physical laws and constants?

Hello, SteveII.  If you'd be willing, I'd appreciate some clarification from you about fine-tuning.  First, is the argument for fine-tuning attributing some kind of conscious or even human-like agency to the creation of the universe? [1] Second, is it possible that the argument for fine-tuning could be inadvertently trying to make reality conform with a specific way of humanistic thinking rather than actually trying to understand how reality works? [2] Also, if fine-tuning is uncertain on a universal scale, then would it be premature and somewhat short-sighted to apply this way of thinking to trillions of galaxies? [3] 

First, fine-tuning does not equal design. Scientist realize the universe is delicately balanced (fine-tuned)--some of the constants could not be different more than 1 in 10^60. Penrose calculated that the low entropy we see in the Big Bang is 1 chance out of 10^10^123 -- and incomprehensible number. 

1. The argument make the case that design is the best answer of the three possibilities of why the universe is fine-tuned. You can infer a significant level of intelligence behind whatever tinkered with the knobs, but that probably is it for this particular argument's conclusions.
2. Whether humans had ever existed or not, the values of the constants that permit the universe to hold together, galaxies to form, the full range of elements to be formed, and space expand at a rate that does not tear it all up would still be the case. 
3. I am not aware of any debate about whether the constants apply to the whole universe--they do.

(March 31, 2017 at 1:17 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(March 31, 2017 at 8:44 am)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: Hello, SteveII.  If you'd be willing, I'd appreciate some clarification from you about fine-tuning.  First, is the argument for fine-tuning attributing some kind of conscious or even human-like agency to the creation of the universe? [1] Second, is it possible that the argument for fine-tuning could be inadvertently trying to make reality conform with a specific way of humanistic thinking rather than actually trying to understand how reality works? [2] Also, if fine-tuning is uncertain on a universal scale, then would it be premature and somewhat short-sighted to apply this way of thinking to trillions of galaxies? [3] 

First, fine-tuning does not equal design. Scientist realize the universe is delicately balanced (fine-tuned)--some of the constants could not be different more than 1 in 10^60. Penrose calculated that the low entropy we see in the Big Bang is 1 chance out of 10^10^123 -- and incomprehensible number. 

1. The argument make the case that design is the best answer of the three possibilities of why the universe is fine-tuned. You can infer a significant level of intelligence behind whatever tinkered with the knobs, but that probably is it for this particular argument's conclusions.
2. Whether humans had ever existed or not, the values of the constants that permit the universe to hold together, galaxies to form, the full range of elements to be formed, and space expand at a rate that does not tear it all up would still be the case. 
3. I am not aware of any debate about whether the constants apply to the whole universe--they do.

Give it up Steve. No amount of trying to retrofit modern scientific knowledge, by trying to reach back in time, after the fact, after the horrible claim of a naked assertion was made, is going to make your pet sky hero real.

Again, you have your blinders on and refuse to see this attempt to retrofit after the fact is something EVERY religion tries to pull. "Fine tuning" is a bullshit argument, period. You are not going to convince Stephen Hawking or Lawrence Krauss that your bronze age mythological sky hero is real with this tactic.

"It is amazing we are even here, what are the odds"? Yes I agree, so what still no god needed to have a sense of awe. Your pet deity is not needed to explain anything about nature or the universe. Do not blame us for the bad claim someone else sold you and you fell for.

(March 31, 2017 at 12:55 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(March 31, 2017 at 10:52 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

---

By adding the qualifier 'seem', you also seem to be giving me the benefit of the doubt. I appreciate that.


A "Loony Tunes" world would not be fine-tuned. And the comic book universes of Marvel and DC have fairly arbitrary physical laws. The LEGO movie worlds are clearly fine-tuned but the mystery remains as to how modular blocks and pieces produce living conscious beings like Bat Man.

Nevertheless your point is well taken and that is why I am not a fan of the fine-tuning argument as commonly presented. To my mind, whether the physical constants are uniquely suited to life is not particularly important. To me the two important parts of the argument are: 1) the observation that the physical constants at least appear to be contingent (i.e. they could have been otherwise) and 2) the universe seems to manifest a rational order.

SteveII sets up three options (necessity, chance, and design) to explain why the universe appears contingent and rationally ordered. As for me, my posts have admittedly been dancing around my position rather than laying it out in a straightforward way. And my position is this: these three options are not mutually exclusive.

There is a difference between chance and chaos (in the classical sense). A cartoon world is chaotic (in that anything can happen) and any consistency in it comes from a designer (like Chuck Jones) that imposes order on that chaos or suspends it, as when Coyote finds himself suspended in mid-air until gravity finally kicks in. And not to strain the analogy too much, but if Chuck Jones doesn't design and draw a frame then that part of the cartoon world simply doesn't exist. Chance, on the other hand, operates on a definable set of possible random outcomes. That set of possible random outcomes is constrained by necessity, such as 2d6 producing only whole numbers between 2 and 12. The world of a craps table obeys a higher level of order, i.e. the rules of the game set-up by the players.

---

So the way I see it, the physical universe displays necessity, chance, and design. Chance because the unique features of this physical universe, its constants etc., could have been otherwise. Necessity because the potentials it is able to manifest seem limited. And designed because the limitations on potential appear prescribed by a higher rational order.

QM nor string theory or m theory are claiming a "loony tunes" world. The problem with all religions when they shit their pants because science is constantly filling in the gaps with natural answers, do not understand that scientific language is not the same definition that the theist wants it to be.

Loony is thinking an old unscientific book of myth is a science textbook, that is loony. 

Same bullshit mistake theists make with the word "theory" . It is not a mere guess as theists want it to be. In scientific terms it is a definition of repeated experimentation that has repeated confirmed observations over time. QM does not claim anything goes like a theist wants it to be. It certainly points to things that laypeople think of as "freaky"  but it is not there to justify Allah or Thor or Yoda.

QM paints things we are not used to thinking about as laypeople, but it is not magic, it is math, not hocus pocus. It is not there to prop up the bible or koran or Torah or Vedas or Buddha.

(Sigh)...the non sequiturs never end... Please, Brian, the adults are trying to have a real conversation here.