Login

Pete · December 15, 2011 at 2:51 pm

So. What do you good folks think about the multiverse theory and cosmological fine tuning?

Paul Davies (http://cosmos.asu.edu/) is really into this kind of thing. Here is a paper I foud under his website.

http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/paper...s%2083.pdf

I'll read it after I read an old one, on the same topic, that I have. I'll read the above one when I get ink for my printe

Best wishes,

Pete

**The Grand Nudger** · (This post was last modified: December 15, 2011 at 3:03 pm by The Grand Nudger.)

Strong and weak anthropic principle. It would be more surprising if the universe wasn't suited to life at all, and yet here we were. Thinking

"Fine-tuned for life" must be a relatively broad notion to include everything that seems "fine-tuned" for destroying life. We could always just wave that away through clever redefinition, or a favorable set of qualifiers. So hell, let's just go along with this as though it weren't garbage. The universe is fine tuned, but it says nothing about the tuner, not even so much as whether or not it would be a conscious entity (or when this tuning occurred). I say the "fine tuner" is a rock floating somewhere off in the cosmos. Everything bounced off of it just right. I have evidence that rocks float through the cosmos, case closed.

frankiej · December 15, 2011 at 2:59 pm

I believe it should be called "Comical fine tuning" Wink

5thHorseman · December 15, 2011 at 3:11 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEl9kVl6KPc

Anomalocaris · December 15, 2011 at 3:54 pm

(December 15, 2011 at 2:51 pm)Pete Wrote: So. What do you good folks think about the multiverse theory and cosmological fine tuning?

Paul Davies (http://cosmos.asu.edu/) is really into this kind of thing. Here is a paper I foud under his website.

http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/paper...s%2083.pdf

I'll read it after I read an old one, on the same topic, that I have. I'll read the above one when I get ink for my printe

Best wishes,

Pete

Even if there was evidence for a tuner, there would still an unbridgeable abyss between the any attributes of the tuner supported by evidence, and the contrived entity that fucked his own mother to give himself birth called the christian god.

You christians are a disgrace clutching imaginatively at such straws.

**popeyespappy** · December 15, 2011 at 4:02 pm

Another god of the gaps argument.

A Case Against the Fine-Tuning of the Cosmos

Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Us?

reverendjeremiah · December 15, 2011 at 4:44 pm

Cosmological fine tuning my ass. This earth can support life almost completely up to the orbit of venus and halfway to the orbit of Mars.

Oh, and by the way..fine tuning? Last I checked 99.999999999999% of the universe is dead...cold.....dark....vacuum.

LastPoet · December 15, 2011 at 4:46 pm

I remember a cute analogy for the fine tuning argument: Its like looking at a glass of water and say the water was fine tuned to fit the glass Big Grin

Anomalocaris · December 15, 2011 at 5:01 pm

(December 15, 2011 at 4:44 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Cosmological fine tuning my ass. This earth can support life almost completely up to the orbit of venus and halfway to the orbit of Mars.

Oh, and by the way..fine tuning? Last I checked 99.999999999999% of the universe is dead...cold.....dark....vacuum.

Just because a christian is (somewhat) self aware, he thinks he must be special and therefore someone must have made his special. But there is nothing special about him, nor is there any requirement for his banality to have been produced by intent. He is just an totally unremarkable by product of totally trivial chance. So trivial is he that he must imagine the whole universe tuned for him to feel worthy.

The truth is after you throw a dart it may seem amazing that it hit the precise spot it actually hit out of a billion other possible spots. But that does not make the spot special.

houseofcantor · (This post was last modified: December 15, 2011 at 5:40 pm by houseofcantor.)

Anthropic principle is not a predictive model and essentially, not science. Philosophical causality is craptastic without taking into account chains of causality. Anyone wanna pull that shit with me, I'll tell them I created the universe. This is where all chains of causality lead. Wink

Richard Carrier states in the following vid that two groups of experts uses Bayes Theorem to disprove this kinda crap:

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Spitzer confirms cosmological inflation	Jackalope	21	6152	October 6, 2012 at 1:00 pm Last Post: Cyberman
	AUS researchers' finding back Cosmological Principle	Jackalope	0	1260	September 17, 2012 at 6:21 pm Last Post: Jackalope