Cosmological Fine Tuning

[Pete]

I'd like to mention that when I started this thread I merely asked

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

When I wrote that it was with the expectation that folks would respond to that question and not come back with assumptions about me or my intentions why I posted it. Some folks here took it upon themselves to go with some assumptions they made about and what I think about that theory. I assume that since they know I'm a Christian that I must think that cosmolological fine-tunning is some sort of proof of the Christian/Jewish/Islamic God. I never thought that and I don't think I'd ever take a scientific theory to mean that. I'm merely asking folks not to assume that I think something and then chide me on that assumption. Okay?

I've had some time to read some of the book Cosmick Jackpot, by Paul Davies (the same Davies who refers to himself as an astrobiologist) the same Davies whose paper I quoted. That paper is

Multiverse cosmological models, by Paul Davies, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 19, 727 (2004).

The URL to the paper is http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/paper...s%2083.pdf

Regarding testability, Davies writes

..., it does not rule out the possibility that it may be tested indirectly. Almost all scientists and philosophers accept the general principle that the prediction of unobservable enties is an acceptable scientific hypothesis if those entities stem from a theory that has other tetable consequences.

Consider the muli-world hypothesis of quantum mechanics. I, myself, can't see how one would test that theory, yet. The original relative state formulation is due to Hugh Everett in 1957.

Best wishes

Pete

[The Grand Nudger]

Pete, it doesn't matter what you believe. Cosmological fine tuning is anthropic bias. It doesn't matter if one approaches this from the angle of science or religious belief. This means that we have to exercise caution in any conclusions we draw from the notion of "fine tuning". Asking how the cosmological constants ended up where they are is pretty solid. Asking why they're so perfect for us is an exercise in anthropic bias (a less than productive habit of our species). One question might lead to theories with explanatory power, the other has not and probably never will. "Fine tuning" is a beautiful way to describe our cosmos in relation to ourselves. Fine tuning has plenty to say about us, but not much to say about the cosmos. It would be more accurate to say that we are fine tuned for the cosmos, bias causes us to reverse the order. That's why we've decided that it's important to realize things like this when we go out into the universe asking questions. That's why it's so easy for us to link you articles and clips from well respected scientists demonstrating (with evidence that can be verified) why fine tuning is garbage. They aren't arguing against the cosmological constants, or how fortunate we are that they ended up where they did. They're arguing against this sort of thinking and the terribly flawed conclusions one might draw from the whole enterprise.

[little_monkey]

Thanks Rhythm for putting it so eloquently.

Here's a paper by Lee Smolin on this topic (sorry, I didn't read the rest of this thread, this could be a repost)

Scientific alternatives to the anthropic principle

[reverendjeremiah]

strange how cosmological fine tuning is an argument used often as proof of god.... but the fact that a penis can easily (for the most part) slip up an ass is not considered proof of a divine creation.

Cold, lifeless rocks floating in space = god

buttsecks = not god

[Anomalocaris]

Is the fact that banana will fit as easily up Ray Comfort's ass as in his hand proof of god?

[Jackalope]

You'll have to get his head out of the way first.

[reverendjeremiah]

You'll have to get his head out of the way first.

I dont know man..his head is lodged pretty tight in that sphincter of his.

How did he get it in there dry?

[houseofcantor]

Wanna hear something really crazy? There's a design flaw in mathematics. Us.

That's okay. The robot overlords we'll eventually build will correct that flaw.

My thinking exactly. We need a team... with a real mathematician to balance this imaginary number.

[reverendjeremiah]

I drove past a pot hole in the street the other day and noticed that the water seemed to comfortably fit in that hole...as if that hole was made just for that water..

[houseofcantor]

I find it difficult to swallow that this universe is fine-tuned for life when almost all of it is uninhabitable to known life.
There's also the matter that we seem to be the only ones at this particular party so far.

Religious nonsense, is what it is. Piss me off, it what it does.

What happened to the scientist? Wanna talk some fringe science, we'll do some tao te ching; wanna talk pseudoscience, I'm sure there's a creationism topic somewhere 'round here...