A fined tuned argument.....Heywood style.

[Rampant.A.I.]

OP can't support claims, OP demands incredulously that his unsupported claims be shown false despite monumental contradictory evidence and still stays incredulous.

Isn't it funny how these threads always come from people ignorant of basic science, who stay ignorant no matter how many contrary evidence and explanations are provided to them?

[Heywood]

I still don't understand why "IT SEEMS SO INCREDIBLE TO ME" is something that requires an additional fundamental law beyond the sketch of an explanation provided by physics and its respective branches.

When did anyone say, "It seems so incredible to me"? Look, there is a problem that demands an explanation. Why is it that 20 some odd constants of nature seem to sit on a knife edge. There is no reason to think that the universe would just be benevolent toward emergent complexity and concoct this situation.

The multiverse explains it....but so does an intelligent creator. You really have 3 options.

1)bury your head in the sand and hope the problem goes away.
2)accept the multiverse model as plausible even though there are no observations of it.
3)accept the intelligent creator model as plausible even though there are no observations of it.

I am open to 2 and 3.

[Mudhammam]

I still don't understand why "IT SEEMS SO INCREDIBLE TO ME" is something that requires an additional fundamental law beyond the sketch of an explanation provided by physics and its respective branches.

When did anyone say, "It seems so incredible to me"? Look, there is a problem that demands an explanation. Why is it that 20 some odd constants of nature seem to sit on a knife edge. There is no reason to think that the universe would just be benevolent toward emergent complexity and concoct this situation.

The multiverse explains it....but so does an intelligent creator. You really have 3 options.

1)bury your head in the sand and hope the problem goes away.
2)accept the multiverse model as plausible even though there are no observations of it.
3)accept the intelligent creator model as plausible even though there are no observations of it.

I am open to 2 and 3.

Many "simple and elegant" mathematical models of our current Universe are highly suggestive of a multiverse.

No mathematical models suggest a giant mother brain that thinks the Universe into being.

[Chas]

I still don't understand why "IT SEEMS SO INCREDIBLE TO ME" is something that requires an additional fundamental law beyond the sketch of an explanation provided by physics and its respective branches.

When did anyone say, "It seems so incredible to me"? Look, there is a problem that demands an explanation. Why is it that 20 some odd constants of nature seem to sit on a knife edge. There is no reason to think that the universe would just be benevolent toward emergent complexity and concoct this situation.

The multiverse explains it....but so does an intelligent creator. You really have 3 options.

1)bury your head in the sand and hope the problem goes away.
2)accept the multiverse model as plausible even though there are no observations of it.
3)accept the intelligent creator model as plausible even though there are no observations of it.

I am open to 2 and 3.

You left out the possibility that it could be no other way.

[Esquilax]

When did anyone say, "It seems so incredible to me"?

You did!

The extreme fine tuning of the cosmological constant allows me to dismiss D. If it was different by one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion complex structures would not be able to form. It is unreasonable to think we hit a jackpot with those kind of odds. As Leonard Susskind put it, "Its too much of a stretch".

There's your argument from incredulity right there.

The multiverse explains it....but so does an intelligent creator.

An intelligent creator can explain anything, so long as you lower your expectations for what constitutes an explanation until you're satisfied with "it used magic to magic it this way." But then, some people desire more than simplistic one word just-so stories with no evidence to support them beyond retrofitting what we already know to exist into the desires of this intelligent creator.

You really have 3 options.

No: you can only think of three options. That's not the same thing as only having three options. Let's not sink to a false dichotomy, here.

[Mister Agenda]

Negative, If the probability of D is one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion it is for all practical purposes 0.

And how did you determine the probability of 'D' again? Please don't tell me by applying a thought experiment in which the universal constants could have varied widely and have no relationship to each other, because we definitely don't know that's the case. It's just an assumption. How did you eliminate the possibility that it's necessity, not chance? How did you eliminate the possibility that the actual ranges of values are very narrow?

[LastPoet]

You are thinking this backwards Heywood, life and all the objects that exist are made possible to exist as they are, because these constants as you call them were already in place, not that they were made to make our universe possible.

It's like looking at a glass of water and claim the water was perfectly designed to fit the glass

[Heywood]

Negative, If the probability of D is one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion it is for all practical purposes 0.

And how did you determine the probability of 'D' again? Please don't tell me by applying a thought experiment in which the universal other constants could have varied widely and have no relationship to each , because we definitely don't know that's the case. It's just an assumption. How did you eliminate the possibility that it's necessity, not chance? How did you eliminate the possibility that the actual ranges of values are very narrow?

D assumes the constants are not brute facts...that is they could have varied widely.

E assumes they could not vary widely....that they are brute facts.

For the most part your criticism fails because I do consider both situations. If you want to know why I reject both....see the OP.

How do I know its not a narrow range? Physics suggests it is not and that in fact the range is quite large. I don't know what else to tell you. Should I not rely on physics here?

---

You are thinking this backwards Heywood, life and all the objects that exist are made possible to exist as they are, because these constants as you call them were already in place, not that they were made to make our universe possible.

It's like looking at a glass of water and claim the water was perfectly designed to fit the glass

Negative LastPoet.

Its more like looking at a glass and claiming it was perfectly designed to hold water.

[Mister Agenda]

How do I know its not a narrow range? Physics suggests it is not and that in fact the range is quite large. I don't know what else to tell you. Should I not rely on physics here?

Can you do better than vaguely allude to physics being on your side and explain what in physics suggests the range is large? Ignorance of why the constants have the values they do doesn't imply that they are random or that none of them depend on the values of one or more of the others.

[Heywood]

Can you do better than vaguely allude to physics being on your side and explain what in physics suggests the range is large? Ignorance of why the constants have the values they do doesn't imply that they are random or that none of them depend on the values of one or more of the others.

I dimiss C on the grounds as there is no reason to believe this since many coherent models of the universe can be made given our current understanding of physics. Further cutting edge physics...like string theory continue to suggest the possibility the universe could have been different.

Basically you can plug a wide range of values into our current physics and still be able to model coherent universes. Further there are more solutions to string theory then there our particles in the observable universe.

Lets assume for a minute that the universe could not be any different. What does that mean? It means that reality is fundamentally emergent complex. What would an eternal, fundamentally emergent complex reality look like?