Fine-tuning of the Universe for life

Originally posted by sonship
The Cosmological Content must be unchangeable to this degree -
.000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000001
That should be 123 zeros and a 1. Am I right ?

I have said this before, but you seem to have a habit of ignoring people you disagree with: Nobody disputes the fact that a very small change to various parts of the universe or its constants would result in a very different universe ie one that is not the one we see today.
So quoting ever larger numbers will get you nowhere. It is really not under dispute.

I have heard the that fine tuning of this Cosmological Constant if varied to the tinest degree would result in the explansion rate of the universe being different and non-conducive to life.
Well that depends on how you define 'life'. I did say this before, but you conveniently ignored me.

But if you all insist, there is possibly this other really different universe in the multiverse. It is perhaps number 918,332,702,114.
If there is a multiverse, it is likely infinite.

Okay, I'll get serious now. We only know of this universe. Many bubbled universes I think should have bumped into each other, collided, and merged together by now.
Sorry, but you do not know enough cosmology to be making such claims. You are just guessing because you think it helps your argument.

We really know about one universe. And this one has some peculiarly well calibrated parameters to it. It is hard to destroy the significance of their anthropological significance.
It is trivially easy to destroy the significance. All I need to do, is point out that there is no significance. That the parameters required to create the universe we live in have to be the exact parameters we observe is nothing more than a trivial observation of fact.

So let me make one last attempt at explaining this very simple concept to you:
Suppose I buy a lottery ticket. It is ticket number 918,332,702,114 out of 1,000,000,000,000 tickets one of which is the winning ticket.
What is the probability that I picked the winning ticket?
What was the probability prior to picking my ticket that I would pick ticket number 918,332,702,114?
The two probabilities are exactly the same.
Simply pointing out that the probability of picking our exact ticket, tells us nothing whatsoever about how lucky we are. All it tells us is that we picked a ticket.

To make a case, you must prove that we have won the lottery. And I am afraid that quoting the Bible doesn't count.
It is your claim that life is special amongst all possible things in all possible universes. Sorry, but you have not given even a hint as to why anyone should believe such a claim other than Bible references.

Originally posted by sonship
Some of us still see life and man in the universe as special -

An analogy:
different environments have different humidity, temperature,
light, minerals

bacteria exist virtually everywhere; they adapt to their conditions

would it make sense to say a particular environment has
been "made" for a particular bacteria?

could that bacteria "think" if the humidity were changed
by 0.1% or the temperature were half a degree colder I
couldn't exist THEREFORE this environment has been made
FOR ME

Does that make sense to you?

Originally posted by RJHinds
We only know about this universe, so to start considereing the existence of imaginary universes is only a distraction away from acknowledging our discoveries of this fine-tuned universe for life as we know it.

Anything else falls under science fiction and pseudoscience.

And you know a LOT about pseudoscience.

Originally posted by twhitehead

So quoting ever larger numbers will get you nowhere. It is really not under dispute.

I have heard the that fine tuning of this Cosmological Constant if varied to the tinest degree would result in the explansion rate of the universe being different and non-conducive to life.


But if you all insist, there is possibly this other really diffe ...[text shortened]... arameters to it. It is hard to destroy the significance of their anthropological significance.

I have said this before, but you seem to have a habit of ignoring people you disagree with: Nobody disputes the fact that a very small change to various parts of the universe or its constants would result in a very different universe ie one that is not the one we see today.

I do often ignore you. And I told you why if you didn't get it. Applying your way of thinking about these problems, I find, is self damaging use of my mind. I told you that I find using my mind that way you do to deny the existence of God is not worth the distortions I put my mind through.

Concerning Anthropoc Principle and life:

Well that depends on how you define 'life'. I did say this before, but you conveniently ignored me.

So here you hope to find a loop whole by making an issue about what life is. I am not concerned with imaginary life. If I was concerned with imaginary life then that would sidetrack the clear thinking that the fine tuning issue has on life as we know it.

It is a clever debating tactic. But it is not that helpful to the analysis of the data we have so far.

You could also say "Depends on what you mean by a universe."
"Depends on what you mean by tuning."
"Depends on what you mean by fine."
"Depends on what you mean by something else. Now get busy and chase that white rabbit down the rabbit hole."

"Life" as we know it in all present day biology will do.

Concerning my joking about multiverses :

If there is a multiverse, it is likely infinite.

I am convinced that actual infinite number of things does not exist.
Infinity is a concept useful for mathematical reasoning. But an actual infinite number of anything, I don't think exists. So says math professors who have persuaded me.

That there is a contrary view out there somewhere, would not surprise me.
So I don't think multiverse could possiibly be a real infinite number of things.

Sorry, but you do not know enough cosmology to be making such claims. You are just guessing because you think it helps your argument.

You don't have enough cosmology to claim that there is an actual infinite number of universes. You don't really have enough to affirmative prove that more than one universe is in existence.

And not I expect you to probably claim that you didn't say that.
It is always difficult to figure out what you believe.
I think you usually conceal your own position making no position your fortress as you demand everyone get to work to prove their own.

Why don't you start a thread and lay out your own position for SOMETHING.

Concerning finely calibrated parameters:

It is trivially easy to destroy the significance. All I need to do, is point out that there [b]is no significance.

Well, so far you done the easy part of boasting about that.

That the parameters required to create the universe we live in have to be the exact parameters we observe is nothing more than a trivial observation of fact.

Said with glib finesse indeed.
Not demonstrated to me.

So let me make one last attempt at explaining this very simple concept to you:

Okay. One last good ole college try. Explain a simple concept to me.

Suppose I buy a lottery ticket. It is ticket number 918,332,702,114 out of 1,000,000,000,000 tickets one of which is the winning ticket.

Depends on what you mean by a ticket.
Just kidding.
Continue.

What is the probability that I picked the winning ticket?
What was the probability prior to picking my ticket that I would pick ticket number 918,332,702,114?

One pick for one group of tickets?

1 in 1,000,000,000,000

The two probabilities are exactly the same.
Simply pointing out that the probability of picking our exact ticket, tells us nothing whatsoever about how lucky we are. All it tells us is that we picked a ticket.

The sample size of universes with life that we have is ONE.
You can imagine MILLIONS or an INFINITE number if you wish (though I don't know how one can imagine an infinite number of anything).

But we have ONE universe which has allowed life to develop. You can ho-hum this and say it is no big deal. But please do not do so pretending that you are the ONLY person around how seems to have a logical view of the matter. Enough people have found it rather amazing for it to be noted. I listed a few. And in listing a few representatives you sought to propose that even if a million such examples were given it would not argue for their viewpoint.

I took that to be basically an objection to an ad populum argument which I was not making. I think it is signigicant that some of these people had those thoughts. I still do.

As stated, one skeptical reaction to reduce the specialty of this seemingly fortunate combinations of accidents is to inflate the number of universes so high that a extraordinary "lucky" life sustaining one is buried under numbers other possibilities. These other possibilities are all imaginary at this point. You know of NO other universe and no multiple number of universes as scientific fact.

Your objection to me falls into a category of arguing that it all just depends upon the way you look at it. It seems to me a kind of argument -

"Well if you just look at it from another angle it won't seem so Fine Tuned. It is no extraordinary matter that if the Anthropic pinciple was noticed by so many cosmologists and physicists. They just have to learn from me and SEE the matter from my angle. "

This is paraphrase. I don't mean to put words in your mouth. This is the attitude. The many thinkers I did quote just have to adopt your way of looking at the problem. This you hope will water down the sense of human surprise at the notable coincidental nature of the fine tuning.


Now I am going to have to stop writing. I may have some additional things to say about chance latter. If I do it will be addressed to this post.

To make a case, you must prove that we have won the lottery. And I am afraid that quoting the Bible doesn't count.

I use both the quotes of science and the quotes of the revelation of God.
God has two books - the book of nature and the book of revelation.

I think neither book seems to count with you - neither one.

It is your claim that life is special amongst all possible things in all possible universes. Sorry, but you have not given even a hint as to why anyone should believe such a claim other than Bible references.

Why should anyone in the 21rst century believe your attitude that life is not special among all the billions of things in the universe ?

This is why I ignore you twhitehead. I honestly think your atheism has damaged your mind and conscience. I called it a kind of self inflicted mental illness.

Now WHY should I not regard LIFE as special amongst the things not living ? I dare say you do not practically live with such a attitude. Why adopt such an attitude only when it is handy for avoiding the possibility of a designing Creator ?

You can stop reading here. Below this is a quotation from the Bible for other readers.

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:22)

Originally posted by sonship
I told you that I find using my mind that way you do to deny the existence of God is not worth the distortions I put my mind through.

So - by your own admission - you are starting with the
premise that a god exists and then arguing that he exists!

Do you see a slight problem there?

Incidentally - there is no need to start with the premise
that a god doesn't exist either. Just use rational thought.

Originally posted by wolfgang59

So - by your own admission - you are starting with the
premise that a god exists and then arguing that he exists!

Would that necessarily make atheism true just because I had previous good reasons for believing in God ?

It is the truth that you really should be concerned with rather than "What did you believe prior to so many scientists discovering this apparent fine tuning?"

Do you see a slight problem there?

Not much more than you coming to the issue with a prior atheism.
What is additional evidence one man considers may be initial evidence another man considers.

What is true? That is what we should be concerned with.

Incidentally - there is no need to start with the premise
that a god doesn't exist either. Just use rational thought.

I think this is the best time in the world to notice the confirmation of scientific discoveries to give me rational reasons that I am on the right track to believe in a Creator God.

I predict that this will grow even more in the future.

One thing I am not going to do is labor mentally to downgrade the human race to be nothing particularly unique amidst the other things which exist.

Originally posted by sonship
I do often ignore you. And I told you why if you didn't get it. Applying your way of thinking about these problems, I find, is self damaging use of my mind.

Well I don't know why I bother trying to explain logic to someone who thinks logic is damaging his mind.

So here you hope to find a loop whole by making an issue about what life is. I am not concerned with imaginary life. If I was concerned with imaginary life then that would sidetrack the clear thinking that the fine tuning issue has on [b]life as we know it.[/b]
Well then all your claims become trivial, and you wasted an awful lot of words and quotes trying to substantiate something nobody would dispute in the first place. We all agree that any changes to initial conditions would mean that 'life as we know it' would not exist. In fact you could quite happily add a few billion zeros to every one of your figures and I would not dispute it in the slightest.

It is a clever debating tactic.
It is not a debating tactic at all. We are not in a debate. I am trying to explain basic logic to you, and you are trying not to listen because you fear it will damage your brain.

But it is not that helpful to the analysis of the data we have so far.
At one moment, you are making claims about all possible universes and what could not exist in them, then the next moment you insist on only talking about the universe we have before us. And this is the root of the problem. You have a lottery ticket, and because it is the only ticket you know of, you assume it must be the winning ticket.

So I don't think multiverse could possiibly be a real infinite number of things.
That's all well and good, but you need more than a lack of acceptance if you want to make some sort of logical argument.
I must also point out that an infinite number of universes is not required to counter your claims. All that is required is a finite number that is several orders of magnitude bigger than whatever number you quote as the probability of getting our universe - then our universe existing becomes highly probable.
But this is a side point because a multiverse is not required at all to debunk your claims.

You don't have enough cosmology to claim that there is an actual infinite number of universes.
You don't really have enough to affirmative prove that more than one universe is in existence.
Correct. And I made no such claims.

And not I expect you to probably claim that you didn't say that.
Correct once again.

It is always difficult to figure out what you believe.
No, it isn't. Just read what I write. I have no idea whether or not there are other universes and have no beliefs either way.

I think you usually conceal your own position making no position your fortress as you demand everyone get to work to prove their own.
If someone makes a position on something that I have no position on, then it is up to them to explain why they have taken a position. I am not required to take a position, and further would be foolish to take a position without any reason to do so.

Why don't you start a thread and lay out your own position for SOMETHING.
I often state my position on particular things, I even start threads on it. I just don't happen to have a position on whether there are more universes out there because there is no way of knowing with the information we have available to us at present.

That the parameters required to create the universe we live in have to be the exact parameters we observe is nothing more than a trivial observation of fact.

Said with glib finesse indeed.
Not demonstrated to me.
What do you still dispute?
Do you deny that any changes to the parameters of the universe would result in a different universe?
Do you deny that this is a trivial observation?

The sample size of universes with life that we have is ONE.
And the sample size for bought lottery tickets in my analogy is also ONE.
It doesn't mean its the winning ticket.

What makes you think you have the winning ticket? Give me one good reason other than 'the Bible tells me so'.

Originally posted by sonhouse
And you know a LOT about pseudoscience.

You bet! EVIL - LUTION.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think you are fearful of what science learns because it puts you and your ilk further and further into the past where ghosts and devils and fighting gods and jealous gods exist but only in the minds of the fearful.

We know much more about the universe now and will know much more as each decade goes by so your blathering gets less and less traction as ...[text shortened]...

I bet those kind of thoughts never crossed your brain so buried a thousand years in the past.

I try not to think about nonsense.

Originally posted by sonship

One thing I am not going to do is labor mentally to downgrade the human race to be nothing particularly unique amidst the other things which exist.

There is no need to "downgrade" the human race at all. What you are doing however is the direct opposite, namely upgrading the human race which is equally unnecessary.

Originally posted by RJHinds
nonsense.

Fixed it.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Fixed it.

Another moron troller on the loose.

Originally posted by Great King Rat

There is no need to "downgrade" the human race at all. What you are doing however is the direct opposite, namely upgrading the human race which is equally unnecessary.

Even if we took mankind out of the picture altogether, it is still quit amazing, this finely calibrated universe for animals.

I happen to think that among all the animals man is the one most suited to look around him and appreciate the handiwork of some great precisionist.

I think humans can step back and have more of a sense of awe about the universe then say, a fish or a mountain goat.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Another moron troller on the loose.

You are SO spiritual. NOT.