New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

Atheism, secularism & freethought etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#41  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 07, 2018 8:59 pm

ughaibu wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:No, because it isn't.
Yes it is.
Except that it isn't.
You're mistaken about this. There's nothing more to say beyond read up on the matter.

Nope, your assertion, your work.

ughaibu wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
ughaibu wrote:The fine-tuning argument for theism is exactly the fine-tuning argument for a multiverse, only the conclusions differ.
The fine-tuning argument for theism begs several questions, so if that's the same thing you're talking about, it is a logically fallacious position and therefore irrelevant.
If you're correct, then the fine-tuning argument for a multiverse "begs several questions", is "a logically fallacious position" and is "therefore irrelevant". I think I'll trust the physicists on this one, you've got a pretty dire track record, from what I've seen.

Ughaibu, you were the one that criticised my post with a complaint about the scientific usage of fine-tuning when my post was about the religious use of the term.
Then, after I explained that your criticism did not actually address my point, you insisted that I was talking about the scientific usage because you asserted they are the same.
I am not responsible for your inability to acknowledge that we're talking about different things.

Finally your personalized remarks are both hypocritical and typical.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 32
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#42  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 07, 2018 9:00 pm

hackenslash wrote:It's a bit more subtle even than that. There are several fine-tuning problems in physics, and they all have to do with the fact that, under a given model, certain parameters have to fall within a narrow range of values if the model is correct.

The constants themselves don't represent a fine-tuning problem, they're simply questions to be answered, because they are what they are and there's no good reason - beyond the usual useful 'what if' thought experiments - to think they could be any different.

I talk at some length about fine-tuning generally and in apologetics here:

Careful With That Dial

:this:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 32
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#43  Postby ughaibu » Nov 07, 2018 11:42 pm

Rumraket wrote:[Thiests] think they have a solution to the fine-tuning problem in physics. God did it, with magic. Which is of course unfalsifiable conjecture.
The possible solutions are generally taken to fall into one of chance, design or necessity. Any such solution that requires things external to the universe is "unfalsifiable conjecture". The situation here is no different for the physicist or the theist.
Rumraket wrote:It's not a prediction, it's ad-hoc rationalization.
The same can be said of multiverse theory.
Fine-tuning is an interesting problem, trying to poo-poo it away with cliches isn't an interesting response.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#44  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 07, 2018 11:55 pm

ughaibu wrote:
Rumraket wrote:[Thiests] think they have a solution to the fine-tuning problem in physics. God did it, with magic. Which is of course unfalsifiable conjecture.
The possible solutions are generally taken to fall into one of chance, design or necessity. Any such solution that requires things external to the universe is "unfalsifiable conjecture". The situation here is no different for the physicist or the theist.

It is, in the sense that the theists argument from fine-tuning is based on the presumptions that the universe is designed with a specific goal in mind.

ughaibu wrote:
Rumraket wrote:It's not a prediction, it's ad-hoc rationalization.
The same can be said of multiverse theory.

False. The former requires the presumption of things we have no evidence for whatsoever (gods), the latter doesn't (universes).

ughaibu wrote:
Fine-tuning is an interesting problem, trying to poo-poo it away with cliches isn't an interesting response.

Again, fine-tuning is question begging terminology and especially in the case of the religious use of the word fundamentally fallacious.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 32
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#45  Postby Rumraket » Nov 08, 2018 5:40 am

ughaibu wrote:
Rumraket wrote:[Thiests] think they have a solution to the fine-tuning problem in physics. God did it, with magic. Which is of course unfalsifiable conjecture.
The possible solutions are generally taken to fall into one of chance, design or necessity. Any such solution that requires things external to the universe is "unfalsifiable conjecture".

I'm sorry but that is just not true. There are models of cosmology that predict mechanisms that leave yet-to-be-observed effects in our local cosmic expansion if it evolved from some sort of multiverse. Whether primordial gravitational waves of a particular nature, or patterns of polarization or anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background radiation.

ughaibu wrote:The situation here is no different for the physicist or the theist.

It demonstrably is. If you have a model that predicts certain effects should be observed in our universe, that is directly testable by observation.

God made it with magic because he wanted to isn't a model that makes any testable predictions. So there's a difference.

ughaibu wrote:
Rumraket wrote:It's not a prediction, it's ad-hoc rationalization.
The same can be said of multiverse theory.

No, the classic eternal inflationary model of Alan Guth (later modified by Paul Steinhardt and others) predicts a multiverse. Predicts. As in it follows from the mathematics. And it wasn't invented to solve the fine-tuning problem, it was invented to account for certain observations of structure in the distribution of matter in the universe. And it didn't do this by positing that a multiverse exists but by positing a false vacuum energy. But it was later discovered to also follow from this false vacuum energy that it would lead to a multiverse. You've got your history wrong.

What would be conjecture is to merely handwave away the fine-tuning problem by just declaring, without having any evidence, that there is an ensemble of evolving universes with different properties. The multiverse concept can certainly be stated in a form that amounts to nothing but conjecture, but you're wrong when you declare that this is all it is.

ughaibu wrote:Fine-tuning is an interesting problem, trying to poo-poo it away with cliches isn't an interesting response.

I agree on both counts, but you should really read up on some history of cosmology because you seem to have bought into some common creationistic misconceptions.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13218
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#46  Postby ughaibu » Nov 08, 2018 12:16 pm

Rumraket wrote:
ughaibu wrote:Any such solution that requires things external to the universe is "unfalsifiable conjecture".
I'm sorry but that is just not true. There are models of cosmology that predict mechanisms that leave yet-to-be-observed effects in our local cosmic expansion if it evolved from some sort of multiverse.
In such a case there would need to be some commonality across the multiverse, which would make it a universe. I don't see how this could function as a solution.
Rumraket wrote:
ughaibu wrote:The situation here is no different for the physicist or the theist.
It demonstrably is.
No it isn't. In both cases an ad hoc solution is proposed. There is no independent reason to think that there's a multiverse, but if there was one, it would supposedly solve a problem. The same can be said of god as a solution, though the theist would probably claim that there are independent reasons to think there's a god.
Rumraket wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
Rumraket wrote:It's not a prediction, it's ad-hoc rationalization.
The same can be said of multiverse theory.
No, the classic eternal inflationary model of Alan Guth (later modified by Paul Steinhardt and others) predicts a multiverse. Predicts. As in it follows from the mathematics. And it wasn't invented to solve the fine-tuning problem, it was invented to account for certain observations of structure in the distribution of matter in the universe.
Okay, I'll look into this, because as far as I'm aware inflation is itself an ad hoc solution, (in fact, doesn't your assertion that "it was invented to account for certain observations" amount to acknowledging it to be an ad hoc solution?).
Rumraket wrote:
ughaibu wrote:Fine-tuning is an interesting problem, trying to poo-poo it away with cliches isn't an interesting response.
I agree on both counts, but you should really read up on some history of cosmology because you seem to have bought into some common creationistic misconceptions.
I haven't read any creationist literature about fine-tuning.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#47  Postby willhud9 » Nov 08, 2018 1:46 pm

Fine tuning is as bad a term in science as natural selection.

It’s not that the universe consciously had some tuning nor that nature consciously selected traits for life to evolve with, but rather it gives the “appearance” as such.

Language is already a piss poor means of communication of ideas. The fact a lot of arguments break down to semantics is evidence of that. So it’s not surprising to see creationists and theists think fine tuned implies Goddidit.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19368
Age: 30
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#48  Postby hackenslash » Nov 08, 2018 2:01 pm

That a lot of arguments break down to semantics isn't because language is poor, but because people don't understand how to use it.

Semantics is important, but it should never be the basis of argument. It should be the preamble to argument, the setting of the table, if you will, beyond which lies the meal.

It's one of my biggest laments that people are so crap at understanding what semantics is, what it's for, and how to get beyond silly arguments about what words mean.

In a nutshell, once you tell me what you mean by a word, and I tell you what I mean, that should be the end of the semantic portion of the discussion, excepting some attempt to reconcile the difference so that discussion can continue properly.

I wrote at some length about this, quelle surprise.

The Map Is Not The Terrain
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21846
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#49  Postby surreptitious57 » Nov 08, 2018 3:09 pm

The terminology of creationists / fundamentalists is back to front because the Universe is not fine tuned for life but life is fine tuned for the Universe. But the overwhelming majority of the observable Universe could not sustain life as it currently exists here on Earth. Other than exoplanets with liquid water and carbon and oxygen and preferably an atmosphere as well
[ to regulate temperature and filter radiation ] and a star not approaching death. All of which is actually infinitesimally rare

The only thing that can survive off Earth are water bears [ one degree above absolute zero in actual outer space not a simulated experiment in a laboratory ] but they are extremophiles so can adapt to incredible conditions as their name suggests. The rest of the animal kingdom [ including us ] is stuck here till we die. Possibility of discovering an optimum exoplanet is very statistically improbable. Which effectively renders the whole fine tuning argument rather superfluous

But the argument goes : if the constants were shifted even infinitesimally we would not be here. There are two enormous schoolboy errors with such a ridiculous argument [ its not one as such but for want of a better word it will have to suffice ]

One : the Universe does not exist for our benefit. It has been here for nearly I4 billion years. We ve only been here 200 000
Two : only human beings think the existence of human beings is important in the grand scheme of things. It isnt for had we never existed it would have made absolutely zero difference as the Universe itself would have carried on existing regardless

The other side need to come up with better arguments than this as fine tuning has had its sell by date it really has
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10203

Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#50  Postby ughaibu » Nov 08, 2018 3:13 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:But the argument goes : if the constants were shifted even infinitesimally we would not be here.
Amongst the scientists who endorse fine-tuning as a problem in physics, is Dawkins.
surreptitious57 wrote:The other side need to come up with better arguments than this as fine tuning has had its sell by date it really has
If you're on the other side from Dawkins, what side are you on?
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#51  Postby hackenslash » Nov 08, 2018 3:38 pm

ughaibu wrote:Amongst the scientists who endorse fine-tuning as a problem in physics, is Dawkins.


Why would anybody give a crap what Dawkins thinks about this? He isn't a physicist.

Meanwhile, I've explained in detail why everything you've said is arse-water. There are fine-tuning problems in physics having to do with specific models and certain parameters contained therein having to hit a narrow range of values. This is nothing to do with the universe being fine-tuned for anything. It's all bass-ackwards.

If you're on the other side from Dawkins, what side are you on?


I can't speak for anybody else, but I'm on the side of understanding what fine-tuning is, and why it poses particular problems. You, clearly, have no interest in that.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21846
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#52  Postby ughaibu » Nov 08, 2018 3:42 pm

hackenslash wrote:Why would anybody give a crap what Dawkins thinks about this?
Because as far as there can be considered to be "sides" concerning this matter, Dawkins is on the non-theist side, isn't he?
I can well appreciate that you have trouble drawing conclusions like this, but I will not be wasting any more time helping you muddle through. In short, fuck off.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#53  Postby surreptitious57 » Nov 08, 2018 3:42 pm

uhaibu wrote:
Amongst the scientists who endorse fine tuning as a problem in physics is Dawkins

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist not a cosmologist or astrophysicist so this is outside his area of expertise

Fine tuning is not a problem in physics because were the constants any different we would not be here
Our non existence would then be a philosophical matter not a scientific one. That is because science is
only concerned with how things are not with how they should be
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10203

Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#54  Postby hackenslash » Nov 08, 2018 3:47 pm

ughaibu wrote:Because as far as there can be considered to be "sides" concerning this matter, Dawkins is on the non-theist side, isn't he?


But he isn't a physicist, genius, so what he thinks is irrelevant.

I can well appreciate that you have trouble drawing conclusions like this, but I will not be wasting any more time helping you muddle through. In short, fuck off.


Your thinking really hasn't improved even a little bit, has it?
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21846
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#55  Postby ughaibu » Nov 08, 2018 3:49 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:Fine tuning is not a problem in physics because were the constants any different we would not be here
Constants are one sphere in which the problem of fine-tuning arises, and fine-tuning is a problem in physics that can be rephrased as the problem that, as it is highly improbable that the universe has the features necessary to support life, why does the universe meets those highly improbable requirements?
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#56  Postby ughaibu » Nov 08, 2018 3:52 pm

hackenslash wrote:But he isn't a physicist, genius, so what he thinks is irrelevant.
And you're not a physicist either, so what you think about this matter doesn't even matter to you.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#57  Postby newolder » Nov 08, 2018 3:53 pm

ughaibu wrote:
hackenslash wrote:Why would anybody give a crap what Dawkins thinks about this?
Because as far as there can be considered to be "sides" concerning this matter, Dawkins is on the non-theist side, isn't he? ...

Science couldn't care less about humans taking sides on an issue. There is data and there are models to account for the data, and how the data should look in future, if the model has merit.

Taking sides is for sports, games and pastimes.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7397
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#58  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 08, 2018 3:54 pm

ughaibu wrote:
hackenslash wrote:Why would anybody give a crap what Dawkins thinks about this?
Because as far as there can be considered to be "sides" concerning this matter, Dawkins is on the non-theist side, isn't he?

So what? That doesn't mean non-theists should be on his side on any particular issue.

ughaibu wrote:
I can well appreciate that you have trouble drawing conclusions like this, but I will not be wasting any more time helping you muddle through. In short, fuck off.

I'd forgotten how much you like to project your own shortcomings onto others.... :roll:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 32
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#59  Postby hackenslash » Nov 08, 2018 3:54 pm

Can't wait to see the sample set from which any probability calculation was derived.

Again, arse-backwards. Life is fine-tuned for the universe by virtue of having arisen under those constants.

This is not a fine-tuning problem of any stripe. There is precisely zero good reason to suppose the constants could, in fact, be any different than they are, whether under a multiverse or otherwise.

You should do some learning, because your ignorance is only matched by your overweening hubris.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21846
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#60  Postby hackenslash » Nov 08, 2018 3:55 pm

ughaibu wrote:
hackenslash wrote:But he isn't a physicist, genius, so what he thinks is irrelevant.
And you're not a physicist either, so what you think about this matter doesn't even matter to you.


No, I'm not, but I know a fuck of a lot more about the relevant subject matter than either you or Dawkins.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21846
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Nontheism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest