ughaibu wrote:as it is highly improbable that the universe has the features necessary to support life,
There is no statistical basis to make that claim.
We only have one universe we can investigate.
Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86
ughaibu wrote:as it is highly improbable that the universe has the features necessary to support life,
You really do post the most unconscienable crap.newolder wrote:I forget how much difficulty you have with written English. I "think there are sides" ? Yes, I do, especially on polygons, polyhedra &c.
uhaibu wrote: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 ?
According to Wikepedia: "One of the most severe challenges for inflation arises from the need for fine tuning". Inflation cannot be a defence to fine-tuning if it requires fine-tuning, so, whether it implies multiverse theory of not is irrelevant.ughaibu wrote: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:the classic eternal inflationary model of Alan Guth (later modified by Paul Steinhardt and others) predicts a multiverse.
ughaibu wrote:According to Wikepedia: "One of the most severe challenges for inflation arises from the need for fine tuning". Inflation cannot be a defence to fine-tuning if it requires fine-tuning, so, whether it implies multiverse theory of not is irrelevant.ughaibu wrote: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:the classic eternal inflationary model of Alan Guth (later modified by Paul Steinhardt and others) predicts a multiverse.
ughaibu wrote: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: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.ughaibu wrote:Any such solution that requires things external to the universe is "unfalsifiable conjecture".
ughaibu wrote: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.
ughaibu wrote: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: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.
ughaibu wrote:I haven't read any creationist literature about fine-tuning.
I assume you're aware that Steinhardt holds that inflation is refuted by the fact that it entails a multiverse, because in a multiverse all possibilities are actualised, so there can be no prediction to falsify a multiverse.
ughaibu wrote:According to Wikepedia: "One of the most severe challenges for inflation arises from the need for fine tuning". Inflation cannot be a defence to fine-tuning if it requires fine-tuning, so, whether it implies multiverse theory of not is irrelevant.ughaibu wrote: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:the classic eternal inflationary model of Alan Guth (later modified by Paul Steinhardt and others) predicts a multiverse.
Of course it isn't. Obviously, I mean really really obviously, you cannot prove P if your proof requires a premise such that not-P is true.
ughaibu wrote:I assume you're aware that Steinhardt holds that inflation is refuted by the fact that it entails a multiverse, because in a multiverse all possibilities are actualised, so there can be no prediction to falsify a multiverse.
ughaibu wrote:In any case, nothing you have said impacts the fact that inflation cannot serve as the basis for solving the fine-tuning problem, as it requires fine-tuning.
ughaibu wrote:Of course it isn't. Obviously, I mean really really obviously, you cannot prove P if your proof requires a premise such that not-P is true.
... The authors admit that this is only an encouraging first step. For one thing, “stringy” inflation seems to require a very complicated fine tuning, as Linde found in a paper with seven other authors. Linde says that was a record number for him. “The reason is, it took eight authors to fine-tune the parameters to get a nice inflation,” he says. ...
So, you have offered no solution to the problem of fine-tuning.Rumraket wrote:I did not propose to have proven P
newolder wrote:With regard to inflationary theory and fine tuning, Andre Linde is quoted in a SymmetryMag post on The Growth of Inflation:... The authors admit that this is only an encouraging first step. For one thing, “stringy” inflation seems to require a very complicated fine tuning, as Linde found in a paper with seven other authors. Linde says that was a record number for him. “The reason is, it took eight authors to fine-tune the parameters to get a nice inflation,” he says. ...
The (Steinhardt's) implication being that a different group of authors could fine tune another inflationary scenario to fit another data set, and so on. That is to say inflationary cosmology is no longer disprovable by any observational data.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest