New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

Atheism, secularism & freethought etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#1  Postby skydivephil » Dec 14, 2017 12:33 pm

You often hear from theists when debating the fine argument, there is no evidence fora multiverse. the claim is undermined in this interview with Planck scientist George Efstahthiou. George Efstathiou was the scientist chosen to present the cosmology results for the European Space Agency's Planck Probe. This is the latest spacecraft to map the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), the oldest light we can see in the universe.
By making maps of the CMB Planck tried to constrain models of cosmic inflation. Inflation is a period of exponential expansion of space that is believed can generate a multiverse.
NASA already claimed some evidence for inflation in their data. We asked George Efstathiou whether the Planck data can say if the data favours the type of inflation that leads to a multiverse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0SSwFWMj9o
skydivephil
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Phil
Posts: 32

Country: uk
Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#2  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 14, 2017 12:38 pm

The absence of evidence for fine-tuning undermines fine-tuning.
"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

#3  Postby DavidMcC » Dec 14, 2017 1:46 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:The absence of evidence for fine-tuning undermines fine-tuning.

More precisely, life gives the impression that this universe is fine-tuned for life, but that does not take into account the real multiverse (as opposed to the imagined multiverse discussed in the video, which starts with a false assumption about the nature of space. See my articles here et seq.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 68
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#4  Postby zulumoose » Dec 14, 2017 1:57 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:The absence of evidence for fine-tuning undermines fine-tuning.


Best illustrated with the puddle argument, which can never be repeated too many times:-

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt
User avatar
zulumoose
 
Posts: 3643

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#5  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 14, 2017 2:00 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:The absence of evidence for fine-tuning undermines fine-tuning.

More precisely, life gives the impression that this universe is fine-tuned for life,

It does no such thing.
"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

#6  Postby DavidMcC » Dec 14, 2017 2:24 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:The absence of evidence for fine-tuning undermines fine-tuning.

More precisely, life gives the impression that this universe is fine-tuned for life,

It does no such thing.

Of course it does, even cosmologists realise that! The reasoning is that without fine tuning, life in this universe would be highly unlikely to be possible, as there are many more ways of getting the wrong set of fundamental constants than of getting the right kind. Of course, that is an argument that disregards the multiverse (whichever kind it is).
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 68
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#7  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 14, 2017 3:10 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:The absence of evidence for fine-tuning undermines fine-tuning.

More precisely, life gives the impression that this universe is fine-tuned for life,

It does no such thing.

Of course it does,

Really? How is interstellar space suitable for life exactly? Much less fine-tuned?

DavidMcC wrote: even cosmologists realise that!

So you assert.


DavidMcC wrote: The reasoning is that without fine tuning, life in this universe would be highly unlikely

You have no basis to make assertions about the likeliness of universes.
We only have one case sample.
"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

#8  Postby Shrunk » Dec 14, 2017 3:13 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:The absence of evidence for fine-tuning undermines fine-tuning.

More precisely, life gives the impression that this universe is fine-tuned for life,

It does no such thing.

Of course it does, even cosmologists realise that! The reasoning is that without fine tuning, life in this universe would be highly unlikely to be possible, as there are many more ways of getting the wrong set of fundamental constants than of getting the right kind. Of course, that is an argument that disregards the multiverse (whichever kind it is).


It is also an argument that assumes that we can determine all of the situations under which something that could be considered "life" could arise. The more fundamental, but easily overlooked, assumption is that a universe that contains "life" is somehow more special than a lifeless universe that contains some of the amazing things that could exist in other universes, but of which we cannot even conceive because we only know our universe.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#9  Postby Shrunk » Dec 14, 2017 3:16 pm

Anyway, glad to have you in the group, Phil. Your videos are excellent, and I often use them in discussions on places like WL Craig's "Reasonable Faith" page, where it's always amusing to watch the mental convolutions apologists go thru to try respond.

:thumbup:
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#10  Postby skydivephil » Dec 14, 2017 3:29 pm

Shrunk wrote:Anyway, glad to have you in the group, Phil. Your videos are excellent, and I often use them in discussions on places like WL Craig's "Reasonable Faith" page, where it's always amusing to watch the mental convolutions apologists go thru to try respond.

:thumbup:


Thanks Shrunk, you might want to stop this one on them and see how they get on.
skydivephil
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Phil
Posts: 32

Country: uk
Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#11  Postby Shrunk » Dec 14, 2017 4:10 pm

skydivephil wrote:
Shrunk wrote:Anyway, glad to have you in the group, Phil. Your videos are excellent, and I often use them in discussions on places like WL Craig's "Reasonable Faith" page, where it's always amusing to watch the mental convolutions apologists go thru to try respond.

:thumbup:


Thanks Shrunk, you might want to stop this one on them and see how they get on.


Recall that Craig's usual response to the multiverse is to claim there is no empirical evidence for it. As opposed, I suppose, to the mountains and mountains of empirical evidence for immaterial disembodied minds that are able to will entire universes into existence.

:nod:
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#12  Postby Rumraket » Dec 14, 2017 6:25 pm

Even more ironically, Craig is an adherent of the expontential inflation models because he thinks they imply an ultimate beginning of time. So on the one hand Craig thinks inflation is the best model, but simultaneously rejects the multiverse. Yet most inflationary models predict a multiverse.
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

#13  Postby Animavore » Dec 14, 2017 7:02 pm

Rumraket wrote:Even more ironically, Craig is an adherent of the expontential inflation models because he thinks they imply an ultimate beginning of time. So on the one hand Craig thinks inflation is the best model, but simultaneously rejects the multiverse. Yet most inflationary models predict a multiverse.


Including the Guth model he champions.

Still laughing at when Steve Carroll got him with that in debate. :lol:
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44859
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#14  Postby scott1328 » Dec 14, 2017 9:19 pm

Since a "multiverse" is the ultimate non-falsifiable claim, shouldn't the search be for evidence that falsifies the "universe" claim?
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8718
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#15  Postby DavidMcC » Dec 16, 2017 3:16 pm

scott1328 wrote:Since a "multiverse" is the ultimate non-falsifiable claim, shouldn't the search be for evidence that falsifies the "universe" claim?

Strictly speaking, what is needed is to falsify the STAND-ALONE universe claim, or at least show that it has serious issues that require a multiverse to solve them. See my posts in the physics forum. My claim is best summarised in this post.

EDIT: Pleaase disregard the sideshow caused by the tension between myself and hack that was buildng up that the time - it is irrelevant to cosmology, and occurred years ago.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 68
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#16  Postby Wortfish » Oct 31, 2018 10:49 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:The absence of evidence for fine-tuning undermines fine-tuning.

The absence of knowledge about fine-tuning undermines an appreciation of science.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#17  Postby felltoearth » Nov 01, 2018 12:22 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:The absence of evidence for fine-tuning undermines fine-tuning.

The absence of knowledge about fine-tuning undermines an appreciation of science.

Having mental blinkers means having a richer appreciation of science, you say?

Don’t bother answering that, it’s rhetorical.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 14293
Age: 54

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#18  Postby hackenslash » Nov 01, 2018 12:29 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:The absence of evidence for fine-tuning undermines fine-tuning.

The absence of knowledge about fine-tuning undermines an appreciation of science.


What is it you think you know about fine-tuning, and indeed science, that I don't?

Here's what I know about fine-tuning. You're not going to like it (or probably even read it).

Careful With That Dial!
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21845
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#19  Postby hackenslash » Nov 01, 2018 12:46 pm

scott1328 wrote:Since a "multiverse" is the ultimate non-falsifiable claim...


I'd be reluctant to make claims like this.

It was widely thought that brane-worlds was unfalsifiable, yet physicists ultimately determined a way to falsify it. Had the BICEP2 results withstood critical scrutiny, brane-worlds would have been falsified, because one of the consequences of brane cosmology is that the B-mode polarisation cannot occur, because it arises from inhomogeneities during inflation.

I'm always reminded of Darwin's admonition:

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21845
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: New evidence for a multiverse undermine fine tuning

#20  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 01, 2018 1:28 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:The absence of evidence for fine-tuning undermines fine-tuning.

The absence of knowledge about fine-tuning undermines an appreciation of science.

Let's see. Nope, your rectal matter still does not constitute data, nor a sound rebuttal to the point I raised. :coffee:
"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

Next

Return to Nontheism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

cron