Crispy Bacon

Back to your original question. http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/fine-tuning-and-the-myth-of-one-variable-at-a-time/

I've been researching the fine-tuning argument more, and found these comic coincidences. Tell me how moving them all at the same time would help the fine-tuning problem? (moving them randomly) Strong Force: If the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium. This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth. The existence of the di-proton would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all of the Universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang. [1] The weak nuclear force: The weak nuclear force is involved in the radioactive decay of some particles, including the transmutation of protons to neutrons. It controlled the ratio of protons to neutrons in the life of the universe, and hence the ratio of hydrogen to helium. If it was only slightly weaker, all hydrogen would have become helium and we could have no water; if only slightly greater, there would be only hydrogen and no helium, which was necessary to later produce the more complex elements necessary for life. [2] Electromagnetism: The formation of stable nuclei depends on the ratio of the strong and electromagnetic forces - the protons in a nucleus repel each other, but the strong force overcomes this repulsion. A small change in their relative strengths (0.74%) would allow the electromagnetic force to overcome the strong force, and atoms could not exist. [3] Gravity: Gravity is about 10^39 times weaker than electromagnetism (I have seen slightly different values given for this ratio). If it were only 10^33 times weaker, stars would be billions of times less massive and burn a million times faster - and life and the universe as we know it could not exist. [4] Mass Density of the Universe: The mass density of the universe is finely balanced to permit life to a degree of one part in 10^15. A change by 1 part in 10^15 would have resulted in a collapse, or big crunch, occurring far too early for life to have developed, or there would have been an expansion so rapid that no stars, galaxies or life could have formed. [5] Electrons: If electrons were any more massive, then electrons and protons would be disposed to bond and form neutrons, thus disrupting the formation of heavy elements. [6] Neutron: If the mass of a neutron was only 0.14% larger there would be no nuclear fusion in stars and no energy source for life. [7] Proton: The mass of a proton is roughly 1836.1526 times the mass of the electron. Were this ratio changed by any significant degree, the stability of many common chemicals would be compromised. In the end, this would prevent the formation of such molecules as DNA, the building blocks of life. [8] The homogeneity of the universe: If the initial state of the universe was homogenous, matter wouldn't ever coalesce, but if the "density contrast" (or lumpiness) was too great, galaxies would be too turbulent and unstable for life. The actual lumpiness is 10^-5 is just right, but if it was 10^-6 or 10^-4 then conditions would be unsuitable. [9] The formation of carbon and oxygen: 1. Two helium nuclei have to collide and combine to form beryllium, followed by collision with a third helium nucleus to produce carbon. But beryllium is extremely unstable, and the process would rarely occur except for the "fortunate" fact that carbon has a resonance (a natural energy level) that exactly matches the energy of the particles involved and so facilitates the process - if the resonance level is just 4% lower, no larger nuclei could have formed. 2. Another helium nucleus must collide with a carbon nucleus to produce oxygen, and this time the oxygen resonance is just right to reduce the conversion and retain a high percentage of carbon necessary for life. [10] Cosmological Constant: The Cosmological Constant is causing the universe to expand at an accelerating rate, such that if the cosmological constant were larger by 1 part in 10^120 it would have prevented stars and galaxies from forming. As Leonard Susskind says, “To make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is most certainly no accident.” [11] The Higgs vev: The Higgs vev is fine-tuned to 10^-17 [12] inflation: The “famous fine-tuning problem” of inflation is 10^-11 [13] entropy: The fine-tuning implied by entropy is 1 in 10^10^123 [14] Fine-structure constant: The triple alpha process plausibly puts constraints of order 10^{-5} on the fine-structure constant [1] Paul Davies, The Accidental Universe, Cambridge University Press, p70-71 [2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0609050v1.pdf [3] http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/forces.htm [4] Davies, Superforce p. 242 [5] Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006), 72-73 [6] http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/forces.htm [7] Barrow, J D and Tipler, F J, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ‘The Anthropic Cosmological Principle.’ [8] Holder, "Is the Universe Designed?" [9] Martin Rees Just Six Numbers:The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe [10] Fred Hoyle The "Hoyle state" [11] Leonard Susskind ("The Cosmic Landscape") [12] http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/in-defence-of-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-for-intelligent-life/ [13] Turok, 2002 [14] Roger Penrose, former Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University and a cosmologist who worked with Stephen Hawking ("The Emperor's New Mind"):

Here is another 1 http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/Stenger-fallacy.pdf

I'm still waiting for you to give me a paper that does multivariable analysis that hasn't been heavliy critiqued by other physicists. Besides the 2 papers didn't have all the constants and initial conditions in there calculations. They carry picked as well. The first 1 only did the weak force (which I gave you a paper that critiqued that), and the 2nd one only did G, a, and C and he only let the constants very a limited range and used a limited set of criteria. (I also gave you a paper that critiqued that as well)

I'm shocked to find scientist that believe something can just bring itself into existence... Everything which "begins" to exist must have a cause apart from itself, nothing can "bring itself into existence" To think something can bring itself into existence is so illogical.

Lol

As I said before, the new Planck data render many cyclic models, including the ekpyrotic universe, a lot less likely (That means cosmological natural selection is out the window). A lack of non-Gaussianities in the CMB spectrum rules out the conversion mechanism required by most cyclic models.

This is humor

For your first paper on Fred Adams "stars in other universes". "Adams’ work cannot support these claims. Even if the figure of 25% were robust, it still wouldn’t follow that fine-tuning has been “negated” – there are plenty more fine-tuning claims that Adams hasn’t addressed (even with regard to stars), and hasn’t claimed to address. But most importantly, he could have just as easily concluded that only 1 part in 10^42 of parameter space allows for stars." - Luke Barnes For your second paper. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0609050v1.pdf They also say "that on closer examination the proposed "weakless" universe strongly inhibits the development of life in several different ways. One of the most critical barriers is that a weakless universe is unlikely to produce enough oxygen to support life."

That isn't my thread.

Since when can something "bring itself into existence"? That is more ridiculous than magic.. He closed my fine-tuned universe because I had c&p from other websites (even thou I sited those websites) Btw do you have any links backing up your statement "unless the electrostatic force were a bit bigger", btw if the electromagnetic force was bigger it would overcome the strong force, and atoms could not exist. (0.74% bigger I think). http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/forces.htm http://www.is-there-a-god.info/clues/designfacts.shtml

No things could have been a lot worse. We have gluons, quarks, electrons, protons, neutrons, atoms (stable atoms), molecules, elements (heavy elements), planets, stars (long lived stars), galaxies, ect Penrose calculates that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123). Lee Smolin calculated a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars is one chance in 10229

Like the video said, the universe can't cause itself, its cause must be beyond the space-time universe. It must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and powerful. Almost like... God. @Atom Hmmm well if that is possible, why didn't we end up in one of the universes with "radically different fundamental constants". for example, the strong nuclear force were 1-2% stronger than it is, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium. The existence of the di-proton would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all of the Universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang. Paul Davies,The Accidental Universe, Cambridge University Press, p70-71 and like the example I gave in my first post, if the critical density of the universe was off by one part in 1015 would have resulted in a collapse, or big crunch, occurring far too early for life to have developed, or there would have been an expansion so rapid that no stars, galaxies or life could have formed. Really hard to imagin life that could form in some of these conditions. There are many more examples... http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/ft.htm http://www.is-there-a-god.info/clues/designfacts.shtml

No, it's not an appeal to authority, because they know what they are talking about. "This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject." I'm not commiting an appeal to authority because everyone I named is legitamate.

You said it also applies to God. Well I don't know which god you are talking about. Certainly not the Christian God. The Christian God is "everlasting to everlasting" (Psalm 90.2) "who lives forever” (Isaiah 57:15) "before the beginning of time" (Titus 1:2) As for the Universe being eternal or not, I don't know. I'm not a physicist and I'm not going to pretend to be one. I can only site experts on the matter like Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin. Alan Guth "as hard as physicists have worked to try to construct an alternative, so far all the models that we construct have a beginning." "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin Tufts University Many Worlds in One, p. 176 Check the "Q&A" section for answers to these charges, maybe specifically these: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/causal-premiss-of-the-kalam-argument http://www.reasonablefaith.org/objections-to-the-causal-principle http://www.reasonablefaith.org/must-everything-that-begins-to-exist-have-a-material-cause http://www.reasonablefaith.org/past-and-future-in-the-kalam-cosmological-argument

Well I have to give you complaments on your imagination. I will do my best to answer your questions. Physicist Stephen Hawking says, "It appears that the fundamental numbers, and even the form, of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle.” Also you would have to believe that a life-prohibiting universe is physically impossible, but a life-prohibiting universe is logically possible and there is no evidence suggesting otherwise. Saying the universe had to take a form suitable for life is ridiculous, which is why physical necessity has few, if any supporters. Furthermore even if this is the only way the universe could be, we could still use it as a argument for God. Why would a universe without purpose make the constants "have" to be life permitting. I mean think about it, the "only" way the universe could be is life permitting? There is currently no experimental evidence in support of the M-verse "hypothesis". While there is some support in physics for string theory and inflationary cosmology, they are currently provisional and highly speculative. However I actually believe the multiverse exists, but is insufficient in accounting for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature. (see links) http://sententias.org/2013/01/19/do-multiverse-scenarios-solve-the-problem-of-fine-tuning/ http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0246.pdf To learn more about fine-tuning go to these links... Audio references http://ia700304.us.archive.org/26/items/ConversationsFromThePaleBlueDot040-LukeBarnes/040-LukeBarnes.mp3 http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-anthropic-universe/3302686 Online referenceshttp://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/ft.htm http://www.is-there-a-god.info/clues/designfacts.shtml http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4647 http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/in-defence-of-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-for-intelligent-life/ Book references"Just Six Numbers." Martin Rees . "Cosmic Coincidences." John Gribbin & Martin Rees "The Cosmic Landscape". Leonard Susskind "The Universe: a biography". John Gribbin "The Accidental Universe". Paul Davies "The Mind of God". Paul Davies "The Emperor's New Mind". Roger Penrose

Read Luke Barnes critique of his arguments. http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4647 http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/in-defence-of-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-for-intelligent-life/ Also watch this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZVhstOstdY I better summarize the video so I don't get in trouble basically he says that Victor Strenger goes as far as saying "the world wide web seems to have taken on a life of its own". The problem is when we talk about life we mean the property of organisms that take in food, extract energy from it, adapt, grow, and reproduce. We don't mean the worldwide web when we are talking about life... LOL

Is it possible we will find a cause for it in the future? But than we will need to find a cause for that cause, and a cause for that cause and a cause for that cause? Until we get to the uncaused first cause? I'm defindently not educated in quantum mechanics. Does this have anything to do with the fine-tuning argument thou lol?

Lol wikianswers say unstable atomic nuclei causes radioactive decay, but they can be wrong.

Everything which begins to exist has a cause apart from itself. The Casimir effect and radioactive decay comes from the quantum vacuum.

I'm a Christian (not a very good one thou haha). I use this argument to get people to become deist (or atleast consiter it). I have other arguments for theism.

1 got banned because I didn't list all my sources, this time I did. The other one got banned because he thought I already had a forum on this, but it had got banned and he didn't know. So no, this is the only active forum I have on this.

In recent decades, many scientist including Paul Davies, Luke Barnes, Martin Rees, John Barrow, Frank Tipler, Don N. Page, John A. Wheeler, Roger Penrose, David Jonathan, Luboš Motl, Peter Woit, Arno Penzias, Dr Dennis Scania, Francis Collins, Karl W. Giberson, Peter Harrison, Andrei Linde, Hugh Ross, Frank A. Wilczek, Dr. David Deutsch, Michael Turner, Lee Smolin, George Ellis, Alan Sandage, George Greenstein, Robin Collins, Tony Rothman, Vera Kistiakowsky, Ed Harrison, John Gribbin have expressed there astonishment at the order of the universe. Embedded within the laws of physics are roughly 30 numbers—including the masses of the elementary particles and the strengths of the fundamental forces—that must be specified to describe the universe as we know it.[1] The fundamental numbers, and even the form of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle, meaning they could have taken on different values.[2] However the problem is that small changes in there relative strengths would have had devastating consequences for life.[3] An interesting example of a finely-tuned initial condition is the critical density of the universe. In order to evolve in a life-sustaining manner, the universe must have maintained an extremely precise overall density. The precision of density must have been so great that a change of one part in 1015 (i.e. 0.0000000000001%) would have resulted in a collapse, or big crunch, occurring far too early for life to have developed, or there would have been an expansion so rapid that no stars, galaxies or life could have formed. [4] By “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” but simply that the fundamental constants and quantities of nature fall into an exquisitely narrow range of values which render our universe life-permitting. Were these constants and quantities to be altered by even a hair’s breadth, the delicate balance would be upset and life could not exist. [5] [1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/author/lsmolin/ [2] The Grand Design (page 143) [3] http://www.is-there-a-god.info/clues/designfacts.shtml [4] http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning [5] http://www.reasonablefaith.org/design-from-fine-tuning Our claim isn't that this universe contains the most amount of life that you could fit in it. We're saying that if things were slightly different, there wouldn't be any life at all. Saying how horrible things have been and will become doesn't change the precision of the fine-tuning. The majority view appears to be that it is highly unlikely that the universe could take on such values by chance. Gribbin & Rees ("Cosmic Coincidences"): "The conditions in our universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves." Leonard Susskind ("The Cosmic Landscape")" "To make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is most certainly no accident." Paul Davies ("The Mind of God"): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". Astronomer Fred Hoyle ("The Universe: Past and Present Reflections"): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." Lee Smolin ("Life of the Cosmos"): Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, in the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10229." Roger Penrose, former Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University and a cosmologist who worked with Stephen Hawking ("The Emperor's New Mind"): "This now tells us how precise the Creator's aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123. This is an extraordinary figure." A common response to the fine-tuning argument is "if the universe wasn't fine-tuned we wouldn't notice it". My response to this... What if someone asked "why are quasars so bright" and suppose someone else answered "because otherwise we wouldn't be able to see them". Well that's true, but it doesn’t answer the question. Quasars are massive black holes and as the matter is falling towards the black hole it gets extremely hot and luminous, as a result all the energy is released. So when someone asks “why is the universe so finely-tuned for life?” Should we answer “Because if it wasn’t we wouldn’t be here.”

What if you change it in a bad way? I think you have been listening to Victor Strenger. Strenger's work has been criticized by other physicists for having several fundamental flaws. He ignores the most significant factors in his calculations. He even admits his "oversimplification" LoL. Also Luke Barnes argues his "solutions" to the fine-tuned universe are fine-tuned themselves! MonkeyGod is bollocks. It is worse than irrelevant – it is misleading. It is a distraction, encouraging us to simply look the other way, to condescending dismiss the evidence for the fine-tuning of the universe for life. It is utter garbage, thinly concealed behind a veil of mathematics. – Luke Barnes (Postdoctoral researcher at the Sydney Institute for Astronomy, University of Sydney) http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4647 http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/in-defence-of-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-for-intelligent-life/ Don't be so sure http://www.bama.ua.edu/~lclavell/Susyria.pdf/weakless4a.pdf

The new Planck data render many cyclic models, including the ekpyrotic universe, a lot less likely (That means cosmological natural selection is out the window). A lack of non-Gaussianities in the CMB spectrum rules out the conversion mechanism required by most cyclic models.