ydoaPs Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 People often change one variable of our universe and then claim that since the resulting universe is different than our universe, a god must exist to "fine tune" the parameters. I've argued for ages that this is incredibly bad analysis even forgetting the unjustified jump to gods. Now, I've stumbled upon a paper that shows that we can eliminate an entire fundamental force and come up with a universe like ours. Fine Tuning is dead. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 I remember reading this in Scientific American a few years ago, it does kinda kill fine tuning but doesn't it mean that radioactive decay wouldn't work? No nuclear energy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 From the abstract: These definitive claims are supported by a detailed analysis where this hypothetical "Weakless Universe" is matched to our Universe by simultaneously adjusting Standard Model and cosmological parameters, So the argument is that we can demonstrate there is no need for fine tuning by removing "an entire fundamental force" as long as we then fine tune the Standard Model and cosmological parameters. ydoaPs, I'm disappointed in you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 So the argument is that we can demonstrate there is no need for fine tuning by removing "an entire fundamental force" as long as we then fine tune the Standard Model and cosmological parameters. ydoaPs, I'm disappointed in you. Protip: Only considering cases where only one thing is different than our current universe is why Fine Tuning is based on crap analysis. What this paper does is pluck a universe out of the possibility space and show that it can be substantially different from our own and still have the same chemistry. This means that the Fine Tuning claim that the universe has to be one within a vary narrow band of possibilities is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 The fine tuning argument is not dead by any means without finding a natural solution to the horizon and flatness problems in standard big bang cosmology. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 26, 2013 Author Share Posted July 26, 2013 A thread which was reported earlier reminded me of this thread. I recently ran across another paper called "Stars in Other Universes" which does the kind of multivariable analysis that should be done (but never is) by those who claim fine tuning. This paper looks specifically at star formation and finds that about a quarter of the possible universes (though, the author doesn't look into forces/constants that are just 0 in our universe) have stellar formation. The paper in the OP is about just one of the universes this paper analyzes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 31, 2013 Author Share Posted July 31, 2013 Bump for Crispy Bacon since (s)he seems so intent on preaching about fine tuning despite the fact that no multivariable analysis has ever found fine tuning and the fact that it's been shown that life-bearing conditions are so common that you can completely remove one of the fundamental forces and still have life-bearing conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 31, 2013 Author Share Posted July 31, 2013 Perhaps I should have specified WITHOUT COPYPASTA. Feel free to try again when you want an actual discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crispy Bacon Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 A thread which was reported earlier reminded me of this thread. I recently ran across another paper called "Stars in Other Universes" which does the kind of multivariable analysis that should be done (but never is) by those who claim fine tuning. This paper looks specifically at star formation and finds that about a quarter of the possible universes (though, the author doesn't look into forces/constants that are just 0 in our universe) have stellar formation. The paper in the OP is about just one of the universes this paper analyzes. gravitational constant G, the fine-structure constant α, and a nuclear reaction rate parameter C. He only let the constants vary a limited range, and used limited set of criteria. Luke Barnes says, "Adams' work cannot support these claims Besides there are many more cases of fine-tuning! Not just these 3 or the weak force! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 31, 2013 Author Share Posted July 31, 2013 gravitational constant G, the fine-structure constant α, and a nuclear reaction rate parameter C. He only let the constants vary a limited range, and used limited set of criteria. Luke Barnes says, "Adams' work cannot support these claims Besides there are many more cases of fine-tuning! Not just these 3 or the weak force! Show ONE that does proper multivariable analysis. If you are dismissing his work on that criteria, you must dismiss every single paper claiming fine tuning ever. You criticize the paper for only allowing 3 variables (which are all of the variables that influence star formation, btw), then you must criticize every paper claiming fine tuning ever since they never allow anything but one variable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crispy Bacon Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Show ONE that does proper multivariable analysis. If you are dismissing his work on that criteria, you must dismiss every single paper claiming fine tuning ever. You criticize the paper for only allowing 3 variables (which are all of the variables that influence star formation, btw), then you must criticize every paper claiming fine tuning ever since they never allow anything but one variable. finely-tuned initial condition: 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 10^15 (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. This degree of precision would be like a blindfolded man choosing a single lucky penny in a pile large enough to pay off the United States’ national debt. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006), 72-73. Specific numbers were taken from Appendix A in John Polkinghorne and Nicholas Beale, Questions of Truth (Louisville, KY[0]: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009). See also Rodney D. Holder, "Is the Universe Designed?" Faraday Papers, no. 10 (2007). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 31, 2013 Author Share Posted July 31, 2013 finely-tuned initial condition: 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 10^15 (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. This degree of precision would be like a blindfolded man choosing a single lucky penny in a pile large enough to pay off the United States’ national debt. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006), 72-73. Specific numbers were taken from Appendix A in John Polkinghorne and Nicholas Beale, Questions of Truth (Louisville, KY[0]: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009). See also Rodney D. Holder, "Is the Universe Designed?" Faraday Papers, no. 10 (2007). Question: did you not understand what I asked for or did you not even read what you linked to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crispy Bacon Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Question: did you not understand what I asked for or did you not even read what you linked to? I was pointing out there is more that went into the formation of stars than those 3 constants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 31, 2013 Author Share Posted July 31, 2013 I was pointing out there is more that went into the formation of stars than those 3 constants. Ah, so you didn't even read the paper you're criticizing. Got it. (hint: they're not all fundamental, but rather composite) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crispy Bacon Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 31, 2013 Author Share Posted July 31, 2013 Then why can't you find a single paper that allows for multivariation and finds fine tuning? Stop preaching talking points and join the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crispy Bacon Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Then why can't you find a single paper that allows for multivariation and finds fine tuning? Stop preaching talking points and join the discussion. 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 The 1st link in the audio reerences goes over your statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 31, 2013 Author Share Posted July 31, 2013 Then why can't you find a single paper that allows for multivariation and finds fine tuning? Stop preaching talking points and join the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crispy Bacon Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Then why can't you find a single paper that allows for multivariation and finds fine tuning? Stop preaching talking points and join the discussion. http://ia700304.us.archive.org/26/items/ConversationsFromThePaleBlueDot040-LukeBarnes/040-LukeBarnes.mp3 He talks about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 31, 2013 Author Share Posted July 31, 2013 YOU talk about it. This is a discussion forum; discuss. Show me one. Just one paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crispy Bacon Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 YOU talk about it. This is a discussion forum; discuss. Show me one. Just one paper. I gave you the sources and information, if you choose to only look at 1 side of the evidence, that's your problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 The same videos, over and over, the same talking points over and over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 31, 2013 Author Share Posted July 31, 2013 The same videos, over and over, the same talking points over and over. Indeed. Were I not involved in the thread, this text would be in a green box and would be pointing heavily to section 2 subsection 8 of the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crispy Bacon Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 In same cases it doesn't matter if you move more than 1 constant. Like for the example I gave, what would change the odds on that? http://www.is-there-a-god.info/clues/designfacts.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 31, 2013 Author Share Posted July 31, 2013 In same cases it doesn't matter if you move more than 1 constant. Like for the example I gave, what would change the odds on that? http://www.is-there-a-god.info/clues/designfacts.shtml Doing actual multivariable analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now