The Fine-Tuning Argument is dead

[ydoaPs]

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.

[Moontanman]

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?

[Ophiolite]

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.

[ydoaPs]

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.

[immortal]

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.

[ydoaPs]

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.

[ydoaPs]

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.

[ydoaPs]

Perhaps I should have specified WITHOUT COPYPASTA. Feel free to try again when you want an actual discussion.

[Crispy Bacon]

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!

[ydoaPs]

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.

[Crispy Bacon]

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).

[ydoaPs]

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?

[Crispy Bacon]

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.

[ydoaPs]

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)

[Crispy Bacon]

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."

[ydoaPs]

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.

[Crispy Bacon]

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 references

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

 

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.

[ydoaPs]

 

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.

[Crispy Bacon]

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.

[ydoaPs]

YOU talk about it. This is a discussion forum; discuss.

Show me one. Just one paper.

[Crispy Bacon]

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.

 

 

 

[ACG52]

The same videos, over and over, the same talking points over and over.

[ydoaPs]

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.

[Crispy Bacon]

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

[ydoaPs]

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.