A
atheistgirl
Guest
Oh well.
Could have been a fascinating, enlightening, educational, informative and enjoyable debate.
Never mind.
Sarah x
- Status
Could have been a fascinating, enlightening, educational, informative and enjoyable debate.
Never mind.
Sarah x
T
Tyrion
Guest
Well, I hope you will become serious. You cannot make up your own variant of the problem. I meant exactly what I said: “your ONLY information is that number on the ball you happened to draw”. You have no access to the “bag”, you cannot measure it. The number of the balls is unknown, the distribution of the numbers is unknown… nothing is available, except the ONE and ONLY number you happened to draw, and based upon that result, you CANNOT make any estimate about the a-priori probability, and thus you cannot decide if that result was “surprising” or not.
The model I am offering is the precise replica of the Big Bang. We have absolutely NO information about the “internal workings” of the singularity. Our physics and mathematics simply do not allow us to “peek” into it. Therefore, the ONE and ONLY information we have is the existing universe.
And just like with the mathamatical model, in the applied scenario, you have no way to estimate just how “improbable” and how “surprising” the outcome might have been.
The rest of your post I will address, when you understand what I say here.
T
Tyrion
Guest
Yes, and with good reason. Mathematics is HUGE discipline, and no one is imtimately familiar with all the branches of it. You are naive to think otherwise. And the fact that you keep on bringing up “authorities” is most telling. A typical “theist” approach.
Obviously you misunderstood the “brute fact”. You do not realize the “puddle” analogy is not meant as an argument, it is just a playful way to point out how idiotic the whole concept of fine tuning is.
Your wording is sloppy. No one says that “life” was GIVEN to us. The “brute fact” view simply posits that the universe simply exists, there is no “explanation” WHY it exists, and there is no NEED for an explanation. Just like theists do, who say that God “simply” exists, there is no explanation WHY God exists and there is no NEED for explanation.
Of course positing God is not an explanation.
I suggest that you read the post I sent to Alberti, and ponder, just how could one find out how “improbable” and “surprising” the ONE and ONLY result is, without any information about the “probability space” it came from.
T
Tyrion
Guest
When the going gets tough… the tough get going… but the weaks will fall on the wayside.
T
Tyrion
Guest
Well, I hope you will become serious. You cannot make up your own variant of the problem. I meant exactly what I said: “your ONLY information is that number on the ball you happened to draw”. You have no access to the “bag”, you cannot measure it. The number of the balls is unknown, the distribution of the numbers is unknown… nothing is available, except the ONE and ONLY number you happened to draw, and based upon that result, you CANNOT make any estimate about the a-priori probability, and thus you cannot decide if that result was “surprising” or not.
The model I am offering is the precise replica of the Big Bang. We have absolutely NO information about the “internal workings” of the singularity. Our physics and mathematics simply do not allow us to “peek” into it. Therefore, the ONE and ONLY information we have is the existing universe.
And just like with the mathamatical model, in the applied scenario, you have no way to estimate just how “improbable” and how “surprising” the outcome might have been.
Side note:
Now we can look at that number, and consider it as 33550336 “one”-s added up. The “fine tuning” says: “look at those ‘sub’-values… just imagine, if ONLY one of those values would be just a little ‘off’, the result would not be a ‘perfect number’.” The probability is 2[sup]-33550336[/sup] which is roughly 10[sup]-10065100[/sup]… over 10 million zeros!!! Clearly that number must have come out as the conscious design of some “god of probability”. Bah, humbug!
The rest of your post I will address, when you understand what I say here.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Yes, I agree. Linus2ndOthers keep jumping in for sure, but I think Tyrion is still trying to pin down the terms of reference, which is fair.
Sarah x
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
What you have implied is that no serious challenge to the mind set of your " belief " is to be allowed to stand. I have simply pointed out that there is no " there, " there.Oh well.
Could have been a fascinating, enlightening, educational, informative and enjoyable debate.
Never mind.
Sarah x
Whether Al is right or wrong, the fact remains that in the universe in which we live there are certain constants, which if chaned just a mite, would have made life impossible. This topic has been ably dealt with by the Magis Center of Reasn and Faith at magisreasonfaith.org/ . And of course in many other works as well.
The real bottom line is, is it more reasonable to say the the universe exists whith no intelligent cause or that the universe has an Unchanging and Uncaused, Unchangeable Intelligent cause. To bring into that discussion all kinds of different, imaginative specualtions ( pipe dreams ) about " bubble universes " or " multiverses, " is to create an endless stirng of red herrings and to arrive at no answer to the question at all, it is pointless and is nothing but " scientific " blather, it is nothing but nonsense. Linus2nd
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Your analogy is slightly skewed because you are attempting to reduce the probability to a single set (on one ball). There are over 30 constants which would mean we have drawn over 30 balls out of your “bag.” It is NOT that we have had no access, limited, perhaps, but not reducible to one item. The constants are independent of each other, as far as we can tell.
So your scenario should be re-written as having had access to the bag at least 30 times and each time the number on the ball drawn has been found favorable, even though, again as far as we can tell, the probability that the number would have been favorable was minuscule (wide range possible for each {ball} constant).
What we do know about the “bag” comes not from one instance or ball, but from a sampling of over 30. Since the number on each ball could have been anything but turned out, despite wildly unfavorable odds, to be in our favor, we have warrant to think that the bag is rigged in our favor. At least that is a reasonable belief given what we don’t know about the bag; much more reasonable than assuming that the probability of all 30 balls being favorably tuned to each other and to our favor was, no matter how astronomically improbable, just a chance event.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I still think the best “fine tuning” analogy is winning 30 lotteries (with each having odds wildly more improbable than any state or provincial lottery) at the same instant, yet, considering you didn’t buy any tickets, you must explain how it came about that you are holding 30 winning tickets.
Explanation: someone with extraordinary foresight into the future bought them on your behalf and slipped them to you when you weren’t looking.
That is far better than the Tyrion reasoning that proposes simply that, “It could happen.”
Explanation: someone with extraordinary foresight into the future bought them on your behalf and slipped them to you when you weren’t looking.
That is far better than the Tyrion reasoning that proposes simply that, “It could happen.”
T
Tyrion
Guest
There is only one universe, however.
The alleged 30 (?) constants are all part of the universe. Just like that one number have many “components”, and if only just one of them would be even slightly “off” the number would lose a whole lot of properties. Of course I already accommodated the complexity of the universe.
If we had 30 different (physically existing) universes, then maybe we could make some inferences. But we have only one.
It is not a good idea to keep on talking about “miniscule” changes. What is “miniscule”? Precisely, please.
Such vague assertions are meaningless. And there is another, more serious problem. But that would be premature to discuss.The speed of light happens to be: 299,792,458 m / s. If that value would be 299,792,458.00001 m / s, would that make the current universe “collapse”? Or whatever? It is ludicrous to speculate, since it cannot be tested. Just like the “multiverse” is empty speculation, the alleged modification of the constants is also an empty speculation.
The universe is what it is. To contemplate those “modifications” is precisely as nonsensical as to ask: “what if my grandmother had you-know-what… what would happen to me?”.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
You are not even close to accommodating the complexity of the constants because each digit on your numbered single ball only has 10 possible permutations. To truly accommodate the complexity, you would need at least a 30 digit number (one for each constant) where the value for each digit would be of an incalculable range (not 0-9).
Given the fact that the constants arose independently, a more accurate scenario would be to treat each on its own terms (as a separate ball). In a lottery, a separate ball is used to bring up each number. The 30 constants are more like each instance (ball) of a lottery. The fine tuning of the universe is more like having 30 unique instances comprising the final outcome (the universe) where each instance (each ball) has an undeterminable range of possible values. Drawing one ball from an almost infinite number of balls found in each of 30+ bags representing each constant.
Not true, astrophysicists have determined quite clearly what the results of modifications to the constants would be. See:If we had 30 different (physically existing) universes, then maybe we could make some inferences. But we have only one.
It is not a good idea to keep on talking about “miniscule” changes. What is “miniscule”? Precisely, please.
The speed of light happens to be: 299,792,458 m / s. If that value would be 299,792,458.00001 m / s, would that make the current universe “collapse”? Or whatever? It is ludicrous to speculate, since it cannot be tested. Just like the “multiverse” is empty speculation, the alleged modification of the constants is also an empty speculation.
The universe is what it is. To contemplate those “modifications” is precisely as nonsensical as to ask: “what if my grandmother had you-know-what… what would happen to me?”.
reasons.org/articles/design-evidences-in-the-cosmos-1998
A sample:
*Over thirty parameters of the universe have been identified that must be carefully fixed in value for any kind of conceivable life (not just life as we know it) to exist at any time in the history of the universe. Some examples of these …
strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable
if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up quickly and unevenly|
if smaller: stars would be so cool that nuclear fusion would not ignite, thus no heavy element production
electromagnetic force constant
if larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short and uneven stellar burning
if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production
ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: insufficient chemical bonding
if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
…
It is not a matter of speculating what would happen if…
Rather it is the virtually certain knowledge of physics that a precise requirement needs to exist in order to bring about each physical/chemical constant the way it is in the present universe. Since the physical universe began at the Big Bang event there is no prior physical reason for each of the constants to have the precise settings they, in fact, do have (X 30+).
A
atheistgirl
Guest
The real bottom line is, I would simply have liked the original debate, as proposed, to continue.
That’s all.
In attempting to precisely pin down terms, definitions and terms of reference, Al has decided not to continue.
Which of course is fine.
But as I was looking forward to the debate, I’m disappointed.
That’s all.
That’s the bottom line.
Sarah x
T
Tyrion
Guest
I will explain one more time.
What was the probability that is came from box number #1?
The first box represents the “designed” argument. The second box represents the “it just is” argument. The red ball represents that ALL the constants are in the proper range (good outcome - universe is just fine and dandy). The white ball represents that at least one of the constants outside the proper range (there is no “useful universe”). Observe, that the number of “constants” is not relevant.
The only thing we know is that we pulled a red ball. The question above cannot be answered, because we have no information about the distribution of the red-white balls is either box. And we do not, since we cannot penetrate the singularity.
The fine tune argument asserts that the chance of the red ball coming from the first box is “large” (again, they are unable to quantify it). They assert this on the alleged basis that the “chance” of all the constants falling into the “proper range” is infinitesimal.
Problem:
They cannot quantify what “range” the constants must fall into, in order to have a “good outcome” (all they say that the tolerance is “miniscule”). And they cannot quantify the theoretical “range” for those constants. Also they say - without any justification - that those constants can be any number from a very small lower limit to a very large upper limit (both unspecified). Also they assert (without any reason) that those constants are not really “constants”, they are variables! As if the physical properties of those particles were “imposed” from the outside. As if the size (for example) of an electron could be the same as a ping-pong ball? As if the electrical charge of an electron could be any arbitrary value! The values are all dependent on the material composition of the particles.
The whole “fine tune” argument is a huge hoax, both mathematically and physically. If anyone is still in doubt, I suggest to go to college and study math, especially the theory of probability. The truth is that it is boring to argue with people who know nothing about the problem, and more importatly who refuse to learn about it.
- The problem has NOTHING to do with physics.
- It is a pure matematical question, belonging to the theory of probability.
- Within that field it deals with the Bayes theorem.
- There are two boxes, each containing balls, some red, some white.
- We randomly choose one of the boxes, and randomly select one ball from that box.
- We examine the ball, and see that it is red.
What was the probability that is came from box number #1?
The first box represents the “designed” argument. The second box represents the “it just is” argument. The red ball represents that ALL the constants are in the proper range (good outcome - universe is just fine and dandy). The white ball represents that at least one of the constants outside the proper range (there is no “useful universe”). Observe, that the number of “constants” is not relevant.
The only thing we know is that we pulled a red ball. The question above cannot be answered, because we have no information about the distribution of the red-white balls is either box. And we do not, since we cannot penetrate the singularity.
The fine tune argument asserts that the chance of the red ball coming from the first box is “large” (again, they are unable to quantify it). They assert this on the alleged basis that the “chance” of all the constants falling into the “proper range” is infinitesimal.
Problem:
They cannot quantify what “range” the constants must fall into, in order to have a “good outcome” (all they say that the tolerance is “miniscule”). And they cannot quantify the theoretical “range” for those constants. Also they say - without any justification - that those constants can be any number from a very small lower limit to a very large upper limit (both unspecified). Also they assert (without any reason) that those constants are not really “constants”, they are variables! As if the physical properties of those particles were “imposed” from the outside. As if the size (for example) of an electron could be the same as a ping-pong ball? As if the electrical charge of an electron could be any arbitrary value! The values are all dependent on the material composition of the particles.
The whole “fine tune” argument is a huge hoax, both mathematically and physically. If anyone is still in doubt, I suggest to go to college and study math, especially the theory of probability. The truth is that it is boring to argue with people who know nothing about the problem, and more importatly who refuse to learn about it.
R
rom422
Guest
The only reason some events appear to us as “chance events” is because we do not know all the causes at play in the world. If we are omniscient as God is, then nothing will appear to us as a chance event.
Our calculation of the mathematical probability of an event will therefore vary depending on how much information we know about the causes that are at play in the world. If the world is really designed by a Designer, and we know enough about the causes in the world, then our mathematical calculations will disclose that fact. But if we don’t know enough about the causes, then our probability calculus will not reveal the likelihood of a Designer even if the world was, in fact, designed.
The problem with the model you presented is that it is constructed to make answering the question (What is the probability that the ball came from box #1?) impossible. We don’t know enough about the balls and how they are distributed among the two boxes.
The truth, however, is that if Box #1 really represents the “designed” universe, then it would have nothing but red balls; and if Box #2 represents the “it just is” universe, then it probably would have a mix of red and white balls, with the white balls outnumbering the red by a large margin. Also, if both boxes represent our universe, then it should be modeled in such a way that there is the same total number of balls in each box.
Now, if a red ball is drawn from this corrected model, then we can say that it more likely came from Box #1 than that it came from Box #2. I still will not be able to quantify this precisely, of course, unless I know more facts about the balls, like how many balls are in each box, and how many red balls are in Box #2.
T
Tyrion
Guest
Not relevant. There are intrinsically quantum unknowable events, but that is not important here.
And that is what the “fine tune” argument was supposed to decide, but it was unsuccessful. It is funny that even is there is a designer, he took pains to make sure that the world does not “look” designed - possibly to leave it to our “free will” if we “wish” to believe in him or not. (This is one of the so-called arguments when the problem of evil is discussed)
Why on Earth is this a “problem” with the model? It simply reflects reality. We have no information about the “inside” of the singularity, and that is a fact. Why do you wish to “shoot” the messenger?
Oh, no. Definitely not. First, even with a designer it might be that the other, lifeless universes present other, interesting characteristics, which “prompted” the designer to “test them out”. Also, we KNOW that there are other possible, life-bearing universes. At the very least, the one which is the mirror image of our universe, where the “electric” charge of the particles is reversed.
Again, an unsupported assumption. On what ground would anyone assert that (for example) the size of the electrons can “vary”, while the size of the other particles stays the same? Electrons which are as large as a biliard ball? Or the size of the Mount Everest? What kind of dumb idea is that? Since the attributes of the particles cannot be separated from the underlying material structure (no one would dare to talk about the immaterial “soul” of an electron - hopefully!) it is nonsense to imagine a “universe” in which both the protons and the “electrons” have a positive electrical charge. So we can safely state that in the “just is” box, you can only find “red balls”, but you cannot say it about the “artificial, made up, designed” universes.
Simply not true, based upon the previous ideas. You still do not have any hard information about the distribution of the number of balls in either box.
Of course, the “fine tuning” argument claimed much more than that. It claimed that the “designer” hypothesis has a huge probability to be true. But, of course it fails, just as all the other “proofs of God” fail.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Of course physicists have quantified the range each constant must fall into. Read Robert Spitzer’s book New Proofs for the Existence of God.
The reason it is not a hoax is because each constant must fall into a clearly calculable range on its own, but, not only that, the constants must be tuned to each other within very small tolerances. Also, many crucial events towards the assurance of life evolving (like carbon atoms forming) depended upon a very unlikely sequence of prior events occurring.
You simply do not understand what is involved when you attempt to apply a chance model to fine tuning.
A
Alberti_Devoveo
Guest
I had hoped for an honest response, rather than your rebuttal of moving the goal posts. Your exact words were,
Suppose you have a large sack filled with little balls, all of which have a number written on them. The number of the little balls is unknown (it can be millions of them), and the numbers written on those balls is also unknown (they can all be the same, or all different, or some random distribution). Suppose you reach into the sack, and randomly select one ball, and examine the number written on it.
How is it possible to reach into a sack that you do not have access to? The answer is you cannot. You have changed the problem to fit your needs because someone busted your hypothesis.
Even still, one can make an estimate of the probability with your new model. Since we have a ball with a number on it, we can still use the font-size/ball-size ratio to determine the maximum value that could be printed on the ball and write a simple Monte Carlo program to determine the likelihood of obtaining a perfect number.
Further, one could argue that with this one single number, it is most definitely unique and surprising that it is indeed a perfect number. With no other numbers or balls to compare it to, it is, by definition, unique.
Last I checked when the singularity “existed,” time did not. Without time, there is no possibility of change, which means that there was no "‘internal workings’ of the singularity’ to deal even hypothesize. Which means, of course, that you are right that we have NO information about it; however, we have no information because information began when the universe began.
Already busted that ‘no way to estimate’ concept. Please stop trying that route, it is not working.
First, it would have had to been a conscious designer who made the ball and the number. Who else could have made the ball with 33550336 stamped on it?
Second, that is not basis of the fine tuning argument. The fine tuning argument would argue that if just one of the 1’s had either been a 0 or a 2, it would not have been a perfect number. That it is a perfect number, out of all the other possible values the ball could have written on it, indicates an intelligent designer of the ball.
T
Tyrion
Guest
If you have them, quote them. (I am not interested in a wild-goose chase) For each of those assumed “constants” - which the proponents consider variables (on what ground?) let me see the following values:
current value
minimum allowed value so that “life” is possible
maximum allowed value so that “life” is possible
minimum possible value
maximum possible value
and
their distributon. (Normal, uniform, exponential, hyper-geometrical, or what??) Also: what is their expected value? And what is their variance?
Also a proof that those numbers are not simply sucked out our their little pinkies. To wit: what is the minimum (maximum) “good” size of an electron (which allows life), and what is the minimum (maximum) “theoretical” size of an electron? Those values are all needed to calculate the chance that the universe would be life-bearing.
I do NOT apply a chance model. The proponents do. I am simply taking them at their word, and show that their “argument” is useless. I am saying that the actual values are the direct corollaries of the material those particles are “composed of”. An electron cannot have a “positive” charge, or the size of a golf-ball.
It is the proponenets of the “fine tune” argument who must show just how could those constants “magically” become variables. How many “alternate” universes have they observed? How could they know that a totally different set of constants would not be appropriate setup for life? After all the basic equations of the universe are all dependent on those values, and a different set of values would require a different set of equations.
T
Tyrion
Guest
Oh, please. Get real. You cannot grab that sack, you cannot put it onto a balance scale. Just like you cannot take out all the balls, and check them individually. I did not change anything. It is you who tried to circumvent the stated parameters. Do I have to get back into the kindergarten mentality?
How on Earth do you plan to do a Monte-Carlo model based on ONE value? I am definitely familiar both with the theory and the practical application of it.
Of course that “assumes” without any foundation (!) that all the balls in the sack are different. You cannot know that, having no access to that hypothetical bag. If almost all the balls have a perfect number written on them, then the result is not surprising at all.
If you “think” you “busted” anything, welcome to my ignore list.
Yuck! If you don’t even understand the modeling method, I am most definitely not interested in your (name removed by moderator)ut. Good bye.
A
Alberti_Devoveo
Guest
I do not need to grab the sack or weigh it (irrelevant value anyway). I do not need to look at any of the other balls either (nor did I ever suggest that I need to do so). All I need is to look at the ball with the number and the sack itself. Given those, my solution defeats your erroneous hypothesis.
You do not have to go back to the kindergarten mentality, all you have to do is give the correct parameters of the problem the first time (i.e., be specific) and not change it once someone gives you a proper solution.
I strongly posit that you are not actually as familiar with the theory and its application as you would like to believe if you could not figure this one out without my assistance.
do i=1,really_big_number
call random_number(guess)
if(guess=perfect number) pn=pn+1
enddo
probability=pn/really_big_number
Surely you have done something like this before, no?
Unique, adjective, Being the only one of its kind.
By definition, the number and the ball are unique. We have no access to the other balls, so assuming that ball all have the same number on it is equally as foundationless as assuming distinct numbers!
Surprising, verb, of something unexpected.
That we have a unique ball and number combination is also, by definition, surprising. We should expect more than just one ball, yet we have only the one. Of all the numbers that could have been written on the ball, we have a perfect number. This too is surprising.
Perhaps you can now change the parameters (yet again) for me to give you another solution? Which leads me to the next question: at which point will you give up this fruitless endeavor of trying to defeat the fine-tuning argument?
How childish! Rather than take defeat or renew the attempt, you run away and hide.
So no sense of humor, I take it?
- Status