Why nothing is cosmologically fine-tuned.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-05-2017, 03:25 PM
Why nothing is cosmologically fine-tuned.
I watched a long debate between Alex J O'Connor and Josh Parikh about the fine-tuning argument for the Universe. In it, at one point they both conceded that the values of the constants were so exact and precise, that they are truly remarkable.

Philosophically I would like to contend. No... No they're not. Alex is a smart cookie, but I was really hoping he would point this out.

I also recently saw a thread in which an economist/theologian/something rather that has nothing to do with science, say that science is getting closer to proving the existence of God out of ignorance essentially (what a nut job.) One of the arguments he used was that the laws of math are so bafflingly intrinsic to the Universe. The fact there are numbers and we can do addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division to get many different accurate outcomes so as to describe reality was almost mystical to this guy.

Again I would like to contend it's really not that impressive at all. At one point, said individual, whose name is not worth going to find, said that math is essentially another world, connected to ours.

No, it's not, and here's why.

Math is merely a way of interpreting that which already exists. What all of these people who find constants and values so astounding are collectively missing is that WE CREATED THEM! Not the constants, but the numbers that found them.

It actually all started in ancient mesopotamia during the first wave of agricultural advancement by humans. They needed a means of recording how much food they had on hand, and thus numbers were born. We saw a single object, and invented the number one so that we could describe having only a single object. When we had more than one object, specifically just one more we'll say, we invented the number two in order to describe this situation of having exactly one more than one. We then learned that if you take away the one from the two (2), you'll get that symbol we invented earlier (1) again.

And thus, math was born.

Math is just a means of accurate description. It describes phenomena that are already there, by allowing for quantification of material or states in the Universe. That is to say, the math did not make two bushels of wheat to exist. The math is representing that yes, we do in fact have more bushels of wheat than just one, by one exactly in fact.

It is more like a language. Rather than use an example such as the gravitational constant or rate of expansion, since these are what often have theists so needlessly giddy, I'm going to use a different example that might hopefully point out the absurdity of calling any constant "fine-tuned."

We have discovered, let's say, the power gravity has to accelerate objects towards the earth for example. Some people, not understanding that math is a language rather than whatever they think it is said "ooh my goodness if that number was even one iota different!"

Well... it really can't be, unless the planet was a different size, which it's not, so you talking about it is pointless, and literally actually defies reason. Finding a constant doesn't make its parameters fragile, so this doesn't mean it could be changed, or fine-tuned at all, it merely just means that's what the constant is. We figured out what it already was, and have used a number identifier so that we can easily and accurately refer to what it is later during equations. The same way that the number one describes the condition of having a single object, the number 9.81m/s^2, for instance, represents the rate of acceleration when falling towards the earth. All we did is use the language we invented to describe the reality we see. The language did not bring about the reality, the reality was already there, and enough scientific investigation created a need to find the number to interpret it. Sure if it was different the Universe wouldn't exist in the way it does. We would fall towards the earth faster or slower, and jump around with more or less gravitational resistance, but talking about such things is literally pointless, because that's not the way reality is. Just because we numerated it doesn't make it a miracle.

9.81 m/s^2 therefore God, is a ridiculous assumption to make. All we did is find this speed of acceleration due to gravity and describe it. It is not miraculous, it is not wonderful, it is not fine-tuned.

It just is what it is.

Occam's Razor, hacks again!

So now, if my example makes sense, we can extrapolate this out to the four fundamental forces.

[Image: particle.gif]

All of these constant's values were pre-existing, and found by us, and then described by the mathematical language that we have available to us. Just because the numbers are small, 10^-41erg and whatnot, doesn't make them miraculous. That's just what they are. Talking about how different the Universe would be if they were slightly different is about as valuable as talking about how different earth would be if everyone fell upwards towards space.

"Yep... pretty different. Good thing that's not the way things are."

It's funny because given the vast empty deadness of space, and how most of it is cold lifeless dead rock smashing into each other in the dark, the fact that this Universe is not fine tuned for life, or even it's own existence should be fairly clear.

Anyways hopefully this made sense. I'm just tired of seeing this "fine-tuning" argument from math out there.

If you see any holes, poke away Pinocchio.

Have a great day everyone! Smile

~ The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you ~
-Neil Degrasse Tyson
[Image: stairway_to_heaven_by_tomtr.png]
~ 0 ~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Cosmo's post
15-05-2017, 03:49 PM (This post was last modified: 15-05-2017 03:54 PM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: Why nothing is cosmologically fine-tuned.
(15-05-2017 03:25 PM)Cosmo Wrote:  I'm just tired of seeing this "fine-tuning" argument from math out there.

I have a few questions then. The theistic assumption is that certain "fine tuned" properties and relationships were established by God to guide the evolution of the universe. Isn't it possible that in the big bang everything happened but only those properties and relationships which could achieve a kind of stability continued to exist beyond the very beginning? Couldn't the rest have self-annihilated and disappeared early on? In other words, couldn't the "fine tuned" properties and relationships be self-organized simply by what worked -- just like everything else we know is self-organized?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thoreauvian's post
15-05-2017, 04:19 PM
RE: Why nothing is cosmologically fine-tuned.
Oh Yes!

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...God-Exists

Here is a Link back to the thread with an article that asserts that science proves God.

Quote:I have a few questions then

When I saw you were reading it I was hoping you would. Smile

Quote:The theistic assumption is that certain "fine tuned" properties and relationships were established by God to guide the evolution of the universe.

Yes.

Quote:Isn't it possible that in the big bang everything happened but only those properties and relationships which could achieve a kind of stability continued to exist beyond the very beginning?

I think this is a very apt description of what may have occurred in fact. Perhaps those Universes are still fleshing out in some featureless soup in a separate dimension of reality. Wink Although I don't know if stability is the right word, simply because if our universe actually became stable, as in, reached thermal equilibrium, it would also be dead.

Quote:Couldn't the rest have self-annihilated and disappeared early on?

I've heard it theorized that there was a large volume of anti-matter just after the big bang and that it instantly fused with matter and annihilated as another 'bomb' of pure energy. I've also heard some physicist theorize that there should have been an equal amount of anti-matter and matter, upon expansion, and that it can be a bit of a quandary to try to figure out why there wasn't.

That's over my head though.

Quote:In other words, couldn't the "fine tuned" properties and relationships be self-organized simply by what worked -- just like everything else we know is self-organized?

It's not an unreasonable theory. We wouldn't be able to know more about it until we can get closer to the exact conditions right after the big bang though, but I actually like it a lot! Smile

~ The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you ~
-Neil Degrasse Tyson
[Image: stairway_to_heaven_by_tomtr.png]
~ 0 ~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cosmo's post
15-05-2017, 07:46 PM
RE: Why nothing is cosmologically fine-tuned.
Being (A) exists in a universe (A) in which the conditions are favorable for being (A) to exist.
Being (B) exists in a universe (B) in which the conditions are favorable for being (B) to exist.
Being © exists in a universe © in which the conditions are favorable for being © to exist.

Being A,B & C look nothing like each other.
Universe A,B & C all have different properties.

Why does grass grow in the cracks of the side walk ?
Because it can.
All the conditions are present that allow the grass to grow there.
The cracks in the side walk aren't fined tuned.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Rahn127's post
15-05-2017, 10:40 PM
RE: Why nothing is cosmologically fine-tuned.
Quote:Being (A) exists in a universe (A) in which the conditions are favorable for being (A) to exist.
Being (B) exists in a universe (B) in which the conditions are favorable for being (B) to exist.
Being exists in a universe in which the conditions are favorable for being to exist.

Being A,B & C look nothing like each other.
Universe A,B & C all have different properties.

Why does grass grow in the cracks of the side walk ?
Because it can.
All the conditions are present that allow the grass to grow there.
The cracks in the side walk aren't fined tuned.

That's Great! Smile Can't remember who theorized it, but I think I may agree with it: 'Wherever life can arise, life will arise.'

Who really knows yet, though.

~ The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you ~
-Neil Degrasse Tyson
[Image: stairway_to_heaven_by_tomtr.png]
~ 0 ~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2017, 10:57 PM (This post was last modified: 15-05-2017 11:01 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why nothing is cosmologically fine-tuned.
The fine tuning argument is an argument against the gods. If their god is so weak and puny, and unimaginative, he could only make life work in a fine tuned universe, it's not omnipotent. A real god could have made life happen, no matter what the conditions.

The life of a black hole is 10^80 to 10^100 years. That means for virtually the entire life of the universe, life as we know it, didn't, and won't exist. Pretty stupid, inefficient deity they got there.

One theory for why matter won over anti-matter.
http://www.space.com/8441-exist-matter-w...atter.html

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
16-05-2017, 12:33 AM
RE: Why nothing is cosmologically fine-tuned.
(15-05-2017 10:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The fine tuning argument is an argument against the gods. If their god is so weak and puny, and unimaginative, he could only make life work in a fine tuned universe, it's not omnipotent. A real god could have made life happen, no matter what the conditions.

The life of a black hole is 10^80 to 10^100 years. That means for virtually the entire life of the universe, life as we know it, didn't, and won't exist. Pretty stupid, inefficient deity they got there.

One theory for why matter won over anti-matter.
http://www.space.com/8441-exist-matter-w...atter.html

Indeed. I like to ask who exactly set up the framework so that all this fine tuning was required to only just avoid total failure?

If "God" set it up, then he's just finding solutions to his own generated problems. That's pretty much all God seems to do, in fact.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Robvalue's post
16-05-2017, 07:17 AM
RE: Why nothing is cosmologically fine-tuned.
One of my favourite smart people, Sean Carroll, obliterates the fine-tuning argument here:



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like Heath_Tierney's post
17-05-2017, 08:53 PM
RE: Why nothing is cosmologically fine-tuned.
Quote:The fine tuning argument is an argument against the gods. If their god is so weak and puny, and unimaginative, he could only make life work in a fine tuned universe, it's not omnipotent. A real god could have made life happen, no matter what the conditions.

The life of a black hole is 10^80 to 10^100 years. That means for virtually the entire life of the universe, life as we know it, didn't, and won't exist. Pretty stupid, inefficient deity they got there.

One theory for why matter won over anti-matter.
http://www.space.com/8441-exist-matter-w...atter.html

Brilliant! Thanks for the link. Smile

Quote:Indeed. I like to ask who exactly set up the framework so that all this fine tuning was required to only just avoid total failure?

If "God" set it up, then he's just finding solutions to his own generated problems. That's pretty much all God seems to do, in fact.

Indeed. If this Universe is fine-tuned it's like delicate China.

Quote:One of my favourite smart people, Sean Carroll, obliterates the fine-tuning argument here:

Nice! Thanks! Smile

~ The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you ~
-Neil Degrasse Tyson
[Image: stairway_to_heaven_by_tomtr.png]
~ 0 ~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2017, 12:22 AM
RE: Why nothing is cosmologically fine-tuned.
(16-05-2017 07:17 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  One of my favourite smart people, Sean Carroll, obliterates the fine-tuning argument here:




Brilliant! What a thorough destruction.

I imagined Craig writing, "But magic!" over and over while Sean talks.

Not being well-defined is exactly the problem. Nothing about theism has a proper definition, it's just some vague concepts which can morph into anything as needed. Like here, "life can't exist" if parameters were different, which requires God to suddenly be incapable under certain conditions.

Basically this arguments says... if things were different, things would be different. And I won't argue with that.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: