1 of 32
1
What is the best explanation for the origin/fine-tuning of the universe ?
Posted: 24 October 2009 01:06 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03

What is the best explanation for the origin/fine-tuning of the universe ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2009 01:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2008-03-08

Blarg did it

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2009 01:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03

thats a possibility.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2009 01:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

First, what do you mean by “fine-tuning”?  Second, the universe just IS, and we’ve gotten use to it that way.  If it had been functioning differently, and we still existed, we would also get use to it working that way and would see it as being “fine-tuned” in that manner.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2009 01:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Occam - 24 October 2009 01:30 PM

First, what do you mean by “fine-tuning”?  Second, the universe just IS, and we’ve gotten use to it that way.  If it had been functioning differently, and we still existed, we would also get use to it working that way and would see it as being “fine-tuned” in that manner.

Occam

What do you mean, the universe just is ?  Sure, it IS now, but it had a origin. If the cosmological constant would be only a slightly different, no universe would exist at all… this fact arises the question : why is it exactly the way it had to be, so that our universe could exist, if there is no physical need for it ?  There could be a very slight difference of expansion rate of the universe, and we would not be here.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2009 02:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

This is a common probability fallacy in thinking.  A more obvious example of that would be for someone to say, “Isn’t it wonderful that god made the air to contain 20% oxygen because much less or much more and we wouldn’t be able to survive.” 

Let me ask what would appear to be a silly question.  If the cosmological constant wre different, and we didn’t exist, would we say “Why isn’t the CC just a bit different so we could exist?”  Assume an infinity of possible “universes” the vast majority of which don’t exist because the conditions aren’t amenable to existence.  Then only those in which the conditions are such that sentient life could exist would be capable of having creatures who could ask “why is the universe the way it is?”

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2009 02:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2008-03-08

We also can’t rule out the possibility that “life” can exist under different circumstances. The “fine tuning” argument is looking at life in the only way that we understand life to exist. Whose to say that under some wildly different universal principles that life will not for sure exist there?

Even if “blarg did it”, it just pushes the question back further. Why does blarg exist rather than not?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2009 02:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

The best explanation for the origin of the universe as we know it is the Big Bang.

If you want a further explanation, the best one is “we don’t know.”

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2009 02:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Imagine if we could go back far enough in time. Not to any so-called beginning, but just way back, before Earth was formed.
Can you imagine if you saw processes that made you say: “Oh, that’s how things work, and all this time we’ve been thinking in close minded terms like beginnings and ends!”
Now imagine if you had a sensory organ on your head that picked up physical/energy dynamics around us that no machines could pick-up. Even possibly undiscovered elementary physics, or other natural actions.
Again, maybe you would say: “Ohhh, That’s why we humans think in terms of one-dimensional time, it makes things much simpler for us. But it does make us ask really lame questions. Our brains would never be able to cope with all of this, but with these sensory organs I can sure see how we get the wrong ideas about matter, time, and energy.”

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2009 04:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Occam - 24 October 2009 02:06 PM

This is a common probability fallacy in thinking.

why is this thinking a fallacy ? what mechanism beside God and chance do you propose to set the right constant ?

 

Occam - 24 October 2009 02:06 PM

  A more obvious example of that would be for someone to say, “Isn’t it wonderful that god made the air to contain 20% oxygen because much less or much more and we wouldn’t be able to survive.” 

Let me ask what would appear to be a silly question.  If the cosmological constant wre different, and we didn’t exist, would we say “Why isn’t the CC just a bit different so we could exist?”

exactly. We would not be here. So the question arises : why are we here, actually, if the probability is much higher, we would never be here ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2009 04:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Kaizen - 24 October 2009 02:26 PM

We also can’t rule out the possibility that “life” can exist under different circumstances. The “fine tuning” argument is looking at life in the only way that we understand life to exist. Whose to say that under some wildly different universal principles that life will not for sure exist there?

with a different cosmological constant, no universe at all would exist.

Kaizen - 24 October 2009 02:26 PM

Even if “blarg did it”, it just pushes the question back further. Why does blarg exist rather than not?

we have to figure out first, what is the best explanation for the existence of the universe. If that question is answered , then the further arising questions make sense to be examined.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2009 04:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
PLaClair - 24 October 2009 02:55 PM

The best explanation for the origin of the universe as we know it is the Big Bang.

If you want a further explanation, the best one is “we don’t know.”

Is this not a center for inquiry forum ?  this is a essential question, and all that you can come up with , is ” we don’t know ” ?
what a weak center of inquiry is that….. i expected ” a little ”  more…..  No imagination at all ?

[ Edited: 24 October 2009 04:27 PM by Adonai888 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2009 04:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
VYAZMA - 24 October 2009 02:59 PM

Imagine if we could go back far enough in time. Not to any so-called beginning, but just way back, before Earth was formed.
Can you imagine if you saw processes that made you say: “Oh, that’s how things work, and all this time we’ve been thinking in close minded terms like beginnings and ends!”
Now imagine if you had a sensory organ on your head that picked up physical/energy dynamics around us that no machines could pick-up. Even possibly undiscovered elementary physics, or other natural actions.
Again, maybe you would say: “Ohhh, That’s why we humans think in terms of one-dimensional time, it makes things much simpler for us. But it does make us ask really lame questions. Our brains would never be able to cope with all of this, but with these sensory organs I can sure see how we get the wrong ideas about matter, time, and energy.”

then you don’t put much faith in science, right ?  has science not discovered already a lot of things ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2009 04:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
Adonai888 - 24 October 2009 04:19 PM

what mechanism beside God and chance do you propose to set the right constant ?

Some type of “cosmic natural selection” selecting from a number of different universes. Of course this would imply that the “right” constant is as right as the yellow colour of a flower designed by natural selection to attract insects to get pollinated.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2009 05:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
George - 24 October 2009 04:35 PM
Adonai888 - 24 October 2009 04:19 PM

what mechanism beside God and chance do you propose to set the right constant ?

Some type of “cosmic natural selection” selecting from a number of different universes. Of course this would imply that the “right” constant is as right as the yellow colour of a flower designed by natural selection to attract insects to get pollinated.

i have collected some information and compelling evidence , like a personal bibliotheque, for the existence of the God of the bible :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/bigbang-inflation-requires-fine-tuning-t151.htm

Another 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 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.9 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.

So : as long as your cosmic natural selection does not set the right constants, no universe at all would arise. your cosmic natural selection would have to make 10^15 attempts…to get the right constant. BTW. what mechanism do you propose to make all these attempts ?  chance ? luck ? whatelse ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2009 05:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Adonai888 - 24 October 2009 04:26 PM
VYAZMA - 24 October 2009 02:59 PM

Imagine if we could go back far enough in time. Not to any so-called beginning, but just way back, before Earth was formed.
Can you imagine if you saw processes that made you say: “Oh, that’s how things work, and all this time we’ve been thinking in close minded terms like beginnings and ends!”
Now imagine if you had a sensory organ on your head that picked up physical/energy dynamics around us that no machines could pick-up. Even possibly undiscovered elementary physics, or other natural actions.
Again, maybe you would say: “Ohhh, That’s why we humans think in terms of one-dimensional time, it makes things much simpler for us. But it does make us ask really lame questions. Our brains would never be able to cope with all of this, but with these sensory organs I can sure see how we get the wrong ideas about matter, time, and energy.”

then you don’t put much faith in science, right ?  has science not discovered already a lot of things ?

No, I don’t put much faith in our brains, our natural minds to contemplate, or grasp the kind of concepts you are talking about.
In other words, there are scientific reasons for your queries, but we cannot break free of the finite “dimensions” of our minds to contemplate, or grasp items, or concepts which are “foreign” or so far back into the reaches of time, that they become “out of our scopes”.
In otherwords it’s like trying to count elephants with a magnifying glass.
I became aware of your “ridiculous” and irrational faith-based thinking when you approached with this: “then you don’t put much faith in science, right ?  has science not discovered already a lot of things ?”
Do you guys sometimes realize how contrived and deceitful your communication skills are? It’s really pathetic. It’s so weak. It’s so coy, and phony.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 32
1