You missed my point The point is not to argue design, it's to argue that the probability of it being where it is and having life is remarkable and that the chances and probability of it happening or incredibly small and you must have many throws at the dice to get it right Life as we currently know it requires cirtain conditions to be precise to the nth number, if any of these variations are off we wouldn't be here. Now again i'm not arguing design or intelligent calibration or some woo i'm arguing sheer probability out of random chaos which produced special outcomes There is no intelligent calibration that makes the earth suitable for life, it was down to chance and numbers. With the amount of stars we have here it's almost inevatable that a planet like ours should form and given the time period we've had and the abundance of asteroids that've hit us it's only a matter of time for complex molecular structures to form like legos in your analogy With enough time these molecular structures should continue to bond and unbond like legos like the blind watchmaker of Dawkings eventually making up groups of molecules and structures that form into something structural like RNA If you put a immortal monkey in a room and enough time with a keyboard it's almost certain it will produce a coherent sentence or intelligent phrase. It doesn't have to comprehend the sentence or genius it's created it's just typing keys on a keyboard, and down to dumb luck it creates a piece of genius. This is a statistical probability in an eternal time vacuum where whatever can happen will happen. An intelligent observer will remark at the composition and say this is genius and put it in an encyclopedia or guiness book of records Planet Earth is a product of this very same probability The probability of a monkey writing a sonet on the first go however is quite close to zero and i think we can both agree on that, the only way you would have this same probability is if you have the same number of monkeys as the number of times it took for the first monkey to write the piece - if it took a trillion tries you'll need a trillion monkeys and a keyboard to match (given they were equally diligent to the task) Now If the universe were the monkey and the earth was the sentence it produced, incoherent non sensical lorem ipsum vowel-consonent gobbledygoop would be common case for the typings of monkey and we would expect to see them. Just like we see asteroids and other formations incapable of harboring life ie dwarf planets, exoplanets, gas giants, helium planets, pulsars etc Planets form all the time in the habitable zone. No intelligent calibration is required for this process to happen. The success of these planets however requires various conditions to be met and even more if they are to evolve and sustain life, their exact location in the galaxy would be one important factor for example. Place a solar system at the extreme edges of the milky way and you have older 2nd generation gas which does not have the same stuff as the gas in the middle like ours or those near the supermassive black hole, 3rd generation gasses have a higher probability of (similar to legos) forming elemental diversity and complexity required for organic molecules to form, a higher probability means a higher chance for a planet like ours to form. This is not philosophy but stems out of probability and choas theory
I get your point.. and my point was that you don't even need to consider a fine-tuned universe. I get that you are more looking at a weak fine-tuned universe.. where everything seems perfect, and that's the order through chaos. I get that you're not talking about a strong fine-tuned universe.. where there was some sort of designer doing the tuning. My point is that it is pointless to even use the concept of a fine-tuned universe.. cause all that is going to happen is it will get muddled in with creationism and intelligent design. When it comes to a fine-tuned, creator-less universe.. again, "no shit" comes to mind. There's countless 'what ifs' that one can ponder on. If trees never evolved, we wouldn't be here today. If Earth never had a moon, life would be drastically different. If Earth was tidal locked with the sun, life would be different. If Hitler was never existed, humanity would be different. If the dinosaurs never went extinct, Earth would be different. You can look at ANY link in the long chain of cause and effect and say "if that were different, things today would be different" and really.. that's just a "duh" statement. That doesn't mean it isn't remarkable that the universe and life and humanity exists.. it is incredibly amazing, but there is no point in getting hung up on a what if. And to me, the concept of a fine-tuned universe, weak or strong, is one giant what if. As for it not being a philosophical concept, I disagree. Granted you can use science to back up your opinion.. whether or not the universe is finite is not a falsifiable concept. I believe the universe is physically infinite and never actually had a beginning.. but I know that it is something I can never prove. I could take you 14,730,753,012,753,852 trillion billion light years and show you the universe existing.. and you can say "well, how do you know it doesn't end further out?". Then I can take you further out that and show you the universe existing.. and again, you could simply say that it could end after that point. It's the same if you tried to physically show me the universe is finite. You could take me to the edge of the universe and show me the boundary of the bubble.. and I can just say "well, how do you know something doesn't exist outside this bubble?". It sucks, but in reality.. the true reality of the universe will always remain a philosophical concept at its root. It makes it even worse that we are in an observational bubble, not a literal bubble, but at around 14.5 billion light years away from our relative position, the rate of expansion surpasses the speed of light. So we will never be able to see light emitted from objects beyond that point. Kind of hinders our ability to know the true scale of the universe.
OK man whatever you say ^_^ That being said, if your going to post arrogant shit like this you probly shouldn't have made the thread to begun with. This is a discussion board. We discuss things here. Peace -Yuri
I apologize for the ad hominem but your replies are never discussions but more like haughty remarks from a pretentious smart-ass, that's how you come across
that's not true at all. But like mmost people, when you disagree you want to just spew this nonsense instead of actually discussing the points. I axtually brought up legit counter points btw -Yuri
As you can see if you actually read these are not haughty smart ass remarks. Its a legitimate argument against fine tuning belief -Yuri
Speaking of pretentious smart ass remarks. Ironically coming from someone arguing for "fine tuning" which inherently implies intelligent design. But since you don't believe in intelligent design, you assume it proves the multiverse idea, which is kind of like circular logic. Further more you are guilty of appeal to authority since you are trying to say things like "people smarter than you support my idea's" when there are just as intelligent and qualified people who don't agree. This discussion is purely philosophical and there is really no scientific evidence supporting the fine tuned idea. You like to say "IF the cosmological constant was off even slightly there wouldn't be a universe" but its not off, and we have no idea why it is like it is, or if its even possible for it to not be. The multiverse idea that there are universes with different constants and no galaxies is purely speculation. My argument is that there really is no fine tuning. No matter how if turned out, the universe would have balanced through equal opposite reactions. Our universe is the only way it could have turned out. -Yuri
The argument would go something like this Premise 1 The constants, qualities and quantities of this universe are exceedingly improbable Premise 2 This improbable universe exists Therefore there must be exceedingly more universes Is that a fair line of reasoning? I would agree with the two premises but I can tell you the conclusion definitely does not logically follow... Unless you added at least one more premise. Two more premises that I think are required Premise 3 Fine tuning can only be a result of necessity, chance or design Premise 4 it is not due to necessity or design Even including these two (which I would argue the fourth premise) your conclusion doesn't follow. Brian Greene argues that IF there are an infinite number of universes then the probability of this universe actually existing is greater than zero. Since the probability is greater than 0, it means it's impossibly for this universe not to exist. The only problem is, neither he nor anyone else I have come across actually argues FOR a multiverse. Why? Because there is no evidence and because there is no sound logical reason to make that assertion. It is a phantom assertion invented by atheists to avoid the the alternative. Mantikore and Yuri (I think) are both atheists that are honest enough and intelligent enough to reject this assertion. It is wish fulfillment, there is no further basis for the multiverse. Btw I am not saying the multiverse idea is false, it MAY be true, but in absence of evidence OR sound reasoning...
One possibility.. it has always existed. No beginning to it.. no creation of it.. always just was and is. Evolution is a good example.. but pretty much anything that wasn't created by a living organism would be an example of an apparent order through chaos. The Grand Canyon, mountain ranges, the Earth Moon system, Earth, our solar system, our galaxy.. I wouldn't say that I reject the multiverse exactly.. just don't accept it. It's just like God, I see no physical evidence for or against God.. so I don't accept it. If actual evidence for any metaphysical claim is presented.. I would no longer consider it metaphysical and would work it into my understanding of reality. I do agree that it seems like the multiverse is an atheist fad.. wishful thinking. I don't really follow scientists.. I try to stick with just the science because all too often scientists usually just put their personal opinion into the science. One of the reasons I never like Neil deGrasse Tyson. I can tell he believes in the multiverse and has jumped on and promoted bad science meant to confirm his belief.
perhaps nothing was ever created. Perhaps all energy that exists is merely a piece of what was once whole -Yuri
Ok so let me get this straight. Energy might have always been here along with the universe? So it is completely logical to conclude an eternal universe, matter and energy but it is too illogical to assume there has been an eternal creator?
If the universe is eternal.. then it never needed to be created.. so logically, there is no need for a creator.
yea. Its simple really. All things eventually evolve from simple to complex. Logically speaking its absurd to think some sentient Creator always existed. If any sort of God exists, it too must have evolved with the universe from a simple primitive state. What makes the most sense logically is that it all started with nothing, or unity. Something happened to change that. Maybe you can call that God waking up. Or being born more like. But like an infant, it wouldn't have bbeen all that aware. Though there is really no reason to believe in God, this iis just an idea on how one could evolve. There is no evidence of any sort of intelligence Intelligence arises from complexity. It must evolve. Humans are God. We are what it looks like when sentience finally awakens in the universe -Yuri
What if the earth was not round? What if the Sun didnt orbit the earth? What if the earth was not the only planet? We would have never had any sciences if we never asked 'what if' questions... So what if the universe was not the only universe? If you find a clock on mars you can either say it always was there and move on with your life or you can say wait a minute and ask a few questions The chances of life evolving and thriving on earth are so small that it's inevatable for probability not to have been a factor. Creating a planet like ours with intelligent life on it in the first go is so improbable that it's like me shooting a bulls-eye 1000 metres away while blindfolded and sitting on a merry-go-round with my arms tied behind my back. The conditions in the universe had to be statistally perfect for life to form. Remove chance from the statistic and you have a phenomenon close to impossible, again this should not be confused for design or some kind of special order. It can be seen as a metafore for the results of an extremely unlikely extremely lucky throw of the dice. The only way to increase the probability your luck is to have many throws at the dice (ie many planets) Same with the universe, computer simulations show that the constants that make the universe have to have been perfectly calibrated to what they are or we would have a whole other universe. These 'settings' had to have been there at the very moment of the big bang. The algorithm, depending on what it is creates different types of simulated universes after it bangs. The initial algorithim determins the force and number of all the physical constants in the closed system and the result of this experiment showed that tiny variations of even a fraction of a percent to the algorithm changed the nature of the closed system being simulated after it banged. Some results were extreme and others were not, the main caveor is that we now know that the universe's configuration is not something neglible and that any change to it's configuration would change it's nature. The universe is a like a giant clock on mars, you can either say it was always there and came from the dust or you can ask uncomfortable questions like why is it the way it is. I think it's more intellectually honest to ask the uncomfortable questions. It is not obsurd or illogical to say that the universe could be part of a multiverse For one, chicken and egg. In a begninning, something 'banged' and has been expanding and growing ever since, inside it had the embryonic stuff of subatomic atoms. Before this there was no stars no galaxies just an egg. Something caused it to crack.Everything we observe around us shows that the universe had a beginning. If it had a beginning it is finite. There is nohwere near enough matter in the universe for it to colappse in again on itself and with the recent discovery of dark energy we can through the big crunch theory out the window. The universe is expanding and from observations we can assume it will expand forever. Everywhere we look the universe is uniform so evidence exists of universes within universes either We cannot get something from nothing I dont care what Kraus says. You need a chicken to give birth to an egg. You dont just get an egg with the stuff of chicken ready inside it coming out of thin air
Substitute the word 'fine tuning' for 'random' then look up eternal inflation After that look at the models below
I think this post sums it up testing the multiverse hypothesis perfectly. Please read it https://www.quantamagazine.org/20141103-in-a-multi...
When someone is choosing one and ridiculing the other it's a result of bias when both can be argued to be logically consistent I'm an atheist and I do not believe in the idea of intelligent design nor creation but I am open to the idea, I just find it less probable and am much less persuaded by it because the arguments usually stem from filling in the gas and always lead to infinite regress
I did.. and it poses nothing new to me. It's not like I never looked into the multiverse, I've just never seen any credible science to back it up. Plus, there were a couple ridiculous things in the article.. like how the one dude pushing the multiverse originally proposed that there was an eternal "watcher".. and that the universe is flat. Here are a few things you need to consider. We are in an observational bubble.. not a literal bubble. Going of memory, space expands at about a rate of 70 km per second for every megaparsec.. which is like 3.25 million light years. It is cumulative, meaning that if 2 objects are 6.5 million light years apart, space is expanding at a rate of 140 km/sec between them. If they are 13 million light years apart, 280 km/sec. At 3.25 billion light years apart, the rate of expansion is 70,000 km/sec. That's not my theory, that is fact based on what humanity knows.. but there comes a point where the rate of expansion relative to us surpasses the speed of light, and that point is at around 14.5 billion light years. So that means that any object beyond that point will no longer be able to be see by us.. space is expanding away from us so fast, that light cannot overtake it. It would be like a fish that can only swim at 10 mph trying to swim against a current traveling at 11 mph. The fish might be swimming forward.. but it would actually be moving backwards at a rate of 1 mph.. and it would never reach its destination. Now light emitted within 14.5 billion light years will still be able to reach us, but would take at least 14.5 billion light years to reach us.. if not much much longer since it is traveling through space that is expanding away from us. That's why you see numbers like 45 billion light years for our observable universe.. because it takes another 30 billion years for light to travel a distance of 14.5 billion light years. So we will always APPEAR to be in a bubble, but it isn't a literal bubble. If we were in a literal bubble, if its edge is passed 14.5 billion light years.. we would never even be able to know. No data from its boundary would ever reach us.. so right there, a bubbled multiverse is impossible to prove. Now if one were to say that the observational bubble is the literal bubble of our multiverse.. well then, I would say that they are controlled by their human ego because that would place us in the center of our universe. A very egotistical, biased mindset to me.. far from scientific. As for the universe being flat.. so far, every direction we have looked, we have seen the universe full of galaxies. Our vantage point is rather limited because our own galaxy blocks much of our view, but to me.. it is silly to assume that the universe isn't 3 dimensional in all directions just because our galaxy blocks our view. So anytime I see any scientist saying the universe is flat.. I see someone who has a very limited imagination and comprehension.