Fine-Tuning Problem in Cosmology

[Perpetual Student]

And that is still an appeal to authority, until you provide evidence that the constants can vary.

If one is speculating that the constants can very, no evidence is required, since it is merely a speculation.
Since the universe would be vastly different, possibly with no chemistry as we know it, if the fundamental constants were other than the values we see, speculation about the possibility of the constants being different is quite compelling. The possibility that there are other places in a vast megaverse, where the constants are different is also quite compelling and worthy of speculation. Again, to speculate in this manner requires no evidence.

 

[Toontown]

If one is speculating that the constants can very, no evidence is required, since it is merely a speculation.
Since the universe would be vastly different, possibly with no chemistry as we know it, if the fundamental constants were other than the values we see, speculation about the possibility of the constants being different is quite compelling. The possibility that there are other places in a vast megaverse, where the constants are different is also quite compelling and worthy of speculation. Again, to speculate in this manner requires no evidence.

True, but to speculate in this manner about a vast megaverse gives the naysayers a bad case of vertigo, as well as an opportunity to naysay. Doesn't take me long to tire of trying to talk sense into them. Nor do I recommend spending much time trying to talk sense into them.

And then there is the difficulty revealed by the fact that you even needed to explain what you explained so well...

And then there is the added difficulty revealed by the fact that even after we readily confirm the speculative nature of the subject (as I have), the serial objections to the speculative nature of the subject continue unabated, indeed with renewed vigor...

 

[Toontown]

Hilited the hole in your reasoning.

That is sheer, unrestrained, wanton speculation on your part.

Where is your evidence that an analogy in fact constitutes a hole in reasoning?

 

[John Jones]

If one is speculating that the constants can very, no evidence is required, since it is merely a speculation.
Since the universe would be vastly different, possibly with no chemistry as we know it, if the fundamental constants were other than the values we see, speculation about the possibility of the constants being different is quite compelling. The possibility that there are other places in a vast megaverse, where the constants are different is also quite compelling and worthy of speculation. Again, to speculate in this manner requires no evidence.

And requires no refutation.

 

[Toontown]

And requires no refutation.

Hard observational evidence requires no refutation either.

 

[tsig]

True, but to speculate in this manner about a vast megaverse gives the naysayers a bad case of vertigo, as well as an opportunity to naysay. Doesn't take me long to tire of trying to talk sense into them. Nor do I recommend spending much time trying to talk sense into them.

And then there is the difficulty revealed by the fact that you even needed to explain what you explained so well...

And then there is the added difficulty revealed by the fact that even after we readily confirm the speculative nature of the subject (as I have), the serial objections to the speculative nature of the subject continue unabated, indeed with renewed vigor...

That is sheer, unrestrained, wanton speculation on your part. Where is your evidence that an analogy in fact constitutes a hole in reasoning?

One of us is speculating.

 

[tsig]

Hard observational evidence requires no refutation either.

You have observed the variables change and new universes come into existence?

 

[Dancing David]

If one is speculating that the constants can very, no evidence is required, since it is merely a speculation.
Since the universe would be vastly different, possibly with no chemistry as we know it, if the fundamental constants were other than the values we see, speculation about the possibility of the constants being different is quite compelling. The possibility that there are other places in a vast megaverse, where the constants are different is also quite compelling and worthy of speculation. Again, to speculate in this manner requires no evidence.

Yes but then it is not a 'problem' or anything except for speculation.


there is a subtext, maybe not here in this thread, that this is an issue that needs to be resolved.

 

[Dancing David]

Hard observational evidence requires no refutation either.

And there is no evidence that there is any variation potential in the constants of the universe and therefore there is no evidence that it is fine tuned.

 

[Toontown]

If one is speculating that the constants can very, no evidence is required, since it is merely a speculation.
Since the universe would be vastly different, possibly with no chemistry as we know it, if the fundamental constants were other than the values we see, speculation about the possibility of the constants being different is quite compelling. The possibility that there are other places in a vast megaverse, where the constants are different is also quite compelling and worthy of speculation. Again, to speculate in this manner requires no evidence.

And requires no refutation.

Hard observational evidence requires no refutation either.

You have observed the variables change and new universes come into existence?

Figured you'd miss the point again. Here's what happened:

Perpetual Student again explained the speculative nature of the subject, that there is nothing wrong with it, and why such speculation requires no evidence. John Jones remarked that such speculation requires no refutation either.

I pointed out that hard observation requires no refutation either, thereby pointing out the hollow meaninglessness of John Jones' retort.

To wit: You refute when you think you have reason to think something is wrong. You don't refute simply because you personally know of no reason to think something is right. Or you're afraid some theist might latch on to it.

To wit: All the great theories began with speculation.

People and/or forums who/which refuse to speculate and/or seek to disallow and/or discredit speculation are victims of and/or advocates of a debilitating form of intellectual paralysis. Might as well punch a pencil into one of your eyes. Makes about as much sense.

 

[Toontown]

That is sheer, unrestrained, wanton speculation on your part.

Where is your evidence that an analogy in fact constitutes a hole in reasoning?

One of us is speculating.

IOW, you have no evidence and no argument that an analogy constitutes a hole in reasoning, AND you missed the point again in as many posts. That's two strikes in one post.

Strike 25 or something. Strike whatever. You struck out a long time ago.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Yes but then it is not a 'problem' or anything except for speculation.


there is a subtext, maybe not here in this thread, that this is an issue that needs to be resolved.

For some of us "Why?" is an irresistible question.
Why does the electron have the mass, charge, spin, magnetic moment, etc. that it has? Why are all electrons identical? Could it have been otherwise? Broaden that question to all the other fundamental values we see in nature and one has a multiplicity of questions. All of these values (including the fine structure constant, the gravitational constant, cosmological constant, etc.) are tied to the nature of the universe, including its chemistry, structure and dynamics.
Asking if it could have been otherwise seems to me to be a compelling question -- a question that I would like to see "resolved" -- to use your word. But -- perhaps not for everyone. That's OK.

 

[Fudbucker]

This thread should probably die a natural death.

 

[John Jones]

This thread should probably die a natural death.

Threads like this always do. Maybe you have different theory?

 

[Toontown]

Threads like this always do. Maybe you have different theory?

The entire forum nearly died a natural death when Randi dumped it.



R.I.I.P.

 

[tsig]

The entire forum nearly died a natural death when Randi dumped it.



R.I.I.P.

It's survival proves that the Internet is finely tuned for this forum.

Look how many variables had to be just right for it to happen.

There had to be a member who was willing to host it and had the ability to do so:

odds 23,000 to one

The board had to agree to work with him:

odds 10,000 to one

We can see that it's so improbable that it must be fine tuning that explains it.

 

[Toontown]

It's survival proves that the Internet is finely tuned for this forum. That's been mentioned a few times, BTW.

Look how many variables had to be just right for it to happen.

There had to be a member who was willing to host it and had the ability to do so:

odds 23,000 to one

The board had to agree to work with him:

odds 10,000 to one

We can see that it's so improbable that it must be fine tuning that explains it.

1. I have not advocated "fine tuning", nor have the cosmologists who metaphorically referred to "the fine-tuning problem".

2. Internet forums are a dime a dozen.

3. The dynamics and rules governing various internet forums are variable.

So, given 2 and 3, your thoughtless analogy supports a multiverse with variable constants, if it supports anything at all.

Strike 28 or something.

 

[tsig]

It's survival proves that the Internet is finely tuned for this forum.
Look how many variables had to be just right for it to happen.

There had to be a member who was willing to host it and had the ability to do so:

odds 23,000 to one

The board had to agree to work with him:

odds 10,000 to one

We can see that it's so improbable that it must be fine tuning that explains it.

1. I have not advocated "fine tuning", nor have the cosmologists who metaphorically referred to "the fine-tuning problem".

2. Internet forums are a dime a dozen.

3. The dynamics and rules governing various internet forums are variable.

So, given 2 and 3, your thoughtless analogy supports a multiverse with variable constants, if it supports anything at all.

Strike 28 or something.

Hilited the phrase you missed.

You seem obsessed with strikes, is this some form of bowling competition?

 

[Toontown]

Hilited the phrase you missed.

I missed nothing, and that's yet another miss for you.

This forum is completely explained by the existence of the internet, which spawns various kinds of forums with variable characteristics, and this forum, with it's peculiar characteristics, coincidentally happens to be one of them. Just as this pocket universe is completely explained by the fact that the inflationary multiverse spawns a multiplicity of them, with a multiplicity of variable parameters.

IOW, not only have you struck out with your analogy, you have managed to score a run for me.

You might want to take a break and figure out what we're actually talking about. While you're figuring it out, you should stop talking about what you think you're talking about, because you're not really talking about what you think you're talking about.

Hint: I'm talking about an inflationary multiverse with variable parameters, which is the leading hypothetical alternative to the apparent fine tuning. It's not really fine tuning, you see (eventually, I hope). This pocket universe just looks fine tuned, because the multiverse spawns all kinds of them, but this is the one we would be in.

 

[tsig]

I missed nothing, and that's yet another miss for you.

This forum is completely explained by the existence of the internet, which spawns various kinds of forums with variable characteristics, and this forum, with it's peculiar characteristics, coincidentally happens to be one of them. Just as this pocket universe is completely explained by the fact that the inflationary multiverse spawns a multiplicity of them, with a multiplicity of variable parameters.

IOW, not only have you struck out with your analogy, you have managed to score a run for me.

You might want to take a break and figure out what we're actually talking about. While you're figuring it out, you should stop talking about what you think you're talking about, because you're not really talking about what you think you're talking about.

Hint: I'm talking about an inflationary multiverse with variable parameters, which is the leading hypothetical alternative to the apparent fine tuning. It's not really fine tuning, you see (eventually, I hope). This pocket universe just looks fine tuned, because the multiverse spawns all kinds of them, but this is the one we would be in.

At this point I say "what apparent fine tuning" and you tell me what plays second base.


The universe looks fine tuned, the universe looks designed so are you on the ID bandwagon?