Fine-Tuning Problem in Cosmology

[Kevin_Lowe]

No it wasn't, it doesn't lead to an infinite regress, and this is starting to get embarrassing.

I was waiting for some sensible argument to back up this naked denial, but it never arrived.

It seems watertight to me. If seeing one universe means there must be a multiverse, what allows you to stop just there and quit with a multiverse? Why aren't you then bound, having inferred a multiverse, to further infer a multitude of multiverses, and so ad infinitum?

What is more likely, Kevin? That you, Kevin Lowe, know more about cosmology than Stephen Hawking, Andrei Linde, Max Tegmark, Paul Davies (and a bunch of other renowned scientists)... or that you're wrong?

There's a saying that if a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. The same applies to "renowned scientists". I'm unconcerned with what anyone merely says. I'm concerned with the reasons they can put forward for saying those things.

So far the arguments for a multiverse seem to me to be entirely flawed.

What is the proper skeptical response when the topic is obscure and you're confronted by numerous experts who contradict you?

People who believe in a historical Jesus love this exact argument. They say "We cannot explain to you a single argument for belief in a historical Jesus that holds up to scrutiny. But a bunch of academics all say that those arguments are good arguments! Who are you going to believe, our cherry-picked academics or your own lying sense of what makes up a rational argument?".

If you can't explain a single sensible reason to believe in multiple universes, and nor can they, and all you have is an appeal to authority, then you have a very poor case.

All I can see are a bunch of unfalsifiable noodlings, not a rational argument. So far there isn't even a good case that there is something in need of explaining, let alone evidence that multiple universes should be the explanation we favour. It's all just God of the Gaps stuff and appeals to ignorance.

 

[tsig]

I affirmatively answered your question about the speculative nature of the issue several posts back, and even went to the bother of pointing out that scientific hypotheses are speculative by nature. Yet you keep asking as if you think I'm admitting I've committed a crime or something.

Do you think there is something wrong with informed speculation? You couldn't get through a day without it. You couldn't even convince yourself to cross a busy street without the aid of informed speculation as to your chances of getting across without getting ironed out by a motorized loon - which has nearly happened to me several times in the past week. For how long should a fruitless search for the undiscovered mechanism which forces the values of the assumed "constants" to their observed magnitudes be continued before it would become unlikely that any such assumed mechanism exists?

I suggest you use actual seeing instead of informed speculation.

 

[Fudbucker]

I was waiting for some sensible argument to back up this naked denial, but it never arrived.

It seems watertight to me. If seeing one universe means there must be a multiverse, what allows you to stop just there and quit with a multiverse? Why aren't you then bound, having inferred a multiverse, to further infer a multitude of multiverses, and so ad infinitum?



There's a saying that if a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. The same applies to "renowned scientists". I'm unconcerned with what anyone merely says. I'm concerned with the reasons they can put forward for saying those things.

So far the arguments for a multiverse seem to me to be entirely flawed.



People who believe in a historical Jesus love this exact argument. They say "We cannot explain to you a single argument for belief in a historical Jesus that holds up to scrutiny. But a bunch of academics all say that those arguments are good arguments! Who are you going to believe, our cherry-picked academics or your own lying sense of what makes up a rational argument?".

If you can't explain a single sensible reason to believe in multiple universes, and nor can they, and all you have is an appeal to authority, then you have a very poor case.

All I can see are a bunch of unfalsifiable noodlings, not a rational argument. So far there isn't even a good case that there is something in need of explaining, let alone evidence that multiple universes should be the explanation we favour. It's all just God of the Gaps stuff and appeals to ignorance.

LOL, so quoting Stephen Hawking and Andrei Linde and Max Tegmark is "cherry-picking"? Care to do some cherry-picking of your own?

Right it's all "God of the Gaps stuff". Hawking, Linde, Lexmark, Davies... Christian fools, all of them!

 

[Toontown]

Do you think there is something wrong with informed speculation? You couldn't get through a day without it. You couldn't even convince yourself to cross a busy street without the aid of informed speculation as to your chances of getting across without getting ironed out by a motorized loon - which has nearly happened to me several times in the past week.

I suggest you use actual seeing instead of informed speculation.

Informed speculation is necessary to judge the threats posed by the observed locations, directions, speeds, and estimated intentions of the motorized loons. Seeing is required to gather this information. The visual information is useless without the informed speculation.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

LOL, so quoting Stephen Hawking and Andrei Linde and Max Tegmark is "cherry-picking"? Care to do some cherry-picking of your own?

Right it's all "God of the Gaps stuff". Hawking, Linde, Lexmark, Davies... Christian fools, all of them!

All you are doing here is pointing to a box and saying "Look at how impressive this box is! I just bet there's something great inside the box! You must be some sort of fool if you aren't impressed just by the outside of this box!".

The problem with this line of argument is that you have already showed us what is in the box! It was unimpressive to say the least. At this stage going back and harping on the outside of the box is closing the door after the horse has bolted.

What is inside the box that we should be persuaded by? What is the exact epistemological argument to back up the claim that we should think that the universe we see is "unlikely" in some meaningful sense, given our post hoc perspective? You have tried to explain this but completely failed to present anything I find even slightly persuasive.

It's worth pointing out that while I happily accept these people's superior ability to work out physics equations, scientists have a patchy track record at best when they abandon their area of expertise and try to be philosophers. The people you are citing as authorities aren't really authorities in the relevant sense. The question is not how much I know about physics, it's how much they know about epistemology.

Edited: You do know what the God of the Gaps is, right? If not go hit wikipedia. You are using the same argument for a secular conclusion but the flaw in the argument-form is the same.

 

[Toontown]

...To be clear, we're defining the universe as everything that exists in the known set of dimensions, not just everything within our light cone or everything within telescope range of Earth as of 2014.

Which is a goal post shift, because in multiverse terminology, the multiverse is "everything that exists", and a "universe" is an isolated bubble of spacetime within the multiverse. Fudbucker was clearly talking about the multiverse when he said "universes". The meaning and context was clear.

...Your argument was very clearly that because we can see one universe, we should therefore conclude multiple universes. That is a very silly argument which leads to an infinite regress of higher-order infinities and it would indeed be a good idea to abandon it.

Your claim is patently, observably false. I made no such argument. I simply debunked MCR_hans claim that "To the best of our knowledge, there exists only one." MCR_hans cannot possibly be in possession of any such knowledge. The observation of one demonstrates only that nature can make at least one. To then presume to know, in the face of nature's demonstrated ability to make one, that nature can only make one and has only made one, is a fundamental logical error. That is what I said, and that is what I meant.

To weaken your false claim further: I posted a link wherein the actual developers of the inflation hypothesis actually recounted the genesis of the hypothesis. Nothing remotely resembling your false claim appears there either.

 

[Toontown]

It's worth pointing out that while I happily accept these people's superior ability to work out physics equations, scientists have a patchy track record at best when they abandon their area of expertise and try to be philosophers. The people you are citing as authorities aren't really authorities in the relevant sense. The question is not how much I know about physics, it's how much they know about epistemology.

That's hardly worth pointing out unless you can convincingly explain how it is that top theoretical scientists have somehow managed to guide science to an impressive accumulaton of knowledge, if in fact they aren't very good at knowing how to know.

Absent such a convincing explanation, your assertion just looks like another dubious assertion.

 

[Toontown]

I see turtles. Again.

Well, maybe you're beginning to see reality. It is turtles all the way out there as far as it goes. It is now known with near certainty, based on accurate measurements of large scale spacetime curvature (there ain't any measurable amount) that it's turtles for at least 251 Hubble volumes. Assuming it closes at all.

It only takes 2 Hubble volumes to make a level I multiverse. So we know it is a multiverse. The question that remains is, exactly what kind(s) of multiverse is it?

http://www.universetoday.com/83167/universe-could-be-250-times-bigger-than-what-is-observable/

"But what if the Universe turns out to be closed, and thus has a finite size after all? Cosmologists often refer to the Hubble volume – a volume of space that is similar to our visible Universe. Light from any object outside of the Hubble volume will never reach us because the space between us and it is expanding too quickly. According to the team’s analysis, a closed universe would encompass at least 251 Hubble volumes."

 

[Fudbucker]

All you are doing here is pointing to a box and saying "Look at how impressive this box is! I just bet there's something great inside the box! You must be some sort of fool if you aren't impressed just by the outside of this box!".

The problem with this line of argument is that you have already showed us what is in the box! It was unimpressive to say the least. At this stage going back and harping on the outside of the box is closing the door after the horse has bolted.

What is inside the box that we should be persuaded by? What is the exact epistemological argument to back up the claim that we should think that the universe we see is "unlikely" in some meaningful sense, given our post hoc perspective? You have tried to explain this but completely failed to present anything I find even slightly persuasive.

It's worth pointing out that while I happily accept these people's superior ability to work out physics equations, scientists have a patchy track record at best when they abandon their area of expertise and try to be philosophers. The people you are citing as authorities aren't really authorities in the relevant sense. The question is not how much I know about physics, it's how much they know about epistemology.

Edited: You do know what the God of the Gaps is, right? If not go hit wikipedia. You are using the same argument for a secular conclusion but the flaw in the argument-form is the same.

When you're reduced to claiming that people like Hawking and Tegmark and Linde "aren't really authorities in the relevant sense" you've lost the argument. It's done. All you have left are appeals to personal incredulity. That, and fifty cents, will by you a cup a coffee. In the meantime, I'll put my money on people who have been studying this their whole lives, rather than anonymous forum members.

Wonder who will win the bet? Hmm....

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That's hardly worth pointing out unless you can convincingly explain how it is that top theoretical scientists have somehow managed to guide science to an impressive accumulaton of knowledge, if in fact they aren't very good at knowing how to know.

You are presenting a rather simple-minded view of the world Lots of scientists who are competent or even outstanding in their field have made huge idiots of themselves trying to operate outside it.

When you're reduced to claiming that people like Hawking and Tegmark and Linde "aren't really authorities in the relevant sense" you've lost the argument. It's done.

I'm not "reduced" to anything. I've demolished all of the arguments you put forward, and in addition I have demolished your fallacious appeal to mistaken authority. There's nothing left.

You are the one who is left with no coherent argument to present.

In the meantime, I'll put my money on people who have been studying this their whole lives, rather than anonymous forum members.

Wonder who will win the bet? Hmm....

Er, you do know what "anonymous" means, don't you?

 

[Toontown]

Using your own form of argumentation against you:

You are presenting a rather simple-minded view of the world Lots of scientists who are competent or even outstanding in their field have made huge idiots of themselves trying to operate outside it.

OK, if that's how you want to play it: internet hacks who fancy themselves great philosophers make huge idiots of themselves every day, arguing lamely that the hypotheses of top theoretical scientists are idiotic because they don't know nuthin about philosophy and philosophy says they're wrong.

I'm not "reduced" to anything. I've demolished all of the arguments you put forward, and in addition I have demolished your fallacious appeal to mistaken authority. There's nothing left.

You have failed to convince me that any of your objections have any merit at all. Therefore, all your objections are demolished.

Now you have nothing left. And I can quote where you used the same argument against Fudbucker.

It's like trying to wrestle a huge, fat, slick hog out of a mudhole, isn't it.

 

[Dancing David]

Do you think there is something wrong with informed speculation?

My point is that it is not informed, it is purely speculative.


There is no basis of information to make an informed speculation. If the inflationary system gets an under pinning of 'outside our universe', string theory gets somewhere 'outside our universe', etc... then there would eb a basis for it being informed.

 

[Dancing David]

Long story short, you have no knowlege that only one exists, but you still want to claim such knowledge through semantic juggling.

I've explained why your reasoning is invalid. You cannot conclude that only one of a thing exists from a single observation of the thing. You can speculate so, but that would be to commit the apparently verboten speculation.

We observe one, therefore the statement 'there is more than one universe' would be the positive claim and the burden would fall to you.

Now what would the null position be? 'We observe one universe"

 

[Dancing David]

No it wasn't, it doesn't lead to an infinite regress, and this is starting to get embarrassing.

What is more likely, Kevin? That you, Kevin Lowe, know more about cosmology than Stephen Hawking, Andrei Linde, Max Tegmark, Paul Davies (and a bunch of other renowned scientists)... or that you're wrong?

What is the proper skeptical response when the topic is obscure and you're confronted by numerous experts who contradict you?

I note that you hide behind name, maybe you should present your own arguments.

 

[Dancing David]

LOL, so quoting Stephen Hawking and Andrei Linde and Max Tegmark is "cherry-picking"? Care to do some cherry-picking of your own?

Right it's all "God of the Gaps stuff". Hawking, Linde, Lexmark, Davies... Christian fools, all of them!

No it is you using Appeal to Authority

 

[Dancing David]

It only takes 2 Hubble volumes to make a level I multiverse. So we know it is a multiverse. The question that remains is, exactly what kind(s) of multiverse is it?

Are you sure that isn't "It could be a multiverse" ?

seems to be a big assumption.

 

[Correa Neto]

The problem is not exactly related to constants being fine-tuned or not, if this or that multiverse model is real or not. The way I see it, what’s actually problematic is to propose a designed universe, simulated or not based solely on the observed values of the constants.

The problem starts at the moment one says something like The values are exactly what they need to be for life thus the universe is a simulation or the product of some higher intelligence.

Once someone says that, the following question appears: How can we know the values of the maker’s or simulator’s universe? Maybe they are just the same of ours, there’s no way we can actually run out this possibility. So, even if we are living at a simulation or within an artificial universe, the values of the constants by themselves are not enough to base such a bold claim.

With or without some sort of multiverse, it might as well be alien turtles all the way down (or a looooong way down, or just one way down), but all turtleverses with the same values because these are the single and only values possible and/or capable of making life possible. How can we know if ours is not the universe that at some point in the future will be (or already is or was) the one where someone or something simulates or creates universes?

I may be just an internet Joe Ignoramus Doe, but the folks who propose the simulated universe idea, are not, in my humble opinion, regardless of some rock-solid credentials, on very solid grounds when it comes down to this particular issue. Sure, maybe I just don’t know their answer to this question.

 

[Toontown]

My point is that it is not informed, it is purely speculative.

Your "point" is wrong to the point of willful denialism. Cosmologists who favor inflation are very well informed.

There is no basis of information to make an informed speculation. If the inflationary system gets an under pinning of 'outside our universe', string theory gets somewhere 'outside our universe', etc... then there would eb a basis for it being informed.

Inflation gets no support from outside the universe. All the support for inflation comes from actual observations made inside the universe. Inflation simply predicts that the universe is far greater and more diverse than the part we can see.

Inflation explains the flatness question, the horizon question, and the fine tuning question.

A hypothesis predicts A, B, C, and D. After the hypothes is proposed, A, B, and C are verified. D remains beyond the scope of verification. The simple lack of verification of D does nothing to falsify the hypothesis. OTC, the verification of A, B, and C support D, because D is a prediction of a supported hypothesis.

 

[Toontown]

Are you sure that isn't "It could be a multiverse" ?

seems to be a big assumption.

It's not an assumption at all. It's a conclusion based on actual physical measurement of spacetime geometry.

 

[Toontown]

I note that you hide behind name, maybe you should present your own arguments.

Right. You prefer to argue with Fudbucker because you know you can't argue with the experts.

And if Fudbucker was relying solely on his own arguments, you'd be criticizing the absence of "cites".

And, most importantly: if Fudbucker has arguments superior to those of the experts, he would be a fool to give them to you.