Fine-Tuning Problem in Cosmology

[Toontown]

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"

There is only one universe, defining "universe" as "everything that exists". But it is likely an inflationary universe, far greater and more diverse than the part we can see.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Your statement is false. You have no such knowledge as is suggested by the highlighted word. The inclusion of the highlighted word constitutes either a fundamental error of reasoning or a semantic error.

Read my post agiain. I said: To the best of our knowledge.

Obviously, we might be mistaken.

Analogy: You live on an isolated island. One day you spot the only land animal you've ever seen or heard of. At that point, you would be correct to say you are now aware of the existence of one such animal. It would be false to claim you know only one such animal exists. You could correctly say you have seen only one such animal. But that's as far as it goes.

Which is exactly what I did. Do YOU know of other universes than this?
... Well, AFAIK, neither does anyone else.

Hans

 

[LSSBB]

Read my post agiain. I said: To the best of our knowledge.

Obviously, we might be mistaken.



Which is exactly what I did. Do YOU know of other universes than this?
... Well, AFAIK, neither does anyone else.

Hans

Ah yes, that reminds me of the old joke Physics exam question:

1. Define "Universe". Give three examples.

 

[Toontown]

Read my post agiain. I said: To the best of our knowledge.

Obviously, we might be mistaken.

Which is exactly what I did. Do YOU know of other universes than this?
... Well, AFAIK, neither does anyone else.

Hans

So it was a semantic error. The semantic error made the statement misleading and literally false. Actually two semantic errors. One by Fudbucker, one by you.

Fudbucker was clearly referring to the isolated spacetime bubbles in a multiverse when he said "universe(s)", plural

You replied, "To the best of our knowledge, only one exists.", which has the form of a positive claim that only one exists.

In the context of Fudbucker's statement, at least one spacetime bubble exists - the one we can see. Not only one.

A single obervation of one of nature's works demonstrates only that nature has the capability or propensity to do that. It would be a non-sequitur to assume that nature has only the capability to do that once, or has done that only once, simply because you have seen only one instance of it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

So it was a semantic error. The semantic error made the statement misleading and literally false.

No, it was not an error, semantic or otherwise. It was a conditional statement.

Hans

 

[Dr. Keith]

So you're coming off the observation of one universe and switching to every observation of everything we've ever seen inside the universe. Out of one dead end alley, right up the next.

Again, alleys imply streets, by their very nature. A universe does not imply universes by its very nature. At least, not to our knowledge at this point.

 

[Dr. Keith]

A single obervation of one of nature's works demonstrates only that nature has the capability or propensity to do that. It would be a non-sequitur to assume that nature has only the capability to do that once, or has done that only once, simply because you have seen only one instance of it.

You seem to think that "nature" is something outside of the universe. What do you think exists that is outside of the universe?

 

[Dancing David]

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

Still an appeal to authority, speculation without information is speculation.
You do know that Guth knows the time and events prior to the BBE and outside of the universe are speculative.

Cite the information on the conditions prior to the BBE or outside teh universe taht make it 'informed'.

Who states what , exactly where that they have this 'information'. Unless you are just 'willfully making it up'.

 

[Dancing David]

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

Please cite your sources and show your work.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Bickering noted, try citing actual sources and data.

I notice you can't provide actual citations of experts in context.

 

[Dancing David]

There is only one universe, defining "universe" as "everything that exists". But it is likely an inflationary universe, far greater and more diverse than the part we can see.

And Guth knows the difference between speculation on unobserved suppositions and assumptions.

 

[Dancing David]

Not only one.

And you have the solution to the ToE, please show?

 

[Fudbucker]

No it is you using Appeal to Authority

Of course I'm appealing to authority. I wish my opponents would do some of it.

 

[Fudbucker]

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

LOL, are you serious? This whole thread is me giving arguments, analogies, examples, and citing experts who agree with me.

Some of the people here don't even understand how basic probability works.

 

[Fudbucker]

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.

I can't win*




*except that I won the debate after the first couple posts, and now it's just an exercise in exposing people's ignorance (e.g., people claiming Hawking isn't an authority).

 

[Fudbucker]

Still an appeal to authority, speculation without information is speculation.
You do know that Guth knows the time and events prior to the BBE and outside of the universe are speculative.

Cite the information on the conditions prior to the BBE or outside teh universe taht make it 'informed'.

Who states what , exactly where that they have this 'information'. Unless you are just 'willfully making it up'.

You realize that's not a fallacy in discussions like this, right? Or are you claiming that Tegmark, Linde and Hawking aren't authorities on cosmological fine-tuning? You're not really claiming that...are you?

 

[tsig]

You realize that's not a fallacy in discussions like this, right? Or are you claiming that Tegmark, Linde and Hawking aren't authorities on cosmological fine-tuning? You're not really claiming that...are you?

Since they do not post here maybe you could answer some of the objections posted here rather than using their names as some sort of mantra.

 

[tsig]

I can't win*




*except that I won the debate after the first couple posts, and now it's just an exercise in exposing people's ignorance (e.g., people claiming Hawking isn't an authority).

Posting quotes fresh from the mine is hardly a win.

 

[Fudbucker]

Posting quotes fresh from the mine is hardly a win.

One post solves this whole debate:

"There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Either Paul Davies* is right, or he has no idea what he's talking about.

*Davies' talent as a communicator of science has been recognized in Australia by an Advance Australia Award and two Eureka Prizes, and in the UK by the 2001 Kelvin Medal and Prize by the Institute of Physics, and the 2002 Faraday Prize by The Royal Society. Davies received the Templeton Prize in 1995. Davies was made a member of the Order of Australia in the 2007 Queen's birthday honours list. The asteroid 6870 Pauldavies is named after him.

I wonder who's more credible, Paul Davies or Tsig?

Hmmm......

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You realize that's not a fallacy in discussions like this, right? Or are you claiming that Tegmark, Linde and Hawking aren't authorities on cosmological fine-tuning? You're not really claiming that...are you?

"Are you seriously trying to tell me that whatever is in this box is not the Word of God? WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? This box has big, big names on the side, little man. Big names. Who are you to question them?

I do not need to show you what's in the box. Just believe me that with such big names on the side of the box, it must be something really, really good.

You may think that I already showed you what was in the box and it was mouldy old rubbish. Forget what your lying eyes told you! No box such as this could contain nothing but rubbish!"