IAS:Two problems with the probability-based fine-tuning argument:
1 - There isn't a scientist, astrophysicist, or anyone else on this planet who actually has the information needed to make a realistic probability estimate. It's nothing more than a wild guess.
that is Bull shit, you are playing off of arguments that say there's empirical proof. That is far far cry from saying it's a wild guess. Lots of atheists scientists take the argument seriously
extended answer: Yewimply iorsthedomnettioI presentedi te ai peoce: Howard A. Smith is a lecturer in the Harvard University Department of Astronomy and a senior astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/humanity-is-cosmically-special-heres-how-we-know/2016/11/25/cd327520-b0cc-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html?utm_term=.0378288d2447
The first result — the anthropic principle — has been accepted by physicists for 43 years. The universe, far from being a collection of random accidents, appears to be stupendously perfect and fine-tuned for life. The strengths of the four forces that operate in the universe — gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear interactions (the latter two dominate only at the level of atoms) — for example, have values critically suited for life, and were they even a few percent different, we would not be here. The most extreme example is the big bang creation: Even an infinitesimal change to its explosive expansion value would preclude life. The frequent response from physicists offers a speculative solution: an infinite number of universes — we are just living in the one with the right value. But modern philosophers such as Thomas Nagel and pioneering quantum physicists such as John Wheeler have argued instead that intelligent beings must somehow be the directed goal of such a curiously fine-tuned cosmos.C. Scientists admit fine tuning is a problem for a naturalistic view
One of the three co-authors of inflationary theory, Andrei Linde, sketches out the problem of fine tuning that he takes very seriously. Inflationary theory was concocted to get around fine tuning.
Andrei Linde,Scientific American. Oct 97
......(1) flatness of Universe
"...flatness of space. General relativity suggests that space may be very curved, with a typical radius on the order of the Planck length, or 10^-33 centimeter. We see however, that our universe is just about flat on a scale of 10^28 centimeters, the radius of the observable part of the universe. This result of our observation differs from theoretical expectations by more than 60 orders of magnitude."
......(2) Size of Universe--Plank Density
"A similar discrepancy between theory and observations concerns the size of the universe. Cosmological examinations show that our part of the universe contains at least IO^88 elementary particles. But why is the universe so big? If one takes a universe of a typical initial size given by the Planck length and a typical initial density equal to the Planck density, then, using the standard big bang theory, one can calculate how many elementary particles such a universe might encompass. The answer is rather unexpected: the entire universe should only be large enough to accommodate just one elementary particle or at most 10 of them. it would be unable to house even a single reader of Scientiftc American, who consists of about 10^29 elementary particles. Obviously something is wrong with this theory."
......(3) Timing of expansion
"The fourth problem deals with the timing of the expansion. In its standard form, the big bang theory assumes that all parts of the universe began expanding simultaneously. But how could all the different parts of the universe synchromize the beginning of their expansion? Who gave the command?
......(4) Distribution of matter in the universe
"....there is the question about the distribution of matter in the universe. on the very large scale, matter has spread out with remarkable uniformity. Across more than 10 billion light-years, its distribution departs from perfect homogeneity by less than one part in 10,000..... One of the cornerstones of the standard cosmology was the 'cosmological principle," which asserts that the universe must be homogeneous. This assumption. however, does not help much, because the universe incorporates important deviations from homogeneity, namely. stars, galaxies and other agglomerations of matter. Tence, we must explain why the universe is
so uniform on large scales and at the same time suggest some mechanism that produces galaxies." ......(5) The "Uniqueness Problem"
"Finally, there is what I call the uniqueness problem. AIbert Einstein captured its essence when he said: "What really interests ine is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world." Indeed, slight changes in the physical constants of nature could have made the universe unfold in a completeIy, different manner. ..... In some theories, compactilication can occur in billions of different ways. A few years ago it would have seemed rather meaningless to ask why space-time has four dimensions, why the gravitational constant is so small or why the proton is almost 2,000 times heavier than the electron. New developments in elementary particle physics make answering these questions crucial to understanding the construction of our world."\\ D, Scientists confirm fine tuing while trying to eliminate it.
Now Linde is confident that the new inflationary theires will explain all of this, and indeed states that their purpose is to revolve the ambiguity with which cosmologists are forced to cope. His co-author in inflationary theory. Physicist Paul Steinhardt, had doubts about it as early as his first paper on the subject (1982). He admits that the point of the theory was to eliminate fine tuning (a major God argument), but the theory only works if one fine tunes the constants that control the inflationary period.
John Horgan, “Physicist slams Cosmic Theory he Helped Conceive,” Scientific American Blogs, December 1, 2014. on line, URL http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/ accessed 10/5/15. Horgan interviews Steinhardt. “The whole point of inflation was to get rid of fine-tuning – to explain features of the original big bang model that must be fine-tuned to match observations. The fact that we had to introduce one fine-tuning to remove another was worrisome. This problem has never been resolved."
IAS:2 - The actual probability doesn't matter, anyway. All it takes is one. One planet in all the universe that happens to be suitable to produce life as we see it - and here we are.
That is total bs and shows you don't understand the argument. One proves nothing we need to know the hit rate. The fewer examples the less probable, you are begging the question Extension
(1) If we assert that one example will do it then this unierse might as well be that example. But that is begging the question since it assumse the position he defends as a proof of itself.
(2) He assserts we have no eprocal [rppf bit he hasnomefor odeas as baocto his iew as evolution.
14 comments:
Lots of atheists scientists take the argument seriously
- Actually, it's mainly theists. You bring up an article written by Howard A. Smith - a devoted theist. In his article, he dismisses claims made by highly respected atheist scientists, based on non-scientific philosophical fluff by Thomas Nagel, a peddler of immaterialist woo, who is the darling of theists precisely because he rejects mainstream scientific thinking.
Scientists admit fine tuning is a problem for a naturalistic view ... Andrei Linde
- Scientists acknowledge that the universe appears to be fine-tuned. But scientists like Linde deny that fine-tuning is a reality. His inflationary multiverse theory lays waste to the anthropic principle.
John Horgan, “Physicist slams Cosmic Theory he Helped Conceive,”
- Horgan is not a scientist. He is a journalist, and he produces lots of theistic-friendly garbage. He makes a big deal of Steinhardt's doubts regarding a multiverse. But Steinhardt is a lonely figure. Most astrophysicists today agree that quantum theory practically guarantees a multiverse. And Steinhardt's view is definitely not shared by the majority of them.
(1) ... (2) ... (3) ... (4) ... (5)
- My comment was about one particular aspect of the anthropic principle: calculations of probability. Nothing in your response addresses that.
If we assert that one example will do it then this unierse might as well be that example. But that is begging the question since it assumse the position he defends as a proof of itself.
- Nothing is assumed. It is simply a matter of logic. Here's a way to think about it: Let's say there is a planet somewhere that is suitable for the development of human-like life. It doesn't matter if there is just one such planet or millions of them, but for now, we'll just think about that one. So life develops on that planet. And it develops in a way that fits the conditions that exist on that planet. That's what evolution does. The creatures that survive are the ones that are best suited for the conditions in which they live. The inhabitants look around and say "This planet is perfect for us - it must have been made for us." The reality is that life tunes itself to the world in which it finds itself. So, as improbable as it may be, we know that there is at least one place where this has happened. And here we are, marveling at the world we live in, while all the theists are insisting "God did it!"
there are atheists scientism who take it seriously, but the fact that serious scientific thinker like Howard A. smith is a theists is a good reason to consider belief in God.
"Astrophysicist. Howard A. Smith, PhD, is a Senior Astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a Lecturer in the Harvard University Department of Astronomy, and an assistant to the Center Director. He has over three hundred fifty published articles in astronomy and astrophysics, and is also the author of the book, Let There Be Light: Modern Cosmology and Kabbalah: A New Conversation Between Science and Religion?" ( New World Library)
The Royal astronomer takes it seriously and Paul Davies it's main advocate was converted to belief in God by the science of this argument.
to assert that only scientists who agree with you make valid evidence is real slick! so very intellectual!
"Scientists admit fine tuning is a problem for a naturalistic view ... Andrei Linde
- Scientists acknowledge that the universe appears to be fine-tuned. But scientists like Linde deny that fine-tuning is a reality. His inflationary multiverse theory lays waste to the anthropic principle."
instead of making people who agree with you the authorities you should look for neutrals. That guy is an atheist; he is far from unbiased.
IMS: "My comment was about one particular aspect of the anthropic principle: calculations of probability. Nothing in your response addresses that."
that is such bull shit! That is the crux of the who argument; when people like Davies say they support the argent that is what they have in mind,
Nothing is assumed. It is simply a matter of logic. Here's a way to think about it:
All argumentation is based upon assumption. Stop waving your ignorance around like it's a badge,
Let's say there is a planet somewhere that is suitable for the development of human-like life. It doesn't matter if there is just one such planet or millions of them, but for now, we'll just think about that one. So life develops on that planet. And it develops in a way that fits the conditions that exist on that planet. That's what evolution does. The creatures that survive are the ones that are best suited for the conditions in which they live. The inhabitants look around and say "This planet is perfect for us - it must have been made for us." The reality is that life tunes itself to the world in which it finds itself. So, as improbable as it may be, we know that there is at least one place where this has happened. And here we are, marveling at the world we live in, while all the theists are insisting "God did it!"
that is begging the question. You cannot assert that one example we know of is t not created merely because it's here,
Paul Davies in his book Superforce (1984). The famous Russian physicist, Alexander Polyakov put it this way in Fortune magazine (October, 1986)
......(2) Universe is fine tuned for life
Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous British astronomer and agnostic, in The Intelligent Universe ..commented on the cosmological coincidences discussed by Mackie, "Such properties seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a thread of happy coincidences. But there are so many odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to account for them."
Hi Joe! I saw your comment today on Randal Rauser's blog regarding scholar Raymond Brown. (I am banned there so I cannot comment.) Questions for you: As a progressive Christian, do you believe that the Gospels are historically reliable sources? Do you believe that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts? Thanks!
Hello?
hey Gary, yes you can post here.
Hi Joe! I saw your comment today on Randal Rauser's blog regarding scholar Raymond Brown. (I am banned there so I cannot comment.) Questions for you: As a progressive Christian, do you believe that the Gospels are historically reliable sources? Do you believe that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts? Thanks!
Depends upon how you look at it. They are derived from eye witness source material, such as Q and pre mar redaction. There is direct eye witness material in john according to Bauckham. I think the are generally reliable.
there are atheists scientism who take it seriously, but the fact that serious scientific thinker like Howard A. smith is a theists is a good reason to consider belief in God.
- How many? Everyone you are talking about is either a theist or theist-friendly.That is NOT the majority of scientists. Not even close. Those people do not represent the mainstream of scientific thinking. It does represent theistic thinking. And, yes, there are some scientists that fall into that camp. Just not most of them.
to assert that only scientists who agree with you make valid evidence is real slick! so very intellectual!
- I have made no such assertion.
instead of making people who agree with you the authorities you should look for neutrals. That guy is an atheist; he is far from unbiased.
- You should follow your own advice. Why are you only citing the ones who agree with you? And do you suppose religionists like Smith are unbiased? There is no bias in science itself. Just the bias of the ideologies that some scientists may hold. Religion is an ideology.
That is the crux of the who argument; when people like Davies say they support the argent that is what they have in mind
- Paul Davies? That guy is clearly biased. He is either a religionist or VERY religion-friendly, and he gets paid by the Templeton Foundation to write stuff that theists want to hear. Come on, Joe. Let's hear from some real main-stream scientists.
All argumentation is based upon assumption. Stop waving your ignorance around like it's a badge
- Especially yours. Assumption #1: God did it.
But there are so many odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to account for them.
- That is the theistic argument. Of course, all of that has been disputed by scientists. But you don't take their arguments seriously.
Joe: "There are atheists scientists who take it seriously, but the fact that serious scientific thinker like Howard A. smith is a theists is a good reason to consider belief in God."
IAS- How many? Everyone you are talking about is either a theist or theist-friendly.
(1) You keep ignoring the fact that Davies was an atheist he changed due to the data I AM using in this argument, That should indicate most atheistic scientists who don't agree with FT are not examining it closely.
(2) I mentioned three i the material I linked to on my site religious a priori
(3) Your attempt to settle scientific questions by appeal to the larger cheering section is stupid.
IAS--hat is NOT the majority of scientists. Not even close. Those people do not represent the mainstream of scientific thinking. It does represent theistic thinking. And, yes, there are some scientists that fall into that camp. Just not most of them.
Ra Ra yea team!,--you have given no data on that point.
Joe: "to assert that only scientists who agree with you make valid evidence is real slick! so very intellectual!"
IAS- I have made no such assertion.
It's all you have asserted. it's the essence of your argument,
Joe: "instead of making people who agree with you the authorities you should look for neutrals. That guy is an atheist; he is far from unbiased."
IAS- You should follow your own advice. Why are you only citing the ones who agree with you? And do you suppose religionists like Smith are unbiased? There is no bias in science itself. Just the bias of the ideologies that some scientists may hold. Religion is an ideology.
your assumption is that any believer in God is automatically biased while atheists are objective and scientific. you have no evidence to back your claims about Smith. Moreover you want t0 make him the crux of the argument when Davies is much more important.
That is the crux of the who argument; when people like Davies say they support the argent that is what they have in mind
- Paul Davies? That guy is clearly biased. He is either a religionist or VERY religion-friendly, and he gets paid by the Templeton Foundation to write stuff that theists want to hear. Come on, Joe. Let's hear from some real main-stream scientists.
of course he's not a cheer leader for atheism so he must be a religious fanatic those are the only two choices in life! Davies is a great scientist you are not qualified to make criticism of him you don't know enough to judge his biases, Davies has not identified with any religious tradition.
All argumentation is based upon assumption. Stop waving your ignorance around like it's a badge
- Especially yours. Assumption #1: God did it.
this is why i don't respect you as a thinker. because you are incapable of making critical distinctions between kinds of argent. Observe you are not arguing the argumet bt tps a;;;;abpit who has the most cheer leaders.
//But there are so many odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to account for them.??
- That is the theistic argument. Of course, all of that has been disputed by scientists. But you don't take their arguments seriously.
No it has not!1 you present no evidence to support that assertion. you carefully avoid my three pages of evidence that I linked to
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2015/10/fine-tuning-argument-part-1.html
I don't know how we can make a realistic argument for fine tuning based on a sample size of one.
we don't have sample size of one. Try looking at the evidence
We have one Universe and one Earth.
In your Fine tuning Pt3 You suggest that the large number of Earth like planets "sounds like a real disproof of the fine tuning argument." (or are you quoting someone else?)
Why would that be? If you're claiming that the Universe is fine tuned for life then surely a large number of suitable planets would give weight to that argument. It would disprove that only the Earth is fine tuned for life, sure, but that's not your argument is it?
I answered it. Why don't you just read it?
Recent discoveries have indicated that there are thousands of earth-like planets out there. The Keck observatory observe (Nov. 3, 2013) “What this means is, when you look up at the thousands of stars in the night sky, the nearest sun-like star with an Earth-size planet in its habitable zone is probably only 12 light years away and can be seen with the naked eye. That is amazing," said UC Berkeley graduate student Erik Petigura, who led the analysis of the Kepler and Keck Observatory data.”I[1]
That sounds like a real disproof of the fine tuning argument. Life bearing planets are so plentiful they orbit every fifth star. That’s not exactly true. The study says Earth “size” planet. That doesn’t necessarily translate into life-bearing: The team, which also included planet hunter Geoffrey Marcy, UC Berkeley professor of astronomy, cautioned that Earth-size planets in Earth-size orbits are not necessarily hospitable to life, even if they orbit in the habitable zone of a star where the temperature is not too hot and not too cold.
"Some may have thick atmospheres, making it so hot at the surface that DNA-like molecules would not survive. Others may have rocky surfaces that could harbor liquid water suitable for living organisms," Marcy said. "We don't know what range of planet types and their environments are suitable for life."[2]
[1] Keck Observatory representative, “odds are on oodles of Earths,” published by Jet Propulsion Libratory, California Insitute of Technology for NASA on “Earth Quest.” Wesbite. Nov 4, 2013.
http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/news/139 accessed 11/8/ 2013.
[2] Ibid.
Astronomer Howard A Smith thinks Earth is not common
Donald Brownlee summarize the many constraints in their book “Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe ” and show why it takes vastly more than liquid water and a pleasant environment to give birth even to simple (much less complex) life. At a minimum, it takes an environment stable for billions of years of evolution, plus all the right ingredients. Biologists from Jacques Monod to Stephen Jay Gould have emphasized the extraordinary circumstances that led to intelligence on Earth, while geneticists have found that DNA probably resulted from many accidents. So although the same processes operate everywhere, some sequences could be unlikely, even astronomically unlikely. The evolution of intelligence could certainly be such a sequence.
There is, moreover, a well-known constraint: the finite speed of light, which ensures that even over thousands of years we will only be able to communicate with the comparatively few stars (tens of millions) in our cosmic neighborhood. If the combined astronomical, biological and evolutionary chances for life to form and evolve to intelligence are only 1 in 10 million, then we probably have no one to talk to.
The discovery of exoplanets was dramatic but not unexpected: Since the Greeks, we have imagined planets were common. Textbooks even taught that our solar system was typical. But the exotic diversity of exoplanets came as a surprise. Many have highly elliptical orbits around unstable stars, making evolution over billions of years difficult if not impossible; other systems contain giant planets that may have drifted inward, disrupting orbits; and there are many other unanticipated properties. These unexpected discoveries are helping scientists unravel Earth’s complex history.
The bottom line for extraterr it is probably rarer than previously imagined, a conclusion called the misanthropic principle. For all intents and purposes, we could be alone in our cosmic neighborhood, and if we expand the volume of our search we will have to wait even longer to find out. Life might be common in the very distant universe — or it might not be — and we are unlikely to know. We are probably rare — and it seems likely we will be alone for eons. This is the second piece of new evidence that we are not ordinary.
Post a Comment