A. Universe Displays purposive order Max Planck (1858-1947), Nobel Prize winner and founder of modern physics. 5 "According to everything taught by the exact sciences about the immense realm of nature, a certain order prevails--one independent of the human mind . . . this order can be formulated in terms of purposeful activity. There is evidence of an intelligent order of the universe to which both man and nature are subservient."
......(1)laws have simplicity and elegance.
"The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance, and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe, " said astrophysicist 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." Paul Davies, Author of God and The New Physics, and The Mind of God, skeptic turned believer due to the new evidence on design. From First Things, Tempelton Award address:
"All the richness and diversity of matter and energy we observe today has emerged since the beginning in a long and complicated sequence of self- organizing physical processes. The laws of physics not only permit a universe to originate spontaneously, but they encourage it to organize and complexify itself to the point where conscious beings emerge who can look back on the great cosmic drama and reflect on what it all means."
...The laws that characterize our actual universe, as opposed to an infinite number of alternative possible universes, seem almost contrived-fine-tuned, some commentators have claimed-so that life and consciousness may emerge. To quote Dyson again: it is almost as if "the universe knew we were coming." I cannot prove to you that this is design, but whatever it is it is certainly very clever."Paul Davies, Tempelton Award Address,in First Things "Humanity is Cosmically spoecial,: The Washington post: 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. B. Atheist naturalism can't account for the laws of physics. Paul Davies "Now you may think I have written God entirely out of the picture. Who needs a God when the laws of physics can do such a splendid job? But we are bound to return to that burning question: Where do the laws of physics come from? And why those laws rather than some other set? Most especially: Why a set of laws that drives the searing, featureless gases coughed out of the big bang toward life and consciousness and intelligence and cultural activities such as religion, art, mathematics, and science?" 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 theories will explain all of this, and indeed states that their purpose is to resolve the ambiguity wth 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."
see page 2 answers on multiverse
part 3: Earth like planets
21 comments:
If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is over 99.999999% of the universe deadly for life? Seems very poor design.
A much better design would be a universe that consists of a flat earth with a dome over it, and lights moving across the surface of the dome. That would be far better - every bit of it would be accessible, once you have the technology to fly, and every bit visible to the human eye without any need for technology at all.
Pix
fine tuned means a narrow pathway. That's like saying if tv is fine tuned why are there so few channels? That would better if I said in 195o
"Fined tuning" is a straw for theists to cling to.
Hey look, here is some weak evidence for God. If we ignore the evidence against God, we can rationalise being 100% certain in our faith.
Pix
Fined tuning" is a straw for theists to cling to.
I had 52 arguments, Plantinga has 103. they are all gold because atheist's wont argue about them,.
Hey look, here is some weak evidence for God. If we ignore the evidence against God, we can rationalise being 100% certain in our faith.
Fined tuning" is a straw for theists to cling to.
Here's how we know they can't answer the argument, because they have stopped talking about how it misses, about the ideas or the data, they are making fun of it. that means they can't answer it.
At the end of the day fine-tuning is an argument from ignorance. We do not know why the universe is fine-tuned. It could be designed, but if it is, it is a very poor design, given how much of it is deadly to life. But the multiverse gives one alternative, and it could be something even more bizarre than either of those options.
Pix
Anonymous said...
At the end of the day fine-tuning is an argument from ignorance. We do not know why the universe is fine-tuned. It could be designed, but if it is, it is a very poor design, given how much of it is deadly to life. But the multiverse gives one alternative, and it could be something even more bizarre than either of those options.
that kind of thinking would kill science. The very idea of theorizing the reasons for the universe behaving as it does is all science has.
Joe: that kind of thinking would kill science. The very idea of theorizing the reasons for the universe behaving as it does is all science has.
No it is not. It is realising we do not know, and the answer may be something we cannot even imagine, is what drives science forward. Quantum mechanics and relativity both show that the universe is not at all what you would expect when you go outside out scale.
What stops science is declaring "God did it". We cannot study God, so once you decide God did it, science stops.
Abiogenesis is a great example of scientists do real research. They do not know the answers in advance; they are learning as they go along. That is science.
Compare to creationism, which says God did it. What research does that lead to? None. It stops science dead.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: that kind of thinking would kill science. The very idea of theorizing the reasons for the universe behaving as it does is all science has.
Px: No it is not. It is realising we do not know, and the answer may be something we cannot even imagine, is what drives science forward. Quantum mechanics and relativity both show that the universe is not at all what you would expect when you go outside out scale.
You can't get far enough to ask the question with first supposing that the universes is coherent and can understood. Paganism assumed an incoherent universe because pagan gods were fickle and flighty and the universe reelect their frantic eccentricity, Christianity assumes an order universe why the God of reason.
What stops science is declaring "God did it". We cannot study God, so once you decide God did it, science stops.
Abiogenesis is a great example of scientists do real research. They do not know the answers in advance; they are learning as they go along. That is science.
Of course I assue they will research, I assume they will use scientific methods, I m deal with the pre scientific cultural soil which grows up from.
Compare to creationism, which says God did it. What research does that lead to? None. It stops science dead.
creationsi didn't exist until the late 1ith century, it was reaction to Darwin. Darwin was actually welcomed by christians and used as a story of the Gospel when it first got started.
Obviously "God did it" did not hold science back and Newton, Boyle,Gassendy, Farady and all the major scientists of the early days were devout Christians,
Saying "God did it" is, as you correctly say, not science. But it only "stops" science if you treat religion as a rival or enemy of science. There's no need for that. As a theist, I can make the religious statement, "God created everything." Then I can listen to and learn from the scientists all about how it happened, how (in my viewpoint) God "did it. " But when an atheist says, "Science shows how it happened, and therefore there's no God, " the atheist isn't making a scientific statement, but has crossed back over into the category of religion.
well said Kristen.
The "fined tuned for life theory" seems like finding an arrow stuck in a tree and then drawing the target around it.
Our Universe happens to have life in it so, because we are that life, we think ourselves to be the goal. We have no idea of other possible universes. We have no understanding of the variability, or lack there of, of those physical parameters we point to as evidence of fine tuning.
we Humans are not the only life on earth. There are other earthlings not human such as dogs, kitties, and butterflies. your argumet does not refute the issues of the argumemt.
you are just ignoring the core data of the argument, you want to create the impression that we just happen to have life, and that detaches it from probability. It is still extremely unlikely and the target levels are very improbable. so You have not refuted anything.
Blogger Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
we Humans are not the only life on earth. There are other earthlings not human such as dogs, kitties, and butterflies. your argumet does not refute the issues of the argumemt.
No but Humans are the only ones making the finely tuned argument.
you are just ignoring the core data of the argument, you want to create the impression that we just happen to have life, and that detaches it from probability. It is still extremely unlikely and the target levels are very improbable. so You have not refuted anything.
The "core data of the argument" is that there are certain parameters at play in our universe and that under those conditions life managed to be.
We have no way of ascertaining the variability of those parameters and thus arriving at a measure of probability/improbability. Saying that it is finely tuned as opposed to coincidental is therefore unfounded.
You are wrong, the have ascertained the probabilities you can't make them improbable just that's what you want, real actual secular scientists agree.
"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" Haward A Smith
No matter what any scientist or any religionist may tell you, the fact is that nobody knows how probable or improbable are the parameters that lead to the universe being what it is. This is exactly the same argument that religionists have used against evolution. But it turns out that evolved life forms are not improbable at all. In fact, they are inevitable. The argument from probability is based on ignorance.
How could that be an argumemt against evolution? I am saying life improbable but it happened because it had help. so an argument about evolution would say it's improbable but happened because it had help.
You have no answer to this argument. That upsets you because you know or think you knw the consequences of God existing.
"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" Haward A Smith
And can those forces vary by a few percent? Theoretically, sure. In reality? We don't know. It isn't like we can experiment with generating different forces. So as im-skeptical said "the fact is that nobody knows how probable or improbable are the parameters that lead to the universe being what it is."
I don't know but smith has scientific qualifications,
So you're relying on an argument from authority?
Post a Comment