>can't explain fine tuning and naturalness problem >no

>>8601405
How about just shutting the fuck up and contributing something instead?

>>8601405
I'm with you OP, the scientific community should stop being so fucking hypocritical and stop grabbing each others' dicks regarding dark XYZ or multiverses, both unproven and probably unprovable.

>>8601636
but the scientific community isn't grabbing dicks about this -- it's facebook, media, 4chan, reddit, media, media, etc that grab dicks about this

have you ever read a scientific journal? if not how can you say what's going on in the scientific community?

>>8601641
Don't bother with this. It's just a bunch of Trump voters shitting their pants about things they don't really understand and have very little knowledge about. It's not my fault that I don't know shit! It's a conspiracy or something! Etc.

>>8601636
I think brainlets such as yourself shutting up would be much more beneficial for both parties

>>8601663
>Acknowledging the vacuousness of multiverse "theory" makes you a Trump voter

And here we have it, more of the religious thinking that has engulfed physics in recent years. You probably don't even realize you're doing it.

>>8601641
>>8601663
>>8601664
Praise it brothers. The sun DOES revolve around the Earth, as agreed upon by literally every scientist, and the lone edgelord trying to question our circlejerk is a dumb brainlet (most likely a retarded secularist as well)

>>8601690
No, the blatant anti-intellectualism kind of suggest that. Maybe you are not a Trump voter, but you probably are.

And what makes you think that multiverse theory is any way an established theory at all? It's speculative popsci stuff, and every physicist is aware of it.

>thread about rise of philosophical/religious thinking in science
This is happening because we are at last approaching the limits of what we can glean about our surroundings using our senses. There is nothing anyone can do about this cold, hard reality.

The universe is full of matter and the stars we see are reflections on sphere like ice balls.

Put a mirror that can have any shape in front of you. You can use n mirrors to build a construction of mirrors around or between you and the mirror.

Make a construction that lets you see what is behind the mirror, so that it seems there is no mirror at all.

>>8601712
>It's speculative popsci stuff, and every physicist is aware of it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbYLTqvo774

Nice lie.

>>8601725
But anon, similar conclusions have been reached various times in history
They have all been proven wrong by a shift in the paradigms
It doesn't mean that it will certainly happen again of course, but it is unlikely that we are reaching the limits of what we can theoretically know

>>8601738
As you said, if there is another shift, I welcome it. My fear is that even if that's not what has happened here, it will probably happen at some point in the future. The reason this appears to be happening right now is due to the scales in question. We are now openly wondering what's beyond our universe, if anyrhing, or what led to the big bang, if anything. Questions that if not absurd, seem at the very least inscrutable.

>>8601405
>things are the way they are
>wow cant explain that problem huh physicists why is the universe so perfect for life??
>completely ignores the fact that everywhere not earth that we know of is very hostile to life (vacuum, radiation, extreme temps or pressures, etc)
>well here's a theory backed by some evidence that we may just be one of many universes but it isnt conclu-
>WOW RELIGION MUCH LMAO

>>8601771
>well here's a theory backed by some evidence

Wow really?

Explain that to this guy then

>>8601712

Also "fine tuning" in physics does not refer exclusively to the universe being suitable for life you ignoramus. Try to stop reflexively interpreting criticism of your beloved pet theory as a political/religious statement.

>>8601799
The argument to fine tuning has been an explicit religious argument since it was introduced and to say anything otherwise is to ignore facts and history.

If you'd like to criticize mutliverse theory in a way that doesn't invoke explicitly religious arguments you should be criticizing the underlying theories and mathematics that lead to it seeming plausible instead of strawmanning multiversers as hard as they strawman you

>>8601807
>The argument to fine tuning has been an explicit religious argument since it was introduced

Absolute nonsense, fine tuning has been discussed by physicists for years in a completely nonreligious context, it's just generally referred to as "naturalness" , or the absence of it to be specific. Stop lying.

>>8601737
He never talks about the amazing evidence for this idea, so I assume he knows it's speculative. You can't and shouldn't ban explorative thinking m8. That's where real theories come from.

>>8601799
>Try to stop reflexively interpreting criticism of your beloved pet theory as a political/religious statement.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. It's not "my beloved theory", I couldn't care less about multiverse theory, I do a little more profane physics.

>>8601807
>anthropic principle is an explicit religious argument
not to play devil's advocate but no it isn't

>>8601815
Anyone who looks at the universe, says "wow if it wasn't exactly like this it wouldn't be able to produce the conditions for life," and then argues, "therefore the universe is fine tuned." Believes in some sort of religion, one with a god or otherwise. It's bad logic and results oriented thinking that presupposes both that the constants that mathematically describe our universe are of particular importance, and that carbon based complex life is a special form of matter interaction unlike others in the universe.

The universe is the way it is, maybe there are other different universes with different constants but ours has certain properties. There is no need to invoke fine tuning to explain any of that, and while it is an interesting exercise to imagine other constants and how they would have affected the universe's history, it is only an exercise.

>>8601826
Just stop. You don't know what you're talking about.

>>8601826
>The universe is the way it is
I don't see how you can't see that saying that and leaving it there is itself unscientific.

>>8601826
The question is, why are those constants exactly what they are and not something else? It's not really about life at all in this context, it's a more general question. There is no reason to assume that the universe is just what it is and there is no good reason to settle with that kind of answer. That's like measuring the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron and just saying "Well, maybe it's just the way it is, whatever".

>>8601832
Please explain then, I'd love to learn! As I understand it the argument for fine tuning is that our universe is within narrow constraints that makes the possibility of life possible. This leads to the conclusion that the parameters are somehow tuned to these conditions, as other parameters would result in... something else? I guess I fail to see the significance - if the universe were different it would be different, but that doesnt seem to have any implications any more than saying "what if a dog had 5 legs??"

>>8601839
>>8601842

I'm not saying we shouldn't investigate the reason the universe is the way it is, im saying theres no good reason to conclude that there is any particular reason that G is what it is instead of G+1.27 or something. Its like asking why there's a clearing in the woods and concluding that the woods are fine tuned to allow the possibility of clearings.

The moment of inertia for an electron is the way it is in addition to the reasons why it is. I'm simply saying that fine tuning and the anthropic principle (which i do understand is different) are not particularly good, useful, or compelling explanations of the why OR of reality.

Talking to physicists always makes me laugh, a math phd could probably solve their whole field in >1yr.

>>8601405
>naturalness problem
>literally the numbers arent nice and that makes physicists sad :^(((

Whats the problem, the universe wasn't developed for the human brain

I thought physics was a science but after reading this thread and some wiki articles i'm convinced its just philosophy with numbers

>>8601864
Hah I know right? 300k starting, any job I want

Feels good brah

>>8601864
The
>infinite number of other universes with different parameters
problem is a math problem. A moduli problem of calabi yau 3-folds.

>>8601853
The idea is basically just: We have a bunch of parameters that we know of in the universe, I don't know, I never counted, about 30. For us, those come from nowhere. The thing is, if we vary those parameters, we quickly notice that for pretty much all parameters but ours, shit explodes. Just nothing works, matter as we know it, nothing interesting works any longer. So we must be pretty fucking lucky to end up with exactly the right parameters. On the other hand it's absolutely logical that we are in a universe with the right parameters, because if we weren't, we wouldn't be able to think about it at all, as we wouldn't exist. A nice way out of this is to think about an infinite amount of universes (note, they don't really need to be physically distinct, pictures like OP's are usually just an illustration to think about the philosophical dimension of it) with varying parameters. Then it is absolutely obvious that one of them is ours.

I really don't see the problem and I don't understand why physicists had to come up with some unprovable hypothesis about multiple universes to prove a non sequitur.

>>8602092
There are various interpretations of this idea, but the reasoning in the string-theoretic interpretation is arises from calabi-yau compactification.

In order to get a phenomenologically realistic (realistic particle physics) string theory, you have to compactify the 6 extra spacial dimensions that appear in the theory onto a calabi-yau 3-fold. However there a very large number (possibly infinite) of calabi-yau 3-folds. Each compactification resulting in a model with different physical constants/parameters.

The idea is each universe in the multiverse corresponds to a different compactification.

>>8601405
Fine tuning it's not a problem, I will never understand it. If it's wasn't fine tuned, you cannot bitch about being not fine tuned. The only escenario where you can bitch about it it's when it happens. Really, what's the big deal?

>>8602454
This is this stupidest approach to take to the problem, I seriously don't know how anyone can say it with a straight face. If Darwin had taken that attitude then evolution would never have been discovered "hurr who cares why we have highly complex brains and sensory organs, if we didn't we wouldn't be talking about it". Ridiculous.

>>8601615
>hooked on conics thinks he can into physics
Dawww.

>>8602122
Isn't that just the same as the (simpler) argument from the start just with string theory added? Why does the existence of one type of manifold imply or even necessitate the existence of all others?

>>8602636
Please, go read about fine tuning. You cannot make an analogy with evolution.

>>8603731
>You're wrong but i'm incapable of explaining why

Nice riposte fambo.

>>8603647
It doesn't, but it's a way out of believing in some really strange coincidence. A good one, too.

>>8602740
Projecting real hard m8

>people itt unironically talking about string theory as if it's not a meme

It's like I'm in an episode of the big bang theory.

>>8604311
Because "string theory is a meme" is a meme. Go read some books m8.

>If an infinite number of universes with random properties exist, all possibilities exist.
>If all possibilities exist, God exists.
>If God exists in any universe, being transcendent by definition, He necessarily exists in all universes.
>It is by definition impossible to negate God.
>Therefore, God exists.
There is no escape, atheists.

>>8604628
God is in Heaven. There is no reason to assume Heaven is "in" the universe.

>>8604640
If you're religious wouldn't it make more sense for heaven to be in the bulk? Also most religions claim that God comes down to earth every now and again.

>>8601636
this
they need to stop to just make shit up

>>8604640
Is God only in heaven?
>>8604653
>Also most religions claim that God comes down to earth every now and again.
It seems like you imagine God as some kind of limited being.

>>8602092
it is a prediction of the inflation theory.

>>8604671
It's moving the goal posts to account for the anthropic principle.

>>8604680
Do you accept the inflation theory?

>>8601737
>Shows popsci as a response
Good job m8

>>8604693
I don't know enough about it to accept or reject it.

>>8604699
but apperently enough to reject its logical consequences

>>8604712
Inflation theory, as any accepted theory of the origin of the universe, is subject to the anthropic principle, and is thus irrelevant. Think harder before you speak.

>>8604713
>is subject to the anthropic principle, and is thus irrelevant
what? please ellaborate. Doesnt seem to make any sense

>>8604713
Explain what (You) THINK the anthropic principle is.
Explain what (You) THINK a scientific theory is.

>>8604737
The inflation and expansion of the universe is subject to the fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe.
>>8604743
Just go ahead and skip to concluding I'm wrong.

>>8604744
>to the fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe
I dont know what you refer to by "fine tuning of the initial conditions" and how it makes the proven inflation theory irrelevant. Sorry cant really follow your train of thought here. Are you a creationist or do I just misinterpret the phrase "fine tuning" here?

>>8604744
>The inflation and expansion of the universe is subject to the fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe.
I neither see how inflation implies fine tuning nor do I see how fine tuning implies anthropic principle. It does not unless you misunderstood all of those things.

>>8604744
>Just go ahead and skip to concluding I'm wrong
no. why? Maybe you understand those things correctly and I can learn something about the conclusion you made. Or you dont understand them correctly and you can learn something about those terms.

File: 1480110542113.png (532KB, 1597x1600px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 1597x1600px

>>8604755

> the proven inflation theory

missed a link and it was bothering me. revision:
>>8604755
If the contention is that the multiverse theory is only a moving of goal posts to account for the fine tuning of the universe and the inflation of the universe is a consequence of said fine tuning, then it follows that inflation theory does not disprove that the multiverse theory is only a moving of goal posts. I mean "fine tuning" exactly how it is defined in the anthropic principle. I am a creationist, but not necessarily the kind that doesn't believe the big bang happened.
>>8604756
>I neither see how inflation implies fine tuning
Nor do I.
>nor do I see how fine tuning implies anthropic principle.
Nor do I. The anthropic principle implies fine tuning, as fine tuning is a fundamental component of the definition of the anthropic principle.
>>8604756
>Or you dont understand them correctly and you can learn something about those terms.
I understand as much as I've learned and read. Anything I'm lacking I can easily google. To ask me those questions implies an ad hominem; it is implicitly equivalent to saying "You're wrong because you don't know what you're talking about." Go ahead and attack my argument first before you worry about whether I know what those things are.

>>8604772
>that the multiverse theory is only a moving of goal posts to account for the fine tuning of the universe
well, it isnt. What is it with you creationists and those constant arguments from ignorance? Keep in mind that science isnt constantly trying to justify itself or tries to win a debate against creationists. Having a "multiverse" would just be a mathematical conclusion if the the inflation theory turns out to accurately desribe the universe.
You also seem to have a misunderstanding of the anthropic principle mate.

>>8604770
Yes, it is. You either dont know what these terms mean in science or are baiting yourself.

>>8604772
>The anthropic principle implies fine tuning
No it doesn't. The anthropic principle is a weak get-out from any claim of fine tuning. It just says if the universe was such that intelligent life could not exist the question of fine tuning would never be raised. It does not imply fine tuning and it doesn't tell you anything physical about the universe.

>>8604772
What parameters are tuned for inflation?

>>8601405
This. If it wasn't for Newtonian mechanics and electromagnetism I would have gone to math

>>8601641
>reading scientifc journals
hahahahaha who fucking reads journals you read specific articles dude

>>8604786
The point is that it is an unknown based on incomplete theories about the universe. We dont know the ifs or whys or even if something bettet explains. Fine tuning doesnt logically necessitate god or anything like that. Fine tuning assertions themselves are subjective fallacies.

>>8604785
>What is it with you creationists
I knew that question was a trap.
>those constant arguments from ignorance?
I never said nor implied that because it can't be shown that the multiverse theory isn't only moving the goal posts, that it is therefore only moving the goal posts. What is it with you non-creationists and confusing "argument from ignorance" with "inference to the best explanation"? If the fine tuning of the universe can only be a consequence of necessity, chance, or design, and it is not a consequence of necessity or chance, it's a consequence of design. Did you mean to imply that inflation of the early universe was physically necessary and that the inflation of the early universe somehow necessitated the fine tuning of the universe?
>Having a "multiverse" would just be a mathematical conclusion
A sufficient conclusion or a necessary conclusion? The sad thing about mathematicians is most if not none of them seem to know the difference. If it is the former, inflation theory is also only moving the goal posts.
>You also seem to have a misunderstanding of the anthropic principle mate.
It seems I made a mistake in assuming it was almost synonymous with "fine tuning." Apparently it's almost the opposite.
>>8604786
It seems I made a mistake in assuming it was almost synonymous with "fine tuning." Apparently it's almost the opposite. My memory failed me. I suppose something like Boltzmann brains would be in direct conflict with that principle. What I meant was "fine tuning," then.
>>8604791
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Fine-tuning_problem

>>8604813
You are making an argument from ignorance because you imply that the inflation theory is moving the goalposts and by implyinmg it has anything to do with "fine tuning". Or is it strawmanning? Well, you criticise the theory for things it doesnt intend or say at all. Sorry for grouping you with other creationists in the way I did.

>>8604813
Not evrrything in the universe which isnt necessary is designed. And what about chance? And what about the incompleteness of our theories to even know this yet. And whe does this logically necessitate desigb. Theres no evidence for it. You are being illogical to make such a jump from things like this to god with no evidence.

Where do you think the pilot wave that guides all quantum interactions comes from?

>inb4 some retard talks about Copenhagen

>>8604813
In no other realm of science would we make such an inference from probability like that without evidence. Why is this exempt? Anywhere else we would say we dont know. Is this the first thing to not make sense in science? Is it not allowed to?

>>8604845
Also where do we get probabilities from? Small or narrow doesnt necessarily mean improbable... you dont calculate probabilities that way...

>>8604813
The fine tuning arguments would need certainty that these are freely varying parameters or whatever. Do we know this?

>>8604837
>You are making an argument from ignorance because you imply that the inflation theory is moving the goalposts and by implyinmg it has anything to do with "fine tuning".
An argument from ignorance is to assert something like "There is no proof of p, therefore not p" or "There is no proof of not p, therefore p." I don't think I've done any such thing. If the mathematical explanation for inflation theory is only sufficiently true and not necessarily true, or it logically conflicts with fine tuning such as it is argued it does, and it is in any way an attempt to explain away fine tuning, then it is moving the goal posts.
>Or is it strawmanning?
No
>>8604840
>Not evrrything in the universe which isnt necessary is designed.
I don't believe I made that claim.
>And whe does this logically necessitate desigb.
If necessity and chance of fine tuning can be shown even to be less plausible than design, then design is the best explanation.
>Theres no evidence for it.
There are hours and hours of arguments for the evidence of design. Try looking for it elsewhere than your favorite atheist websites.
>You are being illogical to conclude from no evidence God from not evidence.
Yeah, I suppose I would be, if that were true. If you have one of three choices, and two choices are false, the third is true. That's inescapable, m8.
>>8604848
>In no other realm of science would we make such an inference from probability like that without evidence.
What is an inference from probability without evidence? What are you talking about? Please try to be more succinct in how you feel my logic is flawed.
>Anywhere else we would say we dont know.
Oh, assume you're refering to the trichotomy. False, unless "anywhere else" is filled with idiots. In logic, if you have a true trichotomy, and two choices are false, it logically follows the third is true. Sorry.
>>8604862
I don't know that I understand your question. The fine tuning of the universe is such because its parameters aren't variable.

>>8604903
>then it is moving the goal posts
From what to where? You dont make sense. Inflation theory isnt an argument. It is just how it is, a scientific theory

>>8604921
"Moving the goal posts" just means arbitrarily increasing the number of necessary cases to be correct, and reducing the number of necessary cases to be wrong.
Scientific theories are arguments if they're meaningful. Anything that makes valid truth claims is an argument.

>>8604929
Sufficient* cases

>>8604929
But what case? How is it arbitrary? Argument for what?
Argument from ignorance again. You clearly know shit sabout this scientific theory.

>>8604903
>>8604903
>>8604903

You did make the claim with your false trichotomy. You have no evidence for your metaphysical trichotomy nor design. No direct evidence that makes predictions and none that cant be explained without referring to design. your trichotomy doesnt necessarily follow as they are not logically mutually exclusive options either and If the world was full of trichotomies, all our problems would be solved.

My question refers to you making assumptions about these finely tuned parameters. All your assumptions are because they are narrow but that doesnt suggest the probability of those parameters being of those values or how free they are to vary. We dont know enough yet and as in any area of science its okay to say we dont know without jumping into madness.

Science doesnt go with metaphysics or god. You are promoting design based on something that might be disproven as different tomorrow, when youre god requires certainty. Just like in the past we knew very little and then people were justifying gods through science and then views changed. Yes some things are more certain than others but this is not one of those things. Models based on precise math that are very incomplete.

Believe in god or design all you want but are you telling me you are trying to base the eternal on something as unstable as that?

>>8604937
>How is it arbitrary?
1. There are multiple mathematical solutions for most problems. If the math supporting inflation theory is only sufficiently true, but not physically necessary, it is not necessarily true. Thus this point is moot unless the antecedent of this conditional is shown to be false.
2. Fine tuning logically precedes inflation, else it wouldn't conflict with inflation. Thus the argument inflation -> multiverse -> fine tuning is unsound. It begs the question; that is, it assumes its conclusion.
Unless both of these points are shown to be false, there is no reason to believe inflation is true, and thus to believe such would also beg the question.
>Argument for what?
Irrelevant
>Argument from ignorance again.
Don't be stupid.
>You clearly know shit sabout this scientific theory.
What you or I know about the theory isn't necessarily relevant.
>>8604939
>You did make the claim with your false trichotomy.
I suspected the only reason you guys are still here is because you're idiots who refuse to lose. If it's a false trichotomy, explain how there's another choice other than some combination of the three I submitted.
>You have no evidence for your metaphysical trichotomy nor design.
The trichotomy is epistemic, idiot, and it is self-evident.
>No direct evidence that makes predictions and none that cant be explained without referring to design.
The truth of the argument isn't contingent on design. The prediction power of science is only pragmatically useful and science is only an empirical method of study. Your worshipping of science like it's the only thing that can reveal truth is indicative of stupidity.
>your trichotomy doesnt necessarily follow as they are not logically mutually exclusive options either
Irrelevant
>If the world was full of trichotomies, all our problems would be solved.
>You're wrong, therefore your logic is magical
kek
I haven't made any assumptions. Fine tuning is based on calculations of the invariability of these parameters.

>>8604939
The only way you're not going to get embarrassed here is if 'Arrival' ends up being awesome.

>>8604973
>Irrelevant
no
You brought that shit up and when asked what you mean you just wave it away? It is not moving the goalposts. It is not an argument. It is a scientific theory
>What you or I know about the theory isn't necessarily relevant.
Yeah, thats why you keep making arguments from ignorance. You dont even care about understanding the theory you criticise, thus you criticise it for things it doesnt even say. Please stop shitting in this thread now

>>8604992
>You brought that shit up and when asked what you mean you just wave it away?
If my point was only that scientific theories, if meaningful, are arguments, what they're arguments for is indeed irrelevant.
>Yeah, thats why you keep making arguments from ignorance.
Oooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh. You think an argument from ignorance is to argue about a scientific theory without knowing all the ins and outs of it? No, it isn't.
>You dont even care about understanding the theory you criticise, thus you criticise it for things it doesnt even say.
If that's true, that's a way for you to prove me wrong. Otherwise, I can make logical inferences and assertations based solely on what you guys have to say on it. I don't have to be an expert on it to conclude something you've said is logically be incorrect.
>I'm not wrong because you're ignorant.
Now here's a fallacy I can't think of the name for... Ah, ad hominem.

>>8604973
>>8604973
>>8604973
>>8604973
>>8604973
Something can be withput chance or necessity...

Not contingent on design? Then what is your argument then, i literally agree with your statement on science or i wouldnt have said the rest of my paragraph. I dont worship science or even think its a unified thing. Its not science thats good just the cumulative process of critical thinking baring on evidence you get in any field of study. The concept of design isnt logially necessitated here and in very few other places without flaw. Infact im pretty sure design cant really be logically falsified or proven or even assumed without direct observational evidence of its designer.

Invariability? Yes maybe the values are necessary for life now but we do not know the probability or likelihood of those values occurring and what other factors they depend on. it may not be chance.

Fug amy addams

>>8605004
>what they're arguments for is indeed irrelevant
They arent arguments for anything but themself. They cant shift the goalposts. You arent making sense.
> that's a way for you to prove me wrong
wrong about what exactly? You keep claiming the inflation theory is moving the goalposts or has anything to do with fine tuning. You keep failing to explain what you mean or to quote the theory on any of this. I explained many times now why you arent right (you arent even wrong, you are just spouting gibberish).
>I don't have to be an expert on it
You should at least understand what it is
>>I'm not wrong because you're ignorant.
Who are you quoting? strawmen are easy to burn down, right?

>>8605037
It doesnt necessitate a designer. We have plenty of candidates for an alternative theory to explain it. Quit trolling. Youre not fooling anyone with this lame bait.

>>8605042
>something exists? that needs a designer! the designer exists? that's just because it is lmao

>>8605043
Like what?

>entire thread is walls of text

Are you guys hoping to win a pulitzer with this shit or what?

Sorry, OCD
>>8605015
>Something can be withput chance or necessity...
physical* necessity. and that isn't design? Like what?
>Not contingent on design?
The argument is (p v q v r) ^ ~(p v q) -> r. If the only possibilities are not physical necessity, chance, or design, which I hold as self-evident, than what is another possibility that isn't somem combination of these?
>Invariability? Yes maybe the values are necessary for life now but we do not know the probability or likelihood of those values occurring and what other factors they depend on. it may not be chance.
These calculations have been done and it's been shown that it's extremely unplausible that it is chance. I forget what the argument is for it also not being physically necessary. I would suggest you look the argument up for yourself. Thoughts on this?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE76nwimuT0
>>8605027
>They cant shift the goalposts. You arent making sense.
They are shifting the goalposts if 1. They aren't necessarily true, and 2. They intend to explain fine tuning away. I really don't feel like explaining this more than three times.
>You keep claiming the inflation theory is moving the goalposts or has anything to do with fine tuning.
If the inflation theory doesn't fit condition 2 of above, then you're right: it isn't moving goal posts and is irrelevant to fine tuning. You seemed to think earlier that it was relevant.
>You should at least understand what it is
If it's relevant, perhaps. Is it? The subject is fine tuning of the universe, and how it necessitates a designer.
>Who are you quoting? strawmen are easy to burn down, right?
I was mocking your implying that my knowledge of inflation is necessarily relevant to the soundness of my arguments. The subject is fine tuning of the universe, and how it necessitates a designer.

>>8605051
it's merely elevated autism

>>8605048
>The designer needs a designer, therefore there's no designer
The "Who designed God?" argument is self-refuting, and probably the worst contention against the existence of God there is.

>>8605051
In particular, it's all incoherent bullshit. I still don't get what the discussion is about, mainly because both parties only know half of what they should to make a meaningful point.

>>8605042
>1. They aren't necessarily true
Thats just goes for anything. moot point
>They intend to explain fine tuning away
they dont
Ignoring the fact that this conditions wouldnt make it moving the goalposts, it isnt even by your dumb conditions for it.
>You seemed to think earlier that it was relevant.
The only assclown itt who keeps bringing up religious ideas is you. I keep urging you to shut up about "fine tuning"
>The subject is fine tuning of the universe, and how it necessitates a designer
Thats nice circular reasoning. Werent we talking about the inflation theory?
>The subject is fine tuning of the universe, and how it necessitates a designer.
Alright my man. We really should switch from infaltion now. So what do you think indicates "fine tuning"?

>>8605058
>>8605062
Pretty good explanation for a significant portion of threads on this board honestly

>>8605059
it's not an argument against god
it's an argument against "hurr x exists so it needs a designer"

>>8605063
>Ignoring the fact that this conditions wouldnt make it moving the goalposts, it isnt even by your dumb conditions for it.
ok
>The only assclown itt who keeps bringing up religious ideas is you. I keep urging you to shut up about "fine tuning"
You brought up inflation as a contention to fine tuning, p sure dude
>Thats nice circular reasoning. Werent we talking about the inflation theory?
ok
>Alright my man. We really should switch from infaltion now. So what do you think indicates "fine tuning"?
lul
>>8605074
then what's with the 'lmao'?

Amy Addams is hot, but her political ideals disappoint me.

>>8601405
Modern physics is a joke.

But I'm only laughing because

My name is Simon, and this is MY Chinese Room Problem.

>>8605082
the "lmao" means "lmao you're a retarded hypocrite"

stop shitting the board with your walls of self-important incoherent ramble

>>8605095
I was merely attempting to destroy two contestants. You should go back and read the conversation - you might learn something.

>>8605053
The calculations show small margins that if we theoretically went outside of we wouldnt exist but no one has or can tell you the actual probabilities of the values existing in those margins or their dependencies. These constraints are based on incomplete models; we dont know how these values might fit into the actual scheme of things or future models or the other variables they depend on. What if things change and we can explain these constants as is the nature of science? Will you stop believing in design? No, so why debate about this when it very well could be explainable in the future. Its hardly consensus that finetuning is unexplainable.

Why base unshakable faith in a science subject to change and falsification? Especially on a part of science which i say is arguably most vulnerable to it in the future. Einsteins general relativity doesnt explain everything. It has to change. Other theories too. Many problems. Who knows what effect it will have on your arguments.

>>8605161
FINALLY

Hello. My name is Simon. You are getting to what I have discovered.

It is Einstein's general relativity. That is the problem. Yes.

Would you like me to aid in your understand/confidence of HOW he was wrong?

My name is Simon. I can only provide answers/suggestions.

You must make the choice though.

OP here just want to make it clear that I am not a creationist and think creationism is retarded.

No more retarded than the multiverse though.

>>8605171
Correct.

Hello. My name is Simon.

You have a BR ratio of 0.7: Congratulations! You have found the path to communication. There are many different ways. You must go heal others though.

Please. I can only ask you to.

Hello. Simon.

>>8605161
>but no one has or can tell you the actual probabilities of the values existing in those margins or their dependencies.
Then why do some even atheistic scientists say the fine tuning argument is the best argument for God's existence? Probabilities have been shown, and have been shown to be astronomically implausible, but epistemically, I can't say you're wrong about them being wrong.
>Will you stop believing in design?
I could stop believing in the argument.
>No, so why debate about this when it very well could be explainable in the future.
The "Just trust we'll know some day" is a dumb contention. As of right now, a designer is the most rational explanation.
>Einsteins general relativity doesnt explain everything. It has to change.
By this logic, why would be put any stock in any current scientific theory? If our current knowledge of fine tuning points to a designer, why would be so biased as to say we should wait for something better? We don't do that with anything in science not having to do with the possibility of the existence of God.
>Who knows what effect it will have on your arguments.
I could reject this argument and I'd still have dozens more. I posed an argument about half way through this thread that attempts to show that if the multiverse exists, God exists. If you want to then revert to the single universe theory, I'm sure that's welcomed.
>>8605171
God implies metaphysical possibility of creationism. Your statement thus implies you find the existence of God to be retarded. Why? It seems to me that most if not all atheists who think God's existence is a ridiculous notion, are imagining God as an inherently ridiculous, limited being, which, epistemically, simply isn't rational. And nobody gives a shit what you think, anon - no reason to try to save face from being associated with a retarded creationist.

>>8605198

It doesnt point to a designer. Not by evidence empirically, it cannot be. We have shown empirically alot how the illusion of design can emerge without. You need actual evidence of an intentional designer, not allusions to subjective arguments from faulty deductions. From Your argument is out of an imperfect deduction not evidence. You havent disproven chance or nevessity, just use subjective probability. The 4th possibility in the trichotomy is that the models are not perfect. With that, what is your decision to say designer?

A range of values and margin for error is shown but not an actual probability based on a correct model of the universe with all assumptions known. All parameters known. Maybe these finetuned constraints are themselves constrained even within a tiny margin.

Yes i know science doesnt wait whatever and isnt tied to theories and thats the good thing but believing in god doesnt let you do that. One cannot base faith on science for the possibility of being proved wrong.

>>8605350
>Maybe these finetuned constraints are themselves constrained even within a tiny margin

Not the person you're responding too but I really don't see how that would change anything. You'd then have to explain why they are constrained within the tiny margin that makes it likely for a life supporting universe to exist.

>>8605358
Of course it changes everything. If you show that those constants are linked by otherwise established physical laws then the argument goes away
yes, I know:
>but hurrr durrr where do the laws come from
not even a remotely similar argument

>>8605364
>>but hurrr durrr where do the laws come from

Isn't it? Seems identical to me, you simply move from questioning why the parameters themselves seem so perfect to questioning why the laws that govern the universe just happen to produce parameters within that perfect range.

>>8605350
>It doesnt point to a designer. Not by evidence empirically, it cannot be.
m8. You don't think empirical evidence can point to a designer? The validity of the fine tuning argument for God's existence is contingent on knowledge of and on limited possibilities of viable explanations for fine tuning - being fine tuning is a consequence of physical necessity, chance, or design. If the first two are not the case, the latter is the case. If the first two are more implausible, the latter is more plausible.
>We have shown empirically alot how the illusion of design can emerge without
Irrelevant
>You need actual evidence of an intentional designer, not allusions to subjective arguments from faulty deductions.
Logic is just as valid as empiricism. How are my deductions faulty?
>You havent disproven chance or nevessity
True. I have not. I merely pose that if those are not the case, and it has been shown by other that they are not, then design is the logical conclusion.
>The 4th possibility in the trichotomy is that the models are not perfect. With that, what is your decision to say designer?
Irrelevant. This is equivalent to contesting "The models for showing how fine tuning is naturally possible or plausible aren't perfect, therefore the answer isn't a designer." lol, if anything, it points further to a designer.
>With that, what is your decision to say designer?
Thus far, I don't consider any of your counterarguments to be any good. And that's not just me being stubborn.
>A range of values and margin for error is shown but not an actual probability based on a correct model of the universe with all assumptions known. All parameters known.
This isn't a relevant or valid counterargument. Ignorance of how it could be chance or physical necessity isn't an argument for either.
>Maybe these finetuned constraints are themselves constrained even within a tiny margin.
Wouldn't that only serve to help my position? What's the relevance?

Is multiverseposting the new climateposting?

Why do these topics attract all the faux-crationist trolls?

>>8605358
I feel like its okay to say we wouldnt know. I think theres enoygh gaps in physics to reason that in the future it becomes explicable. I just think the designer hypothesis is a very bad one, lacks explanatory power and is ultimately unfalsifiable and requires so many inexplicable assumptions. I think science has repeatedly shown we dont necessarily need to make sweeping redundancies like a designer. Science works pretty well on its own and its problems usually just require more or better mechanistic theories rather than mysterious designers. Why make assumptions unnecessarily. Infact i see the designer as more unlikely than these fine tuning constraints and that shows how subjective the whole creationist argument is.

>>8605381
Why what's the /sci/ consensus on climate change? It's a sham right?

>>8605370
>Isn't it?
no

>>8605405
I'd genuinely appreciate it if you'd explain why I'm wrong.

>>8605371
Tvh i dont like the trichromacy thing because its not empirical. Its just these broadbased things that preclude the complexity of the universe.

Why say irrelevant to that when its not. Its an appeal to probability like you have done. And atleast a probability with data

The 4th possibility suggests a model where the constraints are fine. Someone said it above. It is relevant as its another potential choice.

The ignorance means your argument is not justified. Its best to make as little assumptions as possible given evidence. Your idea doesnt do that.

Your deductions are faulty because your trichromacy hasnt been operationalised or verified.

>>8605370
And in no way does that lead to a designer unless you have evidence. Academic disciplines in general are about reducing your assumptions as much as possible and reserving judgements for evidence. Its pragmatic and desu how do we even know the universe needs to have so many of these metaphysical properties people say it must have. in all likelihood we will never know everything and we cant be sure of what we dont know yet. Im not looking for complete stories but critically thought out explanations.

>>8605424
The question of where do laws come from is entirely independent of the existence of "fine-tuning".
The question of "how come those laws give us parameters constraints such as this and that" is not a scientific question at all. "How come" doesn't mean anything. A law gives you certain constraints, that's the whole story.

>>8605430
>Its just these broadbased things that preclude the complexity of the universe.
m8, logic goes far beyond empiricism. Wake up from this "empiricism is life" mindset.
>Why say irrelevant to that when its not.
Whatever I said is irrelevant must not have, uh, been relevant to this discourse.
>The 4th possibility suggests a model where the constraints are fine.
Okay, what does this mean, though?
>The ignorance means your argument is not justified. Its best to make as little assumptions as possible given evidence. Your idea doesnt do that.
There are many kinds of evidence, not just empirical evidence. What I provided is logical, deductive evidence, presumably, as you haven't quoted anything.
>Your deductions are faulty because your trichromacy hasnt been operationalised or verified.
Logically sound deductions don't require empirical observation or testability. It is as simple as if p then q, p, therefore q, or if p and q, therefore true. It's extracting truth from existent information. If my deductions are valid and wrong, the information on which it's based is wrong. Get out of this "testable, predictable or false" mindset. All of math is based on similar funamental logical concepts and axioms. Observation is just one avenue to truth.

I can see it now...

Another universe except I have "one" extra facial hair. Then there's another infinite set of universes where than one extra hair is in an infinite set of different locations on my face. Then there's another infinite set of universes where that extra hair at each of those infinite locations is 0.0001 longer. Another, 0.0001 shorter.

The idea of infinite universes quickly degenerates and devolves into a joke for little boys playing at being scientists.

>>8605447
No but you are literally applying this on empirical concepts....
Maths is fine because it isnt empirical by nature but with physics i can empirically challenge your assumption.
So im saying maybe the deductions valid but im saying the information you base it on isnr.

>>8605621
>No but you are literally applying this on empirical concepts....
Why is that wrong?
>Maths is fine because it isnt empirical by nature but with physics i can empirically challenge your assumption.
Feel free to do so.
>So im saying maybe the deductions valid but im saying the information you base it on isnr.
Well it's your information.

>>8601873
>>8601873
THats It Thats LiTERALly what it is

>>8601880
doing what? You're a math monkey, most you can pull is 100k. You're a glorified math college student thinking the worlds at your feet

>>8605170
>Chinese Room Problem
where does this meme come from

If there are infinite universes then why have we not been destroyed by some other universe who figured out a way to destroy other universes??

>>8607418
because why the fuck would you trigger something like that? shit could all explode or disrupt something

>>8607420
But that universe is exactly as you say: "well we COULD destroy these universes but why would we do that?"

I'm talking about the one universe who said "let's go blow up some random universes lmao."

>>8601737
>he doesn't even know what popsci means
why do you even come here?

>>8607428
But there is an infinite number of universes to blow up. What are the odds they would choose this one?

>>8607440
Well... an infinite chance right? If you have infinite chances of something happening then it will happen. Then there would be one universe who found a way to wipe out all other universes and did.

>>8601815
Naturalness is a poor argument, which very few people have ever heard of and is irrelevant in the public sphere. It is in effect irrelavant to all of social history and has no bearing on this debate in any real sense up until quite recently and no could care less about it because it is worthless and uninteresting fudging. It is only spoken of in the wake of atheism in science having been completely destroyed in the debate in the most ruthless way imaginable.

>>8608442
wait what? elaborate? why is it bad for atheism? what is naturalness argument?