Fine Tuning Bait and Switch

Jeff Lowder at Secular Outpost, argues against William Lane Craig's fine tuning argument. His objective is to show that even if the argument is valid it doesn't establish probability for God.

Lowdwer's syllogism of the argument:

1. The life-permitting nature of the universe’s initial conditions is either the result of chance, necessity or design. (Premise)
2. It is not the result of chance or necessity. (Premise)
3. Therefore, it is the result of design. (From 1 and 2)

This argument is clearly valid, i.e., the conclusion follows from the premises. We want to know the probability of (3). The probability of (3) will depend upon the probability of (2). If we have a very weak degree of belief that (2) is true, say we think Pr(2)=0.25, then, by itself, this argument only warrants the belief Pr(3)=0.25. N.B. I’m not claiming that (2) has an exact numerical probability equal to 0.25; that value is simply an example to illustrate the point.[1]
Excluding it as a result of chance means showing the improbability of a given variable. For example hitting the target levels necessary for large open bodies of water on a planet. If that is extremely improbable then it's less likely that it "just happened" as the result of chance. The very fact of target levels and the extreme improbability of hitting them all argues against necessity. The universe did not have to turn out as it did. as Paul Davies Tells us:

Paul Davies:
"You might be tempted to suppose that any old rag-bag of laws would produce a complex universe of some sort, with attendant inhabitants convinced of their own specialness. Not so. It turns out that randomly selected laws lead almost inevitably either to unrelieved chaos or boring and uneventful simplicity. Our own universe is poised exquisitely between these unpalatable alternatives, offering a potent mix of freedom and discipline, a sort of restrained creativity. The laws do not tie down physical systems so rigidly that they can accomplish little, but neither are they a recipe for cosmic anarchy. Instead, they encourage matter and energy to develop along pathways of evolution that lead to novel variety-what Freeman Dyson has called the principle of maximum diversity: that in some sense we live in the most interesting possible universe."

"Some scientists have tried to argue that if only we knew enough about the laws of physics, if we were to discover a final theory that united all the fundamental forces and particles of nature into a single mathematical scheme, then we would find that this superlaw, or theory of everything, would describe the only logically consistent world. In other words, the nature of the physical world would be entirely a consequence of logical and mathematical necessity. There would be no choice about it. I think this is demonstrably wrong. There is not a shred of evidence that the universe is logically necessary. Indeed, as a theoretical physicist I find it rather easy to imagine alternative universes that are logically consistent, and therefore equal contenders for reality." [2]
We can eliminate necessity and even Andre Linde himself tells us the probabilities are overwhelmingly against life, meaning it is most unlikely that the universe's life bearing aspect would come about randomly.[3] That means premise two checks out and thus the argument is valid. But I think Lowder is attacking the soundness by brining arguing that the fine turning argument doesn't include all relevant material, that will change the probability factors.

At this point he's going to pull an interesting bait and switch. He's going to transpose fine tuning into design argument so he can argue the counter design argument. But first he brings up the idea that FT dies not reflect all the data:
Second, such arguments fail to embody all of the relevant, available evidence. .... It may well be the case that, by itself, the life-permitting nature of the universe’s initial conditions does make it more probable than not that the universe is designed. But that doesn’t entail that, all things considered, the total available, relevant evidence makes it more probable than not that the universe is designed. In order to defend that claim, you have to look at all of the evidence, including the evidence of evolution, biological role of pain and pleasure, nonresistant nonbelief, etc. And once you do that, it’s far from obvious that the total evidence favors theism, much less Christian theism.
What he's calling "relevant data is anti-design data, FT is a from of design but does it have the same implications such that anti-design evidence would  count against it? Most of us know that evolution is not counter evidence to God. God can use evolution so how is that counter? There is the extinction aspect. The cruelty of nature. He fleshes some of it out thusly:
We also know that so much of our universe is hostile to life due to things such as containing vast amounts of empty space, temperatures near absolute zero, cosmic radiation, and so forth. Given that our universe is life-permitting, the fact that so much of it is hostile to life is much more probable on no-design than on design. So once all of the evidence about cosmic life-permitting conditions has been fully stated, however, it’s far from obvious that facts about cosmic “fine-tuning” favor design over non-design.
That only matters because he's brining in the conventional design arguments or bait and witch. In the conventional design argument the argument turns u[on things looking designed fitting together and seeming like the result of a plan. That's why empty space life threatening aspects are taken as counter design evidence they don't paper life so they are not part of a plan. All he's really doing there is to turn the conditions that make life improbable (counts for FT) into evidence for unplanned universe. That's because he switched arguments. In FT the only appearance of planning is so many totally improbable things working out. All that empty space bad water and so on is actually pro design if the deign is FT. In other words with FT the only aspects of design are where the target levels are hit and how overwhelming  the odds against hitting them. None of his counter design stuff really matters.

see my FT argument on Religious a priori

More on this in comment section. Please join me there and comment.

[1] Jeffery Jay Lowder, "WLC Denies That Anyone Has Ever Died a Sincere Seeker Without Finding God" Secular Out Post, January 2, 2016 (blog URL)
all quotations from Lowder will be from this source.

[2] Paul Davies  "Physics and The Mind of G: The Tempelton Prize Address,"First Things, August 5 (1995) On line URL:

[3] Andre Linde,"The Self  Reproducing Inflationary Universe, Scientifi9c American Nov 19994, 48-55

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."

Anonymous said…
JH: Excluding it as a result of chance means showing the improbability of a given variable. For example hitting the target levels necessary for large open bodies of water on a planet. If that is extremely improbable then it's less likely that it "just happened" as the result of chance. The very fact of target levels and the extreme improbability of hitting them all argues against necessity.

Given an infinite universe, such as the one we live in, even the extremely unlikely is certain to happen. And indeed to have happened an infinite number of times. With regards to the laws of the universe, we need only suppose an infinite number of tries and it becomes a certainty that even the most unlikely will appear an infinite number of times (I think Linde's view is similar).

By the way, Linde's paper is available on line here.

Pix
Kevin Wells said…
From my reading, no one knows if the U is spatially infinite, or only about 50 billion ly in size, currently. One can argue that, given the incomprehensible unlikelihood of complex imtelligent life appearing anywhere, at any time, in an undesigned universe, then the U must be infinite, to balance the probabilities. But in that case the hidden premise is "since we know the U isn't designed", and therefore begs the question (on its knees with real tears).
Joe Hinman said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said…
Joe Hinman said…
Given an infinite universe, such as the one we live in, even the extremely unlikely is certain to happen.

that's not the issue, The issue is it's so unlikely to happen that it's really likely the game is fixed, We are not talking about actual proof but probability.

And indeed to have happened an infinite number of times. With regards to the laws of the universe, we need only suppose an infinite number of tries and it becomes a certainty that even the most unlikely will appear an infinite number of times

It doesn't work that way. we don't have infinite chancres because universe had initiate duration of existence,ewe are headed for heat death and we have a starting time, and abunch of that is eaten up in plank time

(I think Linde's view is similar)

I know I;ve read it many ties use to link to it,
Anonymous said…
KW: From my reading, no one knows if the U is spatially infinite, or only about 50 billion ly in size, currently. One can argue that, given the incomprehensible unlikelihood of complex imtelligent life appearing anywhere, at any time, in an undesigned universe, then the U must be infinite, to balance the probabilities. But in that case the hidden premise is "since we know the U isn't designed", and therefore begs the question (on its knees with real tears).

The reason for thinking the universe is infinite is the curvature of space (or lack thereof). It is not to account for life, so there is no question begging here.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/how-big-is-the-universe

But it does not have to be infinite, it just has to be incomprehensibly large for an incomprehensibly unlikelihood event to become almost certain. We have good evidence that it is at least incomprehensibly large, and possibly infinite. What evidence do you have that complex intelligent life is incomprehensibly unlikely?

Pix
Anonymous said…
JH: that's not the issue, The issue is it's so unlikely to happen that it's really likely the game is fixed, We are not talking about actual proof but probability.

Actually it is a very important part of the issue. If the universe is infinite, then no matter how unlikely an event - or sequence of events - it will necessarily happen an infinite number of times. Saying it is unlikely does not help you at all. It could be a 1 in 10^1000 event, it will still happen an infinite number of times. There is no eed to fix the game at all.

JH: It doesn't work that way. we don't have infinite chancres because universe had initiate duration of existence,ewe are headed for heat death and we have a starting time, and abunch of that is eaten up in plank time

We have infinite chances if the universe is spatially infinite.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
KW: From my reading, no one knows if the U is spatially infinite, or only about 50 billion ly in size, currently. One can argue that, given the incomprehensible unlikelihood of complex imtelligent life appearing anywhere, at any time, in an undesigned universe, then the U must be infinite, to balance the probabilities. But in that case the hidden premise is "since we know the U isn't designed", and therefore begs the question (on its knees with real tears).

The reason for thinking the universe is infinite is the curvature of space (or lack thereof). It is not to account for life, so there is no question begging here.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/how-big-is-the-universe

But it does not have to be infinite, it just has to be incomprehensibly large for an incomprehensibly unlikelihood event to become almost certain. We have good evidence that it is at least incomprehensibly large, and possibly infinite. What evidence do you have that complex intelligent life is incomprehensibly unlikely?

Pix

that doesn't help you because the larger you make it the more level of FT targets to be hit, so you are just diving the probability against it up. If you want to take our solar system as Representative (we don't know it is), not much life. no intelligent life,
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
JH: that's not the issue, The issue is it's so unlikely to happen that it's really likely the game is fixed, We are not talking about actual proof but probability.

Actually it is a very important part of the issue. If the universe is infinite, then no matter how unlikely an event - or sequence of events - it will necessarily happen an infinite number of times. Saying it is unlikely does not help you at all. It could be a 1 in 10^1000 event, it will still happen an infinite number of times. There is no eed to fix the game at all.

JH: It doesn't work that way. we don't have infinite chancres because universe had initiate duration of existence,ewe are headed for heat death and we have a starting time, and abunch of that is eaten up in plank time

We have infinite chances if the universe is spatially infinite.

no. Let' say we have game where X' have Pdq' that attach to then, You have to build up a large supply of X' but if you have too many P' and Q your X's die you sayI have 100,

yes but 500 P and Q. so yourX's will die.

that;okIm getting 100 more X

but that;s 500 more P andQ

I know I;ll get infinite X, yes but infinite P and Q
Joe Hinman said…
evidence for FT here is the argument a I irreverent argue it

Ny FT argument
im-skeptical said…
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.

Joe, You have it all wrong. This has nothing to do with the theistic clams about the divinely fine-tuned universe. It is about the fact that the previous theory (big bang) was unlikely to produce a flat universe. The new theory (inflation) resolves that problem, because it naturally drives toward a flat universe.

In tour fevered mind, you see a phrase like "fine tuning" and the only thing you can think of is "Yes! God did it!" And you imagine a group of atheist scientists sitting around a table trying to come up with a way to eliminate God from science. But that's not how real science works.

I will quote from Guth, the primary author of the theory:
The conventional Big Bang theory without inflation really only worked if you fed into it initial conditions which were highly finely tuned to make it just right to produce a universe like the one we see. Inflationary theory gets around this flatness problem because inflation changes the way the geometry of the universe evolves with time.

They were not thinking about how to get rid of God. That's a stupid idea that only a theist like yourself would believe.
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
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.

Joe, You have it all wrong. This has nothing to do with the theistic clams about the divinely fine-tuned universe. It is about the fact that the previous theory (big bang) was unlikely to produce a flat universe. The new theory (inflation) resolves that problem, because it naturally drives toward a flat universe.

no because BB did produce a flat universe, flat universe better for CA btw, but he say It is to get rid of fine tuning then use fine tuning to help so he doesn't just mean any fine tuning but the God argument,

In tour fevered mind, you see a phrase like "fine tuning" and the only thing you can think of is "Yes! God did it!" And you imagine a group of atheist scientists sitting around a table trying to come up with a way to eliminate God from science. But that's not how real science works.

I just explained why it clerical mean that (backed up by things Martian Rees said). but even if it doesn't it doesn't matter because the real optimist they have to use fine tuning to make the theory work, o the methodology is valid,

I will quote from Guth, the primary author of the theory:
The conventional Big Bang theory without inflation really only worked if you fed into it initial conditions which were highly finely tuned to make it just right to produce a universe like the one we see. Inflationary theory gets around this flatness problem because inflation changes the way the geometry of the universe evolves with time.

it does it by employing the thing they are trying to get rid of. Now you want to remove the very motive for the guy giving up on it. The story was inventor of theory gives up on it,because of this fine tuning hypocrisy thing, you are trying to pretend the story is not about that it says clearly it is.

They were not thinking about how to get rid of God. That's a stupid idea that only a theist like yourself would believe.

doesn't even matter the point is the same

11/07/2017 06:49:00 PM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
you have not answered by X's thing, which proves that assuming an infinite universe doen't help. you just get infinite more target levels to have to hit,
Anonymous said…
JH: no. Let' say we have game where X' have Pdq' that attach to then, You have to build up a large supply of X' but if you have too many P' and Q your X's die you sayI have 100,

yes but 500 P and Q. so yourX's will die.

that;okIm getting 100 more X

but that;s 500 more P andQ

I know I;ll get infinite X, yes but infinite P and Q

You have contrived an example in which the probability of winning is zero, so that is not analogous to what we were discussing.

Here is a better example, with randomness so there is a finite probability of winning:

Let us say we have a game where we have to roll ten dice. If they all come up six, I win, otherwise I lose. The chances of winning are 1 in 6^10, i.e., a probability of 0.000000016.

We can be pretty sure I will lose, right?

Except I get to play a billion times.

The probability of losing a single game is 0.99999998346. The probability of losing every game out of a billion is 0.000000066 (0.99999998346^1000000000). Turns out that if I play enough times I am virtually certain to win at least once. And as the number of games heads to infinity, the probability of winning at least once becomes more and more of a certainty.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
JH: no. Let' say we have game where X' have Pdq' that attach to then, You have to build up a large supply of X' but if you have too many P' and Q your X's die you sayI have 100,

yes but 500 P and Q. so yourX's will die.

that;okIm getting 100 more X

but that;s 500 more P andQ

I know I;ll get infinite X, yes but infinite P and Q

You have contrived an example in which the probability of winning is zero, so that is not analogous to what we were discussing.

Ooop silly me

Here is a better example, with randomness so there is a finite probability of winning:

Let us say we have a game where we have to roll ten dice. If they all come up six, I win, otherwise I lose. The chances of winning are 1 in 6^10, i.e., a probability of 0.000000016.

We can be pretty sure I will lose, right?

Except I get to play a billion times.

The probability of losing a single game is 0.99999998346. The probability of losing every game out of a billion is 0.000000066 (0.99999998346^1000000000). Turns out that if I play enough times I am virtually certain to win at least once. And as the number of games heads to infinity, the probability of winning at least once becomes more and more of a certainty.

Pix

2 thints

(1) you don't get to play a billion games,there's a finite window although really long. bigbang and heat death.

(2) the no win scenario is not that unanalogous because there are so many target levels and they all have to be hit just right. you are trying to equate infinite space with infinite chance this not true, going infinite doesn't get you more chances for fine turning,
im-skeptical said…
no because BB did produce a flat universe

- Big Bang was never a real theory. When they tried to works out the physics it didn't work. That's what Steinhardt was talking about. And that's why they needed a better theory. There is no cosmologist today that I'm aware of who thinks Big Bang is valid. I honestly don't know why theists are so desperate to cling to it. If your superstition tells you that God created the universe, then why couldn't he use inflation? At least that works better. As it is, you are no better than Thomists, with their Medieval theories of act and potency.
Anonymous said…
JH: (1) you don't get to play a billion games,there's a finite window although really long. bigbang and heat death.

But there is infinite space to do it in. It is like playing the game a billion times simultaneously, rather than one after the other.

JH: (2) the no win scenario is not that unanalogous because there are so many target levels and they all have to be hit just right. you are trying to equate infinite space with infinite chance this not true, going infinite doesn't get you more chances for fine turning,

Actually it is very close to that. In each game, you have 10 target level that have to be hit just right (i.e., roll a six). Maybe you can argue life is more improbable targets and more of them (and maybe not). However, this galaxy alone has about a hundred billion stars and there could be an infinite number of galaxies, so the principle holds.

Or for a fine tuned universe, each game is analogous to one of an infinite number of universes in the multiverse.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Actually it is very close to that. In each game, you have 10 target level that have to be hit just right (i.e., roll a six). Maybe you can argue life is more improbable targets and more of them (and maybe not). However, this galaxy alone has about a hundred billion stars and there could be an infinite number of galaxies, so the principle holds.

Or for a fine tuned universe, each game is analogous to one of an infinite number of universes in the multiverse.

except in real life there are hundreds of target levels. they bet you can do is maybe I say maybe a minuscule chance, that's a good reason to believe in God it;s much more parsemonius.
Anonymous said…
1. It does not matter how many targets or how small the probabilities of each, in an infinite universe, it will still happen infinitely.

2. What is the basis for your claim of a "minuscule chance"?

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
1. It does not matter how many targets or how small the probabilities of each, in an infinite universe, it will still happen infinitely.

ye sure does, Every fact that contribute to life bearing universe be exactly right to get to life and each one has to go through a gauntlet of trials like Daniel Boone being tried by the Native Americans. Increasing the number of chances just means increasing the number of gauntlets.

2. What is the basis for your claim of a "minuscule chance"?

Pix

Anonymous said…
JH: ye sure does, Every fact that contribute to life bearing universe be exactly right to get to life and each one has to go through a gauntlet of trials like Daniel Boone being tried by the Native Americans. Increasing the number of chances just means increasing the number of gauntlets.

They certainly decrease the probability. But as long as the probability is greater than zero, then it will still happen infinitely in an infinite universe.

Pix
Anonymous said…

http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2015/10/fine-tuning-argument-part-1.html

All I am seeing there is a bunch of quotes, some from over sixty years ago. In particular from the Linde article (which I think is 94, not 97), you have quoted him presenting the issues with the current model, but neglected to mention that that same paper proposes a solution to those problems!

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
All I am seeing there is a bunch of quotes, some from over sixty years ago. In particular from the Linde article (which I think is 94, not 97), you have quoted him presenting the issues with the current model, but neglected to mention that that same paper proposes a solution to those problems!

no I did not neglect to mention it,I've written about it,I ay mention it on page two or nay have forgotten to link to it,I'll get back with you,
Joe Hinman said…
They certainly decrease the probability. But as long as the probability is greater than zero, then it will still happen infinitely in an infinite universe.

no both sets are creased so it stay the sane, you to circumvent all those thing like plank density and distance from the sun,
Joe Hinman said…
here's one thing I found myself saying about his answer that is on my blog:

"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. The Scalar field is suppossed to explain all of this; but these inflationary models are still on the drawing board. Moreover, he never says where scalar fields come from, what makes them, and indeed never illustrates how they solve the initial problem of where it all came form in the first palce. Finally, it seems that scalar fields would be a design feature that should troulbe Linde as much as the initial problems, since he compares them the circuit breaker of a house which keeps the uiverse from heating up too fast before it can expand. Moreover, they might be argitrary necessiteis (see argument I)."
Anonymous said…
JH: no both sets are creased so it stay the sane, you to circumvent all those thing like plank density and distance from the sun,

Show us the maths, then.
Joe Hinman said…
that' a ridiculous answer, every chance for life to thri e ha to go through the sane set of possible failure,
Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said…
Don't bother asking Joe to show the math. At best, he'll google another quote and spit it at you, but never understand a word of it. Linde's discrepancy of 60 orders of magnitude is, of course, a problem with the big bang theory. It had already been resolved by 1980. Does Joe discuss the solution to issues that have been raised with inflation theory, and how they have been resolved? No, because he really doesn't understand any of this stuff. For him, it's good enough to find some quote from decades ago that he thinks supports his GodDidIt thesis, and put that in his article.
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
Don't bother asking Joe to show the math. At best, he'll google another quote and spit it at you, but never understand a word of it.

I have no evidence that you know jack shit about science,all I see you do is whine about how we don't fall at Yoruba feet and all your bull shit without question, when you do talk about stuff like Quantum theory you spout the usual atheist drivel from message boards,

Linde's discrepancy of 60 orders of magnitude is, of course, a problem with the big bang theory. It had already been resolved by 1980. Does Joe discuss the solution to issues that have been raised with inflation theory, and how they have been resolved? No, because he really doesn't understand any of this stuff. For him, it's good enough to find some quote from decades ago that he thinks supports his GodDidIt thesis, and put that in his article.

here the deceiver play another of his favorite games,misdirection. He points out an aspect he might be right about but neglects to inform it has nothing to do with the issue, Linde's article assumes that correction genius, so you are not saying anything, that does not circumvent the aspects of fine tuning that the discusses,those assume the correction too.

Look at the ploy Px has opened up here, Yew I am not a scientific researcher I don't do math at that level, neither does he neither does the genius Skepie

It' totally unreasonable to expect that. No reason why quoting experts such a Collins isn't enough especially when they have not done any original research on the issue, either.they have no math,
Joe Hinman said…
Does Joe discuss the solution to issues that have been raised with inflation theory, and how they have been resolved?

did you bring that issue up before? no you did not, you did not bring up. No reason why it should be mentioned because My argument had nothing to do with inflationary theory,why should not be discussed? you makeout like that mean I have something to hide?? you are being deceptive, you already drug us off the real issue of the Op because the bait and switch you never mentioned,you are a pervericator.

you the coward who refuses to debate, you are a liar,a coward and a God hater,

No, because he really doesn't understand any of this stuff.

he reaches for the easy insult solution rather than be honest, in fact we ha struck inflation glancing blow when I said they want to get rid of fine tuning he just forgot to include the fact that one of the inventors of the theory withdrew support because it needs fine tuning to work, but that' what they wanted to get rid of.

For him, it's good enough to find some quote from decades ago that he thinks supports his GodDidIt thesis, and put that in his article.

he assigning motives to me that he wants you to think I have, that is ad hom argument It' deceptive and it damages people's reputations it's extremely unethical, WE DON'T ARGUE THAT WAY HERE do it again and you are history
Anonymous said…
JH: Look at the ploy Px has opened up here, Yew I am not a scientific researcher I don't do math at that level, neither does he neither does the genius Skepie

I did the maths. here it is again:

Here is a better example, with randomness so there is a finite probability of winning:

Let us say we have a game where we have to roll ten dice. If they all come up six, I win, otherwise I lose. The chances of winning are 1 in 6^10, i.e., a probability of 0.000000016.

We can be pretty sure I will lose, right?

Except I get to play a billion times.

The probability of losing a single game is 0.99999998346. The probability of losing every game out of a billion is 0.000000066 (0.99999998346^1000000000). Turns out that if I play enough times I am virtually certain to win at least once. And as the number of games heads to infinity, the probability of winning at least once becomes more and more of a certainty.

Pix
im-skeptical said…
I have no evidence that you know jack shit about science
- I have no evidence that you know how to make a logical argument, let alone understand what scientists say.

No reason why it should be mentioned because My argument had nothing to do with inflationary theory,why should not be discussed?
- See my comment of 11/07/2017 06:49:00 PM. The only reason I bring it up is because you did.

you the coward who refuses to debate, you are a liar,a coward and a God hater
- And you argue entirely from emotion. Whenever you can't stand up to the criticisms brought against your arguments, this is how you respond.

in fact we ha struck inflation glancing blow when I said they want to get rid of fine tuning he just forgot to include the fact that one of the inventors of the theory withdrew support because it needs fine tuning to work
- I told you before, Big Bang was superseded by inflation BECAUSE IT DIDN'T WORK. And only a theist would describe as being fine-tuned. And yes, Steinhardt noted that a VERSION of the inflation theory has a similar issue, but that's not true of all versions. In particular, the time-unbounded version advanced by Hawking does not have the problem that Steinhardt refers to. You can whine all you want about scientists trying to push God out of science, but they're always trying to find theories that work better. That's what science does. So just go on whining.
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
JH: Look at the ploy Px has opened up here, Yew I am not a scientific researcher I don't do math at that level, neither does he neither does the genius Skepie

I did the maths. here it is again:

Here is a better example, with randomness so there is a finite probability of winning:

Let us say we have a game where we have to roll ten dice. If they all come up six, I win, otherwise I lose. The chances of winning are 1 in 6^10, i.e., a probability of 0.000000016.

We can be pretty sure I will lose, right?

Except I get to play a billion times.

The probability of losing a single game is 0.99999998346. The probability of losing every game out of a billion is 0.000000066 (0.99999998346^1000000000). Turns out that if I play enough times I am virtually certain to win at least once. And as the number of games heads to infinity, the probability of winning at least once becomes more and more of a certainty.

Px you are doing the math on my example, my example is extremely simplistic and it i probably very crude,(I invented it myself that should give you a clue). But you are not doing the real math on fine tuning which has been done by gobs of scientists who all agree it is a problem for them. Morton Rees(may have name wrong) the crayola astronomer of England was depressed for years because he could not shake God. he said it, he said "looks like there has to be a God" he was an atheist,
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
I have no evidence that you know jack shit about science

- I have no evidence that you know how to make a logical argument, let alone understand what scientists say.

but that; because you don't know logic, people who know logic know immediately if know it or not

No reason why it should be mentioned because My argument had nothing to do with inflationary theory,why should not be discussed?

- See my comment of 11/07/2017 06:49:00 PM. The only reason I bring it up is because you did.

you the coward who refuses to debate, you are a liar,a coward and a God hater

- And you argue entirely from emotion. Whenever you can't stand up to the criticisms brought against your arguments, this is how you respond.

again let the reader judge, those who know argument will see immediately i argue from reason and evidence, you do not you argue from whining about your status,

in fact we ha struck inflation glancing blow when I said they want to get rid of fine tuning he just forgot to include the fact that one of the inventors of the theory withdrew support because it needs fine tuning to work

- I told you before, Big Bang was superseded by inflation BECAUSE IT DIDN'T WORK.

that prove you know shit about science, Saying Big bang didn't work is ludicrousness, for one thing they kept the big bang as part of inflationary theory. Secondly, I quoted the guy who invented the theory saying the purpose was to get rid of fine tuning, they used fine tuning to get rid of it, that's why the abandoned inflation,

And only a theist would describe as being fine-tuned. And yes, Steinhardt noted that a VERSION of the inflation theory has a similar issue, but that's not true of all versions.

the major one, if only a theist would use that term they why did Seknhardt say it was fine tuned? Is he a theist?

In particular, the time-unbounded version advanced by Hawking does not have the problem that Steinhardt refers to. You can whine all you want about scientists trying to push God out of science, but they're always trying to find theories that work better. That's what science does. So just go on whining.

Hawking's version is also considered a dead version it' not used, it also deputes upon gravity and laws of physics which he can't accout for deosn;t even try,

YOU STILL IGNORE THE BAIT AND WITCH YOU CAN'T DISCUS THE REAL ISSUES BECAUSE YOU ARE SO HUNG UP ON BEING SEEN AS ALL KNOWING ,
Joe Hinman said…
book review in Gardion on Rees book

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jun/08/just-six-numbers-martin-rees-review

"One can marvel, almost indefinitely, at the balance between the nuclear forces and the astoundingly feeble but ultimately inexorable power of gravity, giving us N, a huge number involving 36 zeroes, and nod gratefully each time one is told that were gravity not almost exactly 1036 times weaker then we wouldn't be here. One can gasp at the implications of the density parameter Î© (omega), which one second after the big bang could not have varied from unity by more than one part in a million billion or the universe would not still be expanding, 13.7bn years on.

But who'd have thought that we also needed D for dimension to equal three, because without that value the show would never have got on the road? We go up the stairs, down the hall or across the living room so often that we tend to imagine that those are the only imaginable dimensions, but there could have been just two, for instance, or perhaps four.

Had there been four dimensions, gravitational and other forces would have varied inversely as the cube of the distance rather than the square, and the inverse cube law would be an unforgiving one. Any orbiting planet that slowed for whatever reason in its orbit would swiftly plunge into the heart of its parent star; any planet that increased its speed ever so slightly would spiral madly into the cold and the dark.

Under the inverse square law, however, a planet that speeds up ever so slightly – or slows down – simply shifts to a very slightly different orbit. That is, we owe the stability of the solar system to the fact that spacetime has, on the macroscale, only three physical dimensions.

All six values featured in this book permit something significant to happen, and to go on happening. Take for instance Q, the one part in 100,000 ratio between the rest mass energy of matter and the force of gravity. Were this ratio a lot smaller, gas would never condense into galaxies. Were it only a bit smaller, star formation would be slow and the raw material for future planets would not survive to form planetary systems. Were it much bigger, stars would collapse swiftly into black holes and the surviving gas would blister the universe with gamma rays."
Anonymous said…
JH: Px you are doing the math on my example, my example is extremely simplistic and it i probably very crude,(I invented it myself that should give you a clue). But you are not doing the real math on fine tuning which has been done by gobs of scientists who all agree it is a problem for them. Morton Rees(may have name wrong) the crayola astronomer of England was depressed for years because he could not shake God. he said it, he said "looks like there has to be a God" he was an atheist,

I was doing the maths on a model. That is what we do in science. If you can say that there is a specific issue with the model that affects the result for our purposes, then what is it?

If you cannot say what that issue is, thenyou have to accept that the model is good enough for our purpose, and the conclusion is sound. That is how science is done, Joe.

All those quotes you have, thery are conbsidering a single game, and concluding it is so unlikely as to be impossible. There are not considering an infinite number of games.

Pix
im-skeptical said…
if only a theist would use that term they why did Seknhardt say it was fine tuned? Is he a theist?
- That's the only reason he would use terminology like that. I think he is a theist. You don't hear other physicists saying that. What they say is IT DOESN'T WORK, and the need a better theory that does work.

Hawking's version is also considered a dead version it' not used, it also deputes upon gravity and laws of physics which he can't accout for deosn;t even try,
- Joe, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
JH: Px you are doing the math on my example, my example is extremely simplistic and it i probably very crude,(I invented it myself that should give you a clue). But you are not doing the real math on fine tuning which has been done by gobs of scientists who all agree it is a problem for them. Morton Rees(may have name wrong) the crayola astronomer of England was depressed for years because he could not shake God. he said it, he said "looks like there has to be a God" he was an atheist,

I was doing the maths on a model. That is what we do in science. If you can say that there is a specific issue with the model that affects the result for our purposes, then what is it?

If you cannot say what that issue is, thenyou have to accept that the model is good enough for our purpose, and the conclusion is sound. That is how science is done, Joe.

All those quotes you have, thery are conbsidering a single game, and concluding it is so unlikely as to be impossible. There are not considering an infinite number of games.

you are a professional academic and a scintillate you know better, you are not dialing with a real level of scientific acumen in challenging my little rink a dink example and you are arid to take on guys like Linde and Paul Davies. my model is done by me not a real scientist, there are much better hmodels you are afarid of them,
Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
if only a theist would use that term they why did Seknhardt say it was fine tuned? Is he a theist?

- That's the only reason he would use terminology like that. I think he is a theist. You don't hear other physicists saying that. What they say is IT DOESN'T WORK, and the need a better theory that does work.

Martin Rees is not a theist and he ues the term fine tuning, he yas we have to be careful in using it but he does use it, he says it's true

Hawking's version is also considered a dead version it' not used, it also deputes upon gravity and laws of physics which he can't accout for deosn;t even try,
- Joe, you have no idea what you're talking about.

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0610199

"Given the observed cosmic acceleration, Leonard Susskind has presented the following argument against the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal for the quantum state of the universe: It should most likely lead to a nearly empty large de Sitter universe, rather than to early rapid inflation. Even if one adds the condition of observers, they are most likely to form by quantum fluctuations in de Sitter and therefore not see the structure that we observe. Here I present my own amplified version of this argument and consider possible resolutions, one of which seems to imply that inflation expands the universe to be larger than 10^{10^{10^{122}}} Mpc."

https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/famous-scientists/physicists/stephen-hawking3.htm

"Biographer and science writer Kitty Ferguson said the no-boundary proposal is less accepted than Hawking radiation. "To this day there are many people in physics who don't accept it as something in physics that can be used as part of other theories -- you can't use it as a starting off point to go somewhere else," Ferguson said.

In more recent years, Hawking has doubted the possibility of a "theory of everything" existing, an all-encompassing theory of theoretical physics that would explain pretty much everything [source: Sample]. He's also a skeptic on finding the Higgs boson, an elusive particle thought to give subatomic particles mass."
Joe Hinman said…
died you read those quotes genius? do you see the biographer saying a lot people don't accept hawking no boundary do you see that.??"? I proved you wrong,
Anonymous said…
JH: you are a professional academic and a scintillate you know better, you are not dialing with a real level of scientific acumen in challenging my little rink a dink example and you are arid to take on guys like Linde and Paul Davies. my model is done by me not a real scientist, there are much better hmodels you are afarid of them,

If you have a better model, present it. I am not afraid to address them because the same argument will apply. If you have an infinite number of attempts, even the most improbably event becomes a certainty.

Pix

Anonymous said…
While there are challenges to the inflation model, a lot of the top cosmologists still hold to it, as a recent response to an article in Scientific American shows.

Pix
im-skeptical said…
died you read those quotes genius? do you see the biographer saying a lot people don't accept hawking no boundary do you see that.??"? I proved you wrong,
- The only thing you showed is that there are some who disagree, as Pix pointed out. But we already knew that. What puzzles me is how you can think that by googling an article that presents a different view, you can think that the whole world should just conclude that Joe's uninformed opinions must be true after all - because he cites an article.
Joe Hinman said…
The only thing you showed is that there are some who disagree, as Pix pointed out. But we already knew that. What puzzles me is how you can think that by googling an article that presents a different view, you can think that the whole world should just conclude that Joe's uninformed opinions must be true after all - because he cites an article.

some physics who disagree you can show none who agree,if it was proven they could not disagree, who disagrees with scientific fact?
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
While there are challenges to the inflation model, a lot of the top cosmologists still hold to it, as a recent response to an article in Scientific American shows.

Pix

you have thee problems you have not answered, (1) you cant show why inflation beats fine tuning

(2)Steionhardt is one of the primary authors of the theory

(3) the basis of his rejection prove fine tuning works because they used fine tuning to secure inflationary theory
Joe Hinman said…
If you have a better model, present it. I am not afraid to address them because the same argument will apply. If you have an infinite number of attempts, even the most improbably event becomes a certainty.

Joe Hinman said…
px why didn't you watch the you tube video I linked to? that gives you Ree model
im-skeptical said…
some physics who disagree you can show none who agree,if it was proven they could not disagree, who disagrees with scientific fact?

- This is where the real difference between science and faith becomes so apparent. With faith-based belief, all you have to do is find someone whose opinion you agree with, and then you have all the basis you need for belief. It's true just because some philosopher says so, and you agree with what he says. Evidence be damned. This explains why you think all you have to do is find some article on google that agrees (or seems to agree) with you, and you can then act like your ideas are not subject to dispute.

But science doesn't work like that. There are different theories, and which of those we should accept is not simply a matter of opinion. The minute someone produces empirical evidence that disconfirms a theory, then we abandon or change the theory. It is not determined by faith, but by evidence. Is inflation theory a matter of faith for me (as you so often claim that my science-based beliefs are just misplaced faith)? No. I don't stake my life on any one theory, and if a better one comes along, that's fine with me.

You said earlier that big bang is included in inflation theory, just to show that I didn't know what I was talking about. But you are wrong. True, there is still a period of expansion of matter from a tiny initia condition (and this actually follows the inflation period), but the theory itself is very different. For example, big bang entails a singularity, and inflation doesn't. The only people who still believe in a singularity are theists, as far as I know.

Why do they cling to that? Theists latched onto big bang theory from the outset, because it seems to agree with their opinion that God created the universe. For them, it is a matter of faith. And that implies that people like you will be resistant to the inevitable advancements of science that might supersede it. And make no mistake, there are theists in the scientific community, whose work is influenced by their religious faith. In the long run evidence, not faith, will determine who is right.
Anonymous said…
JH: you have thee problems you have not answered, (1) you cant show why inflation beats fine tuning

Infinity beats fine-tuning.

JH: (2)Steionhardt is one of the primary authors of the theory

You think he and his two fellow authors areright, and the thirty three top cosmologists who disagree are wrong because..?

... He agrees with the conclusion you want to arrive at.

JH: px why didn't you watch the you tube video I linked to? that gives you Ree model

Rees is talking about a single attempt, a single play of the game. He does not consider infinite plays of the game, infinite universes in a multiverse.

Again and again you fail to address the issue of infinity - or indeed give any indication you have a clue about it at all.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
- This is where the real difference between science and faith becomes so apparent. With faith-based belief, all you have to do is find someone whose opinion you agree with, and then you have all the basis you need for belief.

No it's not, this is the difference in being ignorant and arrogant and obligated. You know jack shit about theology you have no training you think stuff about it that's real self serving, because your atheist brain washers tell you to think it. But you have no idea what you are talking aout,

It's true just because some philosopher says so, and you agree with what he says.

you are indulging in nightly inflammatory insulting attacks on personality and not reasoning about the argument, you really can't handle argument.

Evidence be damned. This explains why you think all you have to do is find some article on google that agrees (or seems to agree) with you, and you can then act like your ideas are not subject to dispute.

it' called documentation .ie Trump you can't stand a free exchange of ideas. you have to be right regardless of the facts. You can't stand it when I prove you wrong. I use expert opinion in published sources available to all and you are whining about it because you can't research,

But science doesn't work like that. There are different theories, and which of those we should accept is not simply a matter of opinion.

argument does work like that,I quoted three major scientists you don't have the gumption to quote one,so you are whining.

The minute someone produces empirical evidence that disconfirms a theory, then we abandon or change the theory. It is not determined by faith, but by evidence. Is inflation theory a matter of faith for me (as you so often claim that my science-based beliefs are just misplaced faith)? No. I don't stake my life on any one theory, and if a better one comes along, that's fine with me.

you have no evidence that Hawking's theory is accepted, it not a proven fact it just theory,it has not won major support,

Joe Hinman said…
Skep

You said earlier that big bang is included in inflation theory, just to show that I didn't know what I was talking about. But you are wrong. True, there is still a period of expansion of matter from a tiny initia condition (and this actually follows the inflation period), but the theory itself is very different. For example, big bang entails a singularity, and inflation doesn't. The only people who still believe in a singularity are theists, as far as I know.

wrong, you are trying to meld inflation with Hawking-Hurtle, some inflationary models have no boundary condition not all,

Why do they cling to that? Theists latched onto big bang theory from the outset, because it seems to agree with their opinion that God created the universe. For them, it is a matter of faith. And that implies that people like you will be resistant to the inevitable advancements of science that might supersede it. And make no mistake, there are theists in the scientific community, whose work is influenced by their religious faith. In the long run evidence, not faith, will determine who is right.

that' really a stupid move trying to impose your own assumptions upon the other side then argue with that that is really a straw man argument,

(1) It doesn't make any kind of difference if that is the reason why they like it. That has nothing to do with what models are used.

(2) I've seen creationists who think the big bang theory opposed to creation for that reason oppose it, Its stupid but true,

(3) You just proved my point about how physicists change theory to get rid of God arguments,

11/13/2017 10:17:00 AM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
JH: you have thee problems you have not answered, (1) you cant show why inflation beats fine tuning

Infinity beats fine-tuning.

why? assertion is not proof

JH: (2)Steionhardt is one of the primary authors of the theory

You think he and his two fellow authors areright, and the thirty three top cosmologists who disagree are wrong because..?

the three inventor of the theory are above those 33 they are the students these are the teachers, there's only one royal astronomer,

... He agrees with the conclusion you want to arrive at.

JH: px why didn't you watch the you tube video I linked to? that gives you Ree model

Rees is talking about a single attempt, a single play of the game. He does not consider infinite plays of the game, infinite universes in a multiverse.

you have not made it clear that you are talking about multiverse or just infinite space, he i assuming infinite chances, these FT gautlet would apply anytime, all other univeres would require FT, I have at lest 10 arguments on mutiverse

Again and again you fail to address the issue of infinity - or indeed give any indication you have a clue about it at all.

Anonymous said…
Pix: Infinity beats fine-tuning.

JH: why? assertion is not proof

I already said why. See my post on 11/07/2017 12:42:00 AM. Or from 11/07/2017 12:48:00 AM. Or 11/08/2017 01:28:00 AM. Or 11/08/2017 08:11:00 AM. In fact virtually all my posts... Which I suppose goes to show that either you did not read them or did not understand them.

JH: the three inventor of the theory are above those 33 they are the students these are the teachers, there's only one royal astronomer,

So you are calling Linde, Guth, Hawking, Rees and Vilenkin the students (two of whom you have cited already in defence of your claims), and Ijjas, Steinhardt and Loeb the teachers? What is your basis for considering those three to be better authorities?

Other then they happen to agree with your preconceived ideas...

JH: you have not made it clear that you are talking about multiverse or just infinite space, he i assuming infinite chances, these FT gautlet would apply anytime, all other universe would require FT, I have at lest 10 arguments on mutiverse

It is not clear if you are talking about the fundamental laws and constants of the universe or the improbability of life. The multiverse covers the first, the infinite universe the second. Either way the game has an infinite number of plays, and so even the most improbable event is certain to happen.

JH: I just answered it again, you have never answered that argument,

Reinforcing my view that either you did not read them or did not understand them.

Pix
Anonymous said…

JH: Unless we know the rate at which life bearing is produced, just having a bunch of universes proves nothing.
This applies both to parallel universes and to planets of our own universe.

Again the demand for proof. How often do you demand your opponents give proof, whilst your own theory offers only hints and suggestions and maybes?

If we have infinite universes we do not need to know the rate they are produced at. We just need to know the probability is greater than zero.

In fact, it is the fine-tuning argument fort God that has top know the hit rate. If the hit rate is 22%, then it fails.

JH: One might be tempted to think that doesn't matter because the statistics indicate there must be lots of life bearing planets out there. Yet the important point is the atheists are the one's saying don't believe without empirical proof. They will challenge the believer to show "just one" fact supporting God. Yet they believe this with no empirical proof

Again the demand for proof! In reality atheists demand empirical evidence, and accept these things cannot be proven.

The multiverse is a possible solution to the fine-tuning problem, just as God is a possible solution. Neither are proven.

JH: Futhermore, the best mechanism for multiverses that last, actually requires fine-tuning itself. The chaotic inflationary model - which seeks to avoid fine-tuning by positing that the initial conditions vary at random over the superspace of the Higgs fields - also fine-tunes its parameters, as Earman has pointed out: "The inflationary model can succeed only by fine-tuning its parameters, and even then, relative to some natural measures on initial conditions, it may also have to fine-tune its initial conditions for inflation to work."

Some inflation models indicate eternal inflation, and they imply that within the universe there are regions that are not expanding such as the region where we live. This then is one particular multiverse model, and it is this that Steinhardt disagrees with (and those thirty three lesser cosmologists like Linde, Guth, Hawking, Rees and Vilenkin accept, but hey, what do those idiots know, right?).

Another multiverse model is where there are entirely separate universes spawning with different initial conditions. This is the model that explains fine-tuning.

By the way, there are ideas as to how inflation might solve fine-tuning without the multiverse:

"One of the most severe challenges for inflation arises from the need for fine tuning. In new inflation, the slow-roll conditions must be satisfied for inflation to occur. The slow-roll conditions say that the inflaton potential must be flat (compared to the large vacuum energy) and that the inflaton particles must have a small mass.[clarification needed][93] New inflation requires the Universe to have a scalar field with an especially flat potential and special initial conditions. However, explanations for these fine-tunings have been proposed. For example, classically scale invariant field theories, where scale invariance is broken by quantum effects, provide an explanation of the flatness of inflationary potentials, as long as the theory can be studied through perturbation theory."

Pix
Anonymous said…

JH: The whole issue of the objection to the multiverse is nothing but an inverse of the gambler's fallacy: " Some people think that if you roll the dice repeatedly and don't get double sixes, then you are more likely to get double sixes on the next roll. They are victims of the notorious gambler's fallacy. In a 1987 article in Mind, the philosopher Ian Hacking sees a kindred bit of illogic behind the Many Universes Hypothesis. Suppose you enter a room and see a guy roll a pair of dice. They come up double sixes. You think, "Aha, that is very unlikely on a single roll, so he must have rolled the dice many times before I walked into the room." You have committed what Hacking labels the inverse gambler's fallacy."

Compare to the theist who walks into the room to see the guy roll two sixes. "Aha, that is very unlikely on a single roll, so God must have done it."

Which is the fallacy? Which is more analogous to our discussion?

JH: Plantinga puts it as follows: "Well, perhaps all this is logically possible (and then again perhaps not). As a response to a probabilistic argument, however, it's pretty anemic. How would this kind of reply play in Tombstone, or Dodge City? "Waal, shore, Tex, I know it's a leetle mite suspicious that every time I deal I git four aces and a wild card, but have you considered the following? Possibly there is an infinite succession of universes, so that for any possible distribution of possible poker hands, there is a universe in which that possibility is realized; we just happen to find ourselves in one where someone like me always deals himself only aces and wild cards without ever cheating. So put up that shootin' arn and set down 'n shet yore yap, ya dumb galoot."

Again, we can compare to the theist, who claims God dealt him that unlikely hand.

JH: The multiverse is a desperate catch-all explanation that could explain away any evidence for anything by simply inflating the probabilistic resources to infinity, and it is also the most flagrant violation of Occam's razor ever. Occam really said "do not multiply entities beyond necessity," yet the Multiversers are doing just that merely for the purpose of answering this argument.

Compare to the theist, who is invoking a supernatural entity. Hmm, we better reject that as fast as possible, right?

JH: Arbitrary necessities are illogical. That is one a contingency is put over as a necessity. That is what is being done with the multiverse, they are pretending that this whole mutliverse needs no explanation, it's just bound to happen, it's necessary. But it's really just magnifying a string of endless contingencies into a giant arbitrary necessity.

So that would be like God then? An entity that is just bound to happen, is necessary?

JH: At this point we can bring in Platinga's Possible words argument. Is it possible that in one of those other universes there would be a God like the one Anselm speaks of? The answer as to be "yes." If not the atheist must show why not. ... And yet it is absurd to think that a necessary being would be limited to just one reality. God has to be God in all reality.

Great shifting of the burden of proof there. Is God possible? Well...

There is no sign of God in this universe
Therefore it is not unreasonable to conclude God is not present in this universe.
If God exists in one universe he must be present in them all.
Therefore God does not exist in any universe.
Therefore the existence of God is an impossibility!

Pix
im-skeptical said…
You know jack shit about theology you have no training you think stuff about it that's real self serving, because your atheist brain washers tell you to think it. But you have no idea what you are talking aout
- Now, there's the difference between you and me. I don't claim to be an expert in theology, and I don't try to tell you what theologists' theories are, that way you try to tell be about science. All I can say about religion is what I learned growing up as a Catholic, and what is obvious to any observer.

it' called documentation .ie Trump you can't stand a free exchange of ideas.
- It is a free exchange of ideas. Too bad you only listen to one side, and automatically reject those that you don't like, Trump.

argument does work like that,I quoted three major scientists you don't have the gumption to quote one,so you are whining.
- There is a place for argumentation is science, but when it comes down to evidence, the argument is settled. This is unlike your theistic arguments that don't depend on evidence, and will never be settled

you have no evidence that Hawking's theory is accepted, it not a proven fact it just theory,it has not won major support
- There you go with your "proof" again. How many times do I have to tell you that theories are never proven absolutely. We accept the ones that work the best. Cosmological theory isn't settled like Darwinian evolution, but big bang theory has definitely fallen in favor of some variant of inflation - and no-boundary seems to be the most widely accepted at this point.

wrong, you are trying to meld inflation with Hawking-Hurtle, some inflationary models have no boundary condition not all
- OK, now I get it. Here's a clue for you: Hawking-Hartle no-boundary theory IS inflation, but you would only know that if you some faint idea of what you were talking about.

(1) It doesn't make any kind of difference if that is the reason why they like it. That has nothing to do with what models are used.
- It makes all the difference. That's why science works as a means of knowing things, and faith doesn't.

(2) I've seen creationists who think the big bang theory opposed to creation for that reason oppose it, Its stupid but true
- That's my point. On faith, you can believe whatever you want. It isn't based on evidence.

(3) You just proved my point about how physicists change theory to get rid of God arguments
- You can believe whatever you want. It isn't based on evidence. And it isn't true.

im-skeptical said…
It is not clear if you are talking about the fundamental laws and constants of the universe or the improbability of life. The multiverse covers the first, the infinite universe the second. Either way the game has an infinite number of plays, and so even the most improbable event is certain to happen.
- I mentioned that Joe has two completely different issues mixed up in his mind. When he talks about Steinhardt's use of the term "fine-tuning", he thinks it is the supposed fine tuning of physical constants that leads to the conditions needed to form life in the universe. I tried to explain to him that this is not the same thing. It is actually the setting of starting conditions for cosmic expansion that would lead to a flat space-time. Totally separate issue, but Joe doesn't grok that. He thinks inflation theory is about the need to have a multiverse in order to bypass the fine-tuning of physical constants. Joe doesn't grok the fact that inflation solves the problem of starting conditions, even it there is just one universe, and THAT's why it is favored - not because scientists are trying to get rid of God. Joe also doesn't grok that a multiverse just happens to be a predicted consequence of the very same quantum theory that is the source of cosmic inflation. You can see this confusion in his linked article "My answers on Multiverse". He just doesn't get what the real discussion is about (at least in scientific circles).

Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
PX?:It is not clear if you are talking about the fundamental laws and constants of the universe or the improbability of life. The multiverse covers the first, the infinite universe the second. Either way the game has an infinite number of plays, and so even the most improbable event is certain to happen.

skep- I mentioned that Joe has two completely different issues mixed up in his mind. When he talks about Steinhardt's use of the term "fine-tuning", he thinks it is the supposed fine tuning of physical constants that leads to the conditions needed to form life in the universe. I tried to explain to him that this is not the same thing. It is actually the setting of starting conditions for cosmic expansion that would lead to a flat space-time.

I already apprised you of your error on that are you are to arrogant to listen. You are totally confused about what I said.you brought inflatiomn imto the anthropic arguent, youthojghtit wasansweringit,Iwas ayingwhy inflatioanry gtheory doen;t haveiktshit together yet. But aithappens fine tuningisa genrealapproach thkatworksinanynuer ofwayswith edifferentiues,

"In theoretical physics, fine-tuning is the process in which parameters of a model must be adjusted very precisely in order to agree with certain observations...Theories requiring fine-tuning are regarded as problematic in the absence of a known mechanism to explain why the parameters happen to have precisely the observed values that they return. The heuristic rule that parameters in a fundamental physical theory should not be too fine-tuned is called naturalness." (from Wili https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuning
they cite Grinbaum, Alexei (1 February 2012). "Which Fine-Tuning Arguments Are Fine?". Foundations of Physics. 42 (5): 615–631. Bibcode:2012FoPh...42..615G. arXiv:0903.4055 Freely accessible. doi:10.1007/s10701-012-9629-9.

Totally separate issue, but Joe doesn't grok that.

He thinks inflation theory is about the need to have a multiverse in order to byp

I know what it is I've reached it and written on it. you are so imperceptive you can't figure out that when Stienhardt quiets the project because they used fine tuning to get rid of fine tuning he knows what it means even if I don't so it still means they are contradicting themselves.

you are so imperceptive, so you not a thinker,

Joe doesn't grok the fact that inflation solves the problem of starting conditions, even it there is just one universe, and THAT's why it is favored - not because scientists are trying to get rid of God. Joe also doesn't grok that a multiverse just happens to be a predicted consequence of the very same quantum theory that is the source of cosmic inflation. You can see this confusion in his linked article "My answers on Multiverse". He just doesn't get what the real discussion is about (at least in scientific circles).

this pretentious little shallow non thinker loves to assign assign motives to people because he can't cut it on an intellectual level,

11/14/2017 08:37:00 AM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
JH: I just answered it again, you have never answered that argument,

Reinforcing my view that either you did not read them or did not understand them.

you never made an answer. Your argument never get around the fact that expanding the number just means you get ore fine tuning to deal with, so you can't get out of the original problem, every time you expand the needs for fine tuning do as well and the odds against life life jut go up more
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JH: Unless we know the rate at which life bearing is produced, just having a bunch of universes proves nothing.
This applies both to parallel universes and to planets of our own universe.

Again the demand for proof. How often do you demand your opponents give proof, whilst your own theory offers only hints and suggestions and maybes?

that is bull hit, you are playing a game, the fact of it is many people have made explicit models, Rees has gone deep into the math and so have all the others,Collins, de young, Linde, Davies. Those don't go away just because I'm not posting their very words,

If we have infinite universes we do not need to know the rate they are produced at. We just need to know the probability is greater than zero.

that i BS. look at the planets in our solar systems, one ha life,only one has life,most planets don't have life, you re also missing the argent I'm made that you don't have infatuate chances. You can't prove there;s a multiverse,.If there are antenatal universes you can't prove they are infinte,

In fact, it is the fine-tuning argument fort God that has top know the hit rate. If the hit rate is 22%, then it fails.

I don't understand that sentence it is strangely garbled. It is absurd to put that on the FTA because we've already proven that just hitting the constants in the fomentation that would allow life is so vastly agaist the odds it's ridiculous not to believe in God,
im-skeptical said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said…
I already apprised you of your error on that are you are to arrogant to listen. You are totally confused about what I said.you brought inflatiomn imto the anthropic arguent ...

- No, Joe. You brought it in. Let's look at what YOU said in your article:
Answer I. Have to know hit rate for life bearing universes.
Answer II.We can never know if other universes exist or not.
III. Multiverse Requires Fine Tunning

And this is the point where YOU introduce Steinhardt's objection to INFALTION theory. But this has NOTHING to do with that topic that you have been discussing all along. You don't understand what he's talking about. In fact you even quoted him later in the same article saying what the real problem is: Inflation was introduced to produce a universe that looks smooth and flat everywhere. Those are Steinhardt's words, but you ignore them, because you don't even know what he's saying. After all this discussion,you still don't.

IM: He thinks inflation theory is about the need to have a multiverse in order to byp...
JH: I know what it is I've reached it and written on it. you are so imperceptive you can't figure out that when Stienhardt quiets the project because they used fine tuning to get rid of fine tuning he knows what it means even if I don't so it still means they are contradicting themselves.

- Yes, you've written about it. And what you wrote is WRONG, because you don't understand what Steinhardt said. Read the second quote you provided from Steinhardt. His objection was not to the fine tuning that is the subject of your article. It has nothing to do with that. It is about the flatness problem - a completely different issue. It is the fact that the original big bang theory DOESN"T WORK. That's the reason for inflation theory. He said that himself. Read his words again.

Joe Hinman said…
JH: At this point we can bring in Platinga's Possible words argument. Is it possible that in one of those other universes there would be a God like the one Anselm speaks of? The answer as to be "yes." If not the atheist must show why not. ... And yet it is absurd to think that a necessary being would be limited to just one reality. God has to be God in all reality.

Great shifting of the burden of proof there. Is God possible? Well...

you have not dealt with the logic of the shift, you are so used to your atheist masters telling you that the theists have the burden of proof You never bothered to question it did you? One only has a burden to prove what one sets out to prove. I only set out to prove that I have a good reason to believe and I did that,

There is no sign of God in this universe

*Mystical experience and it effect
* the way religious experiencing fit the criteria of epistemic judgement
*the universality argent on mystical experience
*the overweening odds again life bearing universe
*Lourdes miracles
*feeling of utterdepnedence
*modal argument

I have 52 of them

Therefore it is not unreasonable to conclude God is not present in this universe.

when you see the power of God in your life and you know Jesus is real the it;s absurdly stupid to deny it. For those who have not see that I understand and why it see reasonable to deny it but there's so much there it's clear your attitude that keep from seeing,

If God exists in one universe he must be present in them all.
Therefore God does not exist in any universe.
Therefore the existence of God is an impossibility!

you have no evidence that he does';t exit here, when you are given evidence that he does you fight like hell to ignore it to the point refusing to even think about it,
im-skeptical said…
when you see the power of God in your life and you know Jesus is real the it;s absurdly stupid to deny it. For those who have not see that I understand and why it see reasonable to deny it but there's so much there it's clear your attitude that keep from seeing

- There's an easy solution to this problem, Joe. Get over you attitude, and then maybe you'll be able to see things more clearly.

Anonymous said…
JH: you never made an answer. Your argument never get around the fact that expanding the number just means you get ore fine tuning to deal with, so you can't get out of the original problem, every time you expand the needs for fine tuning do as well and the odds against life life jut go up more

This is exactly wrong. Think about it, Joe. If you have one chance to roll double six, what is the probability? Now suppose you get to try ten times... Do you think it is more or less likely you will get a double six at least one time.

Hopefully, you will realise that the more times you throw the dice, the more likely you are to get double six at some point.

It is just like that.
im-skeptical said…
Joe's "IV. Multivrese is Inverse of Gambler's fallacy" (from his linked article is an example of projecting stupidity on his opponents, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of their argument.
Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
Joe's "IV. Multivrese is Inverse of Gambler's fallacy" (from his linked article is an example of projecting stupidity on his opponents, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of their argument.

11/15/2017 07:36:00 AM Delete

show where I misunderstood an argument? but don't shift your positon to pretend thkat i did.
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
JH: you never made an answer. Your argument never get around the fact that expanding the number just means you get ore fine tuning to deal with, so you can't get out of the original problem, every time you expand the needs for fine tuning do as well and the odds against life life jut go up more

This is exactly wrong. Think about it, Joe. If you have one chance to roll double six, what is the probability? Now suppose you get to try ten times... Do you think it is more or less likely you will get a double six at least one time.

that does not help you because the odds are agaisnt you, normally if you get more tries it woudl go down but at the same time the task is made more difficult so it doen;t decrease the improbably,

Hopefully, you will realist that the more times you throw the dice, the more likely you are to get double six at some point.

I know that,I never denied that, you do not understand the reliance of my game to the issues.

in the game I describe the subsequent tries are handicapper by the same limitations cropping up again so the odds don't change,

It is just like that.

no your analogousness wrong, it;not just a simple roll there; a gauntlet of difficulties that are there for every through,
Joe Hinman said…
even if infinite chances eventually reveal life that;not enough to satisfy me. I'm basing my life on the chance that I could win the lottery,and in a world where mystical experience is good for you and changes your life dramatically for the odds of life bearing universe to be so improbable means good reason to think the game is fixed.
im-skeptical said…
show where I misunderstood an argument? but don't shift your positon to pretend thkat i did.

- Nobody but an idiot thinks that the odds improve for any individual outcome if you try again. The argument is that if there are more tries, the odds are improved that one of them will be successful. But this is not the way you presented it.
Joe Hinman said…
- Nobody but an idiot thinks that the odds improve for any individual outcome if you try again. The argument is that if there are more tries, the odds are improved that one of them will be successful. But this is not the way you presented it

yes it is. No one think otherwise only you are looking for an excuse to criticize,
Anonymous said…
JH: that does not help you because the odds are agaisnt you, normally if you get more tries it woudl go down but at the same time the task is made more difficult so it doen;t decrease the improbably,

That depends on how many tries and what the probability of each try is.

Here is this maths. Say that success has a probability of p for one try. The probability of failure for one try is therefore:

1 - p

The probability of failure for every try in n turns is:

(1 - p)^n

And then the probability of at least 1 success in n turns is:

1 - (1 - p)^n

We can just plug the numbers in. I am suggesting an infinite number of tries (n = infinity). What probability do you propose? Give a figure, and we can do a calculation.

By the way, whatever value of p where p is greater than zero will give a result of 1, so do not worry too much about what it actually is.

Pix
im-skeptical said…
IM: The argument is that if there are more tries, the odds are improved that one of them will be successful. But this is not the way you presented it.

JH: yes it is. No one think otherwise only you are looking for an excuse to criticize

- These are your own words. "Some people think that if you roll the dice repeatedly and don't get double sixes, then you are more likely to get double sixes on the next roll. They are victims of the notorious gambler's fallacy." So now the question arises: do you even understand what YOU have written? Pix has been trying to explain simple probability to you, and you don't seem to get it. I think this demonstrates my assertion that you are projecting stupidity.
BK said…
The problem is that Pix is wrong from the outset. He starts in the very first comment with "Given an infinite universe, such as the one we live in, even the extremely unlikely is certain to happen." No, we don't live in an actual infinite universe either in terms of size or time. We live in a universe of finite size which has been around for a finite number of years. So, all of the talk thereafter that supposes that we live in an infinite universe and that there is both time and space for anything to happen is simply false.
im-skeptical said…
I'm sure that he means the greater reality that spawns multiple universes. It is clear from his discussion that he's talking about multiple or an infinite number of universes. There is confusion in the term 'universe' because it is used to mean different things, including that greater reality. I think it would be better to use a word like 'superverse' to refer to whatever it is that is the progenitor of our universe (and possibly others as well).
Joe Hinman said…
JH: that does not help you because the odds are agaisnt you, normally if you get more tries it woudl go down but at the same time the task is made more difficult so it doen;t decrease the improbably,

Px
That depends on how many tries and what the probability of each try is.

Here is this maths. Say that success has a probability of p for one try. The probability of failure for one try is therefore:

you are till not doing the real math, you are pinning this off of my little example not the real data supplied by Linde Ree Davies and people like that,
you have not answered my argument about why you don't get initiate chances.
Joe Hinman said…
H: yes it is. No one think otherwise only you are looking for an excuse to criticize

- These are your own words. "Some people think that if you roll the dice repeatedly and don't get double sixes, then you are more likely to get double sixes on the next roll. They are victims of the notorious gambler's fallacy." So now the question arises: do you even understand what YOU have written? Pix has been trying to explain simple probability to you, and you don't seem to get it. I think this demonstrates my assertion that you are projecting stupidity.

you clearly don't get what is being said here, there is now ayany of ny argument could be construed to mean that I think the odds go up odds go up [the more you miss because its "time for it," That's the gambler's fallacy nothing I have said can be taken that way. That statement was taken from a section on y site where I explain the gambler's fallacy.

some Atheists used to argue the gambler' fallacy because they didn't understand fine tuning,

Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
I'm sure that he means the greater reality that spawns multiple universes. It is clear from his discussion that he's talking about multiple or an infinite number of universes. There is confusion in the term 'universe' because it is used to mean different things, including that greater reality. I think it would be better to use a word like 'superverse' to refer to whatever it is that is the progenitor of our universe (and possibly others as well).

I have already answered it, there is no empirical evidence for a multi veer,even if there was you can;t prove it's infinite and you can't prove the hit rate for life bearing universes,

you are contradicting your claim to being priciest, you have no evidence of an empirical nature against belief in God yet you want people to think you do,
Anonymous said…
BK: The problem is that Pix is wrong from the outset. He starts in the very first comment with "Given an infinite universe, such as the one we live in, even the extremely unlikely is certain to happen." No, we don't live in an actual infinite universe either in terms of size or time. We live in a universe of finite size which has been around for a finite number of years. So, all of the talk thereafter that supposes that we live in an infinite universe and that there is both time and space for anything to happen is simply false.

Just to be clear, I meant specifically infinite in space, not time.

So tell me, BK, what is you reason for thinking our universe is finite? I am sure NASA would love to know, as they seem unsure:
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/5-8/features/F_How_Big_is_Our_Universe.html

By the way, I do not need the universe to be infinite, I only need it to be possibly infinite to destroy Joe's argument. Fine-tuning does not prove God if there are other possibilities, and an infinite universe is definitely a possibility.

Even if the universe is finite, it could still be big enough to give sufficient "throws of the dice", depending on what the probabilities are - and no one knows what those probabilities are.

Furthermore, our universe could be one of an infinite number of universes.
Anonymous said…
JH: you are till not doing the real math, you are pinning this off of my little example not the real data supplied by Linde Ree Davies and people like that,
you have not answered my argument about why you don't get initiate chances.

Wrong. That was the real maths. It is the same whether we are talking about throwing two sixes or creating a universe "fine-tuned" for life. The only difference is the value of p.

Ironic that this post follows directly from one bemoaning the demise of expertise on the internet. You are doing exactly what JPH was complaining about!

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
So tell me, BK, what is you reason for thinking our universe is finite? I am sure NASA would love to know, as they seem unsure:
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/5-8/features/F_How_Big_is_Our_Universe.html

By the way, I do not need the universe to be infinite, I only need it to be possibly infinite to destroy Joe's argument. Fine-tuning does not prove God if there are other possibilities, and an infinite universe is definitely a possibility.

good old Px and his usual unaware self. what did I say about proving the existence of God? show me where I said I'm doing that? the mere possibility of infinite chance is not an argument. I can always suggest the possibility that I'm right,

Even if the universe is finite, it could still be big enough to give sufficient "throws of the dice", depending on what the probabilities are - and no one knows what those probabilities are.

you keep forgetting what we are arguing about, every new universe has to be fine tinned for bearing life,each new unwiser repeats the same odds.

try to liten this tine,
Anonymous said…
JH: good old Px and his usual unaware self. what did I say about proving the existence of God? show me where I said I'm doing that? the mere possibility of infinite chance is not an argument. I can always suggest the possibility that I'm right,

So when you said the following, you were not suggesting "the game is fixed" by an intelligent agent, i.e., God?

The argument says simply that the universe must be structured in very exact ways to produce life. It's so exacting as to be totally improbable. Because it's so improbable that gives us a good reason to think the game is fixed.

JH: you keep forgetting what we are arguing about, every new universe has to be fine tinned for bearing life,each new unwiser repeats the same odds.

Wow, you really have missed the point.

Universes spawn randomly. Each universe is different. Some just happen to have the conditions for life, but most do not. If the probability for life-bearing in 1 in a million, then one millionth of the universes will be life-bearing.

We necessarily will find ourselves in a life-bearing universe.

No fine-tuning, Joe.
im-skeptical said…
there is now ayany of ny argument could be construed to mean that I think the odds go up odds go up ... some Atheists used to argue the gambler' fallacy because they didn't understand fine tuning

- The problem is that you have a real reading comprehension issue. I didn't say that's what you believe. I said you are claiming that's what atheists believe, because you doesn't understand what atheists argue. And you just proved it again.

you keep forgetting what we are arguing about, every new universe has to be fine tinned for bearing life,each new unwiser repeats the same odds. ... try to liten this tine,

- You don't understand the argument, Joe. Only ONE universe has to support life. NOBODY ever said all universes in a multiverse must be capable of supporting life. That's the stupidest thing I ever heard.