Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jobar · 07-10-2002, 06:56 PM

Luvluv, you can believe in a God outside of all spacetime if you so choose. You can believe in a fine-tuned universe if you so choose.

Trouble is, there is no proof for your belief. You are putting all your trust and faith in what to us is one single hypothesis, among many, for the origin of the universe. Worse- in the end, what you are saying amounts to one big "DUH!" This God of yours is of necessity beyond all human power of comprehension- you actually define Him that way. THEN you go and attempt to pin all these particulars and attributes on this defined-to-be-undefineable... thing. No not even that; if God is outside of spacetime we cannot say if He is thing or no-thing!

And *that* is why your God is so ignored by scientists. There isn't even an *idea* really- just- "duh". If you would come right out and say that, espouse deism- there would be only minor differences in our views. But as long as you attempt to defend the Judaeo-Christian mythos all your arguments collapse boneless.

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]

Sakpo · 07-10-2002, 07:33 PM

luvluvluv,

Please type titles in for your links, don't just paste the address twice, as it messed up the formatting of the thread! Thanks!

When the pop up window comes up after pressing the URL button, paste the address into it the first time, type a title or something in the second time. Because addresses have no spaces in them, really long ones displayed as text in a post mess things up.

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Sakpo ]

HRG · 07-11-2002, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:

I think the point is that if the constants do not occur within the extremely fine-tuned parameters that we observe, selection has nothing but helium to work with. If any one of (by Ross's count) 26 parameters of the universe vary even slightly there is nothing around for selection at all.

There seems to be a common misunderstaning that those parameters (26 seems to be an exaggeration) are parameters of the universe. They are only parameters of our current description of the universe. A future theory could show that they all depend on one parameter, have to have fixed values etc.

Thus it is a red herring to talk about slight variations. I could write down our current model in terms of new parameters which could vary over orders of magnitude.

We have no idea about the "space of all possible universes" - much less about a probability distribution on it, which would be needed to define what a "slight variation" is.

Quote:

<snip>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not irrational to assume a creator. But it is unneccessary, which is what Hawkings also says. Why can't he take quotes in their full context?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's actually not what Hawkins says (at least in Ross's quote):

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1983 Stephen Hawking and James Hartle advanced the notion that since we cannot determine conditions in the universe before 10-43 seconds (or, 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001) after its origin, perhaps some unknown phenomenon in that speck of time might have disturbed the governance of general relativity.5 If so, space, time, matter, and energy might not have originated from a true singularity (beginning from an infinitely small volume). They went on to propose that just as the behavior of a hydrogen atom can be described by a quantum mechanical wave function, so might the behavior of the universe. If that is the case, they claimed, the universe could have just popped into existence out of absolutely nothing at what most would call the beginning of time.
This fanciful hypothesis provides the basis for Hawking’s widely quoted statement, "The universe would not be created, not be destroyed; it would simply be. What place, then, for a Creator?"6 It is the basis, too, for New Agers’ and atheists’ claims that according to science a personal Creator-God need not be the agency for the origin of the universe. To Hawking’s credit, he later admitted in A Brief History of Time that the whole idea is "just a proposal: it cannot be deduced from some other principle."7

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is, Hawkings is saying that if the laws of quantum mechanics actually broke down

Where does he talk about a breakdown of quantum theory (not mechanics) ? On the contrary, if he talks about a wave-function of the universe, then he assumes that QT holds everywhere.

Quote:

at the begining of the universe then there is no need for a God. Hawkings goes on to say, as the quote above attests, his theory about the breakdown of quantume laws is "just a proposal: it cannot be deduced from some other principle"

Which does not mean that it is false, as Ross seems to suggest

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only if you're thinking in terms of pre Einstein concepts of space and time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess he's not, since Hawking's own work confirms that time was created at the BB. If time, energy, and matter are created at the BB, they must have had an external cause.

Hawking says that time, energy and matter started at the BB. To say that they were created is Ross' unsupported addition.

regards,
HRG.

HRG · 07-11-2002, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
[QB]eh:

I'm finding this inflation stuff a little hard to follow. Ross did mention scalar fields in his book (though I don't remember him using the word inflation). I thought he said something about them being purely theoretical attempts to get around the limitations of quantum mechanics and that there was no evidence that they existed.

Sorry, that's like saying that quantum theory id a "purely theoretical attempt to get around the limitation of classical mechanics".

First, inflation is a theory within the general framework of quantum (field) theory.

Second, inflation seems to explain some observations better than other hypotheses. How can Ross say that there is no evidence for the inflaton ?
[/quote]

This might also be a stupid question but if the we are supposed to imagine that the universe is the skin on the outside of an expaning balloon, then how is space-time "flat". Wouldn't space time be round if this were the case? (Be gentle with me, I was a film major).

[/QUOTE]

Think topology

"Flatness" refers to the curvature of space-time, which is a local property (it is defined at every point). The balloon analogy (and it is a weak analogy) tries to explain how the universe can be at the same time finite and unbounded - which is a global property.

Of course, there are deep and beautiful mathematical theory which link (local) curvature to the overall (global) "shape" of space-time. But flatness (except for the occasional star or black-hole), unboundedness and finiteness are perfectly compatible - just not with the shape of a balloon.

Regards,
HRG.

beausoleil · 07-11-2002, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
I would like to see the fine tuning supporters qualify their assertion that a slightly different universe would not support life. It just seems to be taken as given.

For instance, as I mentioned above, the existence of any planet like earth anywhere requires the presence of elements more massive then helium. In ou universe, these were produced in stars since the big bang.

The process proceeds in a fairly complicated series of steps, but the first is the 'triple alpha' process. Three helium-4 nuclei combine to produce carbon-12. For energetic reasons, it can't happen by producing Be-8 first, so 3 helium-4 nuclei have to 'collide' at the same time. This is a very unlilkely event - all the other element-producing events are 2-body collisions. In fact, it would not produce significant carbon-12 if there were not a resonance in the carbon-12 nucleus at exactly the right energy to allow the collison have a significant chance of producing carbon-12.

Interesting, perhaps, that Fred Hoyle predicted the presence of the resonance from the observation that the universe could support life.

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: beausoleil ]

beausoleil · 07-11-2002, 01:43 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vorkosigan:

You seem to have mis-read it. The argument rests on what it would look like if it were observed. Perhaps I should have been clearer --assuming an observer like us, any universe with natural laws and selection processes would appear fine-tuned. The argument applies independently of the existence of an observer.

Fallacy was a bit strong - there I go again! - but it doesn't work as a criticism of anthropic arguments. The anthropic principle is about what the universe must be like to allow the existence of observers and how likely it is that any universe would have those properties. So saying the universe would look fine-tuned if there weren't observers isn't really to the point - what makes a universe interesting from the anthropic point of view is the existence of observers.

The universe has properties that allow observers to exist. Any universe with observers has properties that allow observers to exist. Other universes do not. The assertion is that, in an ensemble of universes, properties that allow observers to exist are rare. So the existence of one with those properties suggests there is an ensemble, or that our assumption that natural laws can vary from universe to universe is flawed. I think the latter notion causes a lot of problems if one examines it closely.

Yes, that is the fundamental problem that LinuxPup and Luv have dodged during their time here. Since every object in the universe is the unique result of these parameters, how do they know that life was goal, and not some other object in the universe?

As a scientist, I'd like to maintain the distinction between noticing that the universe can support life and that this appears to be quite an unlikely outcome, and asserting that life was somehow the cause or purpose of the universe. Anthropic arguments are not teleological in themselves.

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: beausoleil ]

Vorkosigan · 07-11-2002, 04:23 AM

- what makes a universe interesting from the anthropic point of view is the existence of observers.

Nowhere in there do I say that said observers must have been part of the universe. Only that universes running on natural selection and constraints, if observed, will appear Fine Tuned.

beausoleil · 07-11-2002, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
 - what makes a universe interesting from the anthropic point of view is the existence of observers.

Nowhere in there do I say that said observers must have been part of the universe. Only that universes running on natural selection and constraints, if observed, will appear Fine Tuned.

Exactly, but you're criticising the anthropic argument which is based on the existence of observers, not on the appearance of fine tuning.

funnyguy · 07-11-2002, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
I would like to see the fine tuning supporters qualify their assertion that a slightly different universe would not support life. It just seems to be taken as given.

If Earths gravity was greater for example, or the temperature hotter, or the winters far longer, or something like that, life would still have evolved. Its not as fragile as all that.

Even if the planet earth never even existed, there only needs to be some planet, somewhere in the whole universe that can support life and the FT argument is invalidated. I can envisage the universe in a whole variety of very different forms that still support life somewhere.

You would need to have a very different universe, not just slightly different, before life is prevented.

The term "fine tuning" is probably misleading. As Vorkosigan has stated, any universe would look fine-tuned for something or other. The point would be that life as we know it could not exist if the universe had slightly different values for the fundamental physical constants than it actually has. That is not a philopsophical idea, it is a relatively uncontested physical observation. It is easy to find a book a book that discusses the details. (Example: "Just Six Numbers" --- available at amazon.com) Not many people argue with the physics. It is the "theological" implications of this fact that are controversial.

I think that most "naturalists" lean towards the multi-universe theory. But even that takes us into the "supra-natural" existence of things outside of our own universe.

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: funnyguy ]

eh · 07-11-2002, 01:43 PM

Quoting our luvable theist friend:

eh

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I don't think a steady state universe proposes a planet earth that has existed for an infinite amount of time, so what's the point? A steady state just deals with the universe as a whole.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I think the steady-state argument went that given an infinite universe it is not improbable for life to eventually exist somewhere. The process is a bit more daunting within a 14 billion year time frame. I think the steady-state guys were arguing that probablity favored the existence of life somewhere if the universe was infinite, so why not earth?

With the increase in our knowledge over the years, such an argument is not needed. A universe with trillions and trillions of stars is enough. As such the big bang didn't do any damage to life on earth.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How so? Have a look at the defintion for magic and compare it to the description of God creating the universe. What is the big difference?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, just because God may have created the universe through processes we don't understand does not mean that it is "magical". As has been said before any being that exhibits scientific appliances far in excess of his observers will appear to be working magic. [sniped]

[/b]

I'm not calling it magic because we don't understand how God could have created the universe. It's magic by defintion. That is, the claim that God is supernatural, non physical, and outside of spacetime leaves no difference between that concept and magic.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not irrational to assume a creator. But it is unneccessary, which is what Hawkings also says. Why can't he take quotes in their full context?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's actually not what Hawkins says (at least in Ross's quote):

[sniped, we all saw it]

Of course that was just a quote from Ross. Nothing relevant there from Hawking.
[b]
quote:

I guess he's not, since Hawking's own work confirms that time was created at the BB. If time, energy, and matter are created at the BB, they must have had an external cause.

What did I just tell you?

07-10-2002, 06:56 PM	#41
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Luvluv, you can believe in a God outside of all spacetime if you so choose. You can believe in a fine-tuned universe if you so choose. Trouble is, there is no proof for your belief. You are putting all your trust and faith in what to us is one single hypothesis, among many, for the origin of the universe. Worse- in the end, what you are saying amounts to one big "DUH!" This God of yours is of necessity beyond all human power of comprehension- you actually define Him that way. THEN you go and attempt to pin all these particulars and attributes on this defined-to-be-undefineable... thing. No not even that; if God is outside of spacetime we cannot say if He is thing or no-thing! And that is why your God is so ignored by scientists. There isn't even an idea really- just- "duh". If you would come right out and say that, espouse deism- there would be only minor differences in our views. But as long as you attempt to defend the Judaeo-Christian mythos all your arguments collapse boneless. [ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

07-10-2002, 07:33 PM	#42
Sakpo Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Pacific Northwest (illegally occupied indigenous l Posts: 7,716	luvluvluv, Please type titles in for your links, don't just paste the address twice, as it messed up the formatting of the thread! Thanks! When the pop up window comes up after pressing the URL button, paste the address into it the first time, type a title or something in the second time. Because addresses have no spaces in them, really long ones displayed as text in a post mess things up. [ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Sakpo ]</p>

07-11-2002, 01:43 AM	#46
beausoleil Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: US and UK Posts: 846	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vorkosigan: You seem to have mis-read it. The argument rests on what it would look like if it were observed. Perhaps I should have been clearer --assuming an observer like us, any universe with natural laws and selection processes would appear fine-tuned. The argument applies independently of the existence of an observer. Fallacy was a bit strong - there I go again! - but it doesn't work as a criticism of anthropic arguments. The anthropic principle is about what the universe must be like to allow the existence of observers and how likely it is that any universe would have those properties. So saying the universe would look fine-tuned if there weren't observers isn't really to the point - what makes a universe interesting from the anthropic point of view is the existence of observers. The universe has properties that allow observers to exist. Any universe with observers has properties that allow observers to exist. Other universes do not. The assertion is that, in an ensemble of universes, properties that allow observers to exist are rare. So the existence of one with those properties suggests there is an ensemble, or that our assumption that natural laws can vary from universe to universe is flawed. I think the latter notion causes a lot of problems if one examines it closely. Yes, that is the fundamental problem that LinuxPup and Luv have dodged during their time here. Since every object in the universe is the unique result of these parameters, how do they know that life was goal, and not some other object in the universe? As a scientist, I'd like to maintain the distinction between noticing that the universe can support life and that this appears to be quite an unlikely outcome, and asserting that life was somehow the cause or purpose of the universe. Anthropic arguments are not teleological in themselves. [ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: beausoleil ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-11-2002, 04:23 AM	#47
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	- what makes a universe interesting from the anthropic point of view is the existence of observers. Nowhere in there do I say that said observers must have been part of the universe. Only that universes running on natural selection and constraints, if observed, will appear Fine Tuned.

07-11-2002, 01:43 PM	#50
eh Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Canada Posts: 624	Quoting our luvable theist friend: eh quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well I don't think a steady state universe proposes a planet earth that has existed for an infinite amount of time, so what's the point? A steady state just deals with the universe as a whole. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, I think the steady-state argument went that given an infinite universe it is not improbable for life to eventually exist somewhere. The process is a bit more daunting within a 14 billion year time frame. I think the steady-state guys were arguing that probablity favored the existence of life somewhere if the universe was infinite, so why not earth? With the increase in our knowledge over the years, such an argument is not needed. A universe with trillions and trillions of stars is enough. As such the big bang didn't do any damage to life on earth. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How so? Have a look at the defintion for magic and compare it to the description of God creating the universe. What is the big difference? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, just because God may have created the universe through processes we don't understand does not mean that it is "magical". As has been said before any being that exhibits scientific appliances far in excess of his observers will appear to be working magic. [sniped] [/b] I'm not calling it magic because we don't understand how God could have created the universe. It's magic by defintion. That is, the claim that God is supernatural, non physical, and outside of spacetime leaves no difference between that concept and magic. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's not irrational to assume a creator. But it is unneccessary, which is what Hawkings also says. Why can't he take quotes in their full context? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's actually not what Hawkins says (at least in Ross's quote): [sniped, we all saw it] Of course that was just a quote from Ross. Nothing relevant there from Hawking. [b] quote: I guess he's not, since Hawking's own work confirms that time was created at the BB. If time, energy, and matter are created at the BB, they must have had an external cause. What did I just tell you?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.