Might be worth you reading "The Fallacy of Fine-tuning" by
Victor Stenger
I recall that name...the physicist right?
FINALLY! Can you prove God exists? If you can I won't ask again!
by punkofnice 544 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
PSacramento
-
PSacramento
A hypothetical universe in which gravity was stronger, the masses of the fundamental particles smaller and electomagnetic force weaker may well result in the following: a universe that appears a little different to our own, but is still capable of producing long-lived stars and heavy chemical elements, the basic requirements for complex life.
Hmmm, I recall reading that part and I don't know if I agree.
If gravity was more then the universe would not have expanded and it would have imploded, if it was less then matter would be be "thrown"
around and the rate of expansion would be to fast no?I mean, sure we can hypothesis that another form of life, indeed another type of universe, would possibly been able to exist, but we don't know that for sure do we?
-
PSacramento
The fine tuning argument is an interesting one of course BUT it is a limited one.
It is quite possible for a universe to exist with different values and constant and have a different type of life.
I think the fine tuning argument can be used to "justify" the TYPE of life our universe can sustain and the type of universe we have, not sure what we can use it beyond that.
-
cantleave
Nice line of reasoning in this video.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rt-UIfkcgPY#!
-
PSacramento
I think that the life we have is the life we have because it has adapoted to this environment with that values that our universe has.
If our universe had different values, life, if there was any, would probably be "fine tuned" for those values, as we are "fine tuned" for Ours.
I think it is a matter of perception:
Is the universe fine tuned for Us or are we fine tuned for it?
That there universe can be so mathematically precises is amazing BUT is it mathematically precise because it IS that way or is our math precise for the universe we live in ?
-
EntirelyPossible
If the makings of the masses of the universe were not' fine tuned" there would be 100% nothing for life here on earth.
On what basis of math do you make that statement?
How are we to know that all forms life in an ideal world were meant to exist forever ?
I don't think anyone here is arguing any of that.
If gravity was more then the universe would not have expanded and it would have imploded, if it was less then matter would be be "thrown"
around and the rate of expansion would be to fast no?Maybe, maybe not.
-
bohm
Caliber: i am interested in the source of this quote: Stephen Hawkins concludes: "The odds against the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications.".
google only turn up the same blurb you copy-pasted without attribution on various message boards.
-
THE GLADIATOR
PSacramento "I think that the life we have is the life we have because it has adapoted to this environment with that values that our universe has.
If our universe had different values, life, if there was any, would probably be "fine tuned" for those values, as we are "fine tuned" for Ours.
I think it is a matter of perception:
Is the universe fine tuned for Us or are we fine tuned for it?
That there universe can be so mathematically precises is amazing BUT is it mathematically precise because it IS that way or is our math precise for the universe we live in ?"
This could be your most insightful post ever.
-
cantleave
Bohm I am sure you already know this. Calibre has taken a well repeated Quote Mine .
The reference for this claim is page 126 in Hawking’s A Brief History of Time (1996 edition) and the relevant quote from Hawking is:
If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, they universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size
Although this sounds like Hawking is accepting that the expansion rate of the universe is fine-tuned, in fatc this quote is taken out of context. Hawking is asking a couple of rhetorical questions to set the scene that he later answers with, among others things, cosmological inflation. Hawking explains what he means (p. 133):
Moreover, the rate of expansion of the universe would automatically become very close to the critical rate determined by the energy density of the universe. This could then explain why the rate of expansion is still so close to the critical rate, without having to assume that the initial rate of expansion of the universe was very carefully chosen.
Cosmological inflation solves the supposed fine-tuning of the expansion rate of the universe. Hawking is then saying the exact opposite of what the proponents of fine-tuning claim that he is.
-
PSacramento
I think the tricky part about refuting the fine tuning argument is IF an actual universe could come to be if the values were different.
Maybe, maybe not, for sure it would be very different.
An article on the inflation of the universe: