Pevaquark Doesn't Like Fine Tuning Apologetics and Neither Should You

[EricH (Eric Hatfield)]

@T_aquaticus

Which of those scientists has determined the number of universes that exist?

I’m sorry, but I think you misunderstand. None of those quotes are based on a number of universes actually existing. They are all based on analysis of this universe, it’s laws and the theoretical ranges the various parameters might take.

In trying to explain their conclusions about the improbability of our universe having the values it does if the values were chosen by chance, they look for explanations other than chance. The favoured explanation is the multiverse, and some cosmologists (I think Stephen Hawking was the main one here, but I might be wrong) have calculated a possible number of universes in the multiverse, but that calculation has little to do with the quotes and the idea of scientific fine-tuning.

I am going to stop responding to further comments here, I’m sorry. I think you need to read a little more from the actual experts to understand what they are actually saying, because, despite the references I have given, the quotes, my rather abbreviated and clearly not very clear or expert explanations, I think your comments are responding to something neither they nor I am saying. Obviously what I am saying is not making any impression, and further discussion will only become frustrating for both of us, and a waste of time. There is no point my continually repeating ideas that are not being understood. Thanks for your patience and grace in this.

[GJDS]

The fact is that there is not a shred of data of other universes and all scientists know this. The constants have also been scrutinised and measured to an enormous extent because of their importance to conducting science.

Arguments simply try to obfuscate and avoid the obvious inference (for theists we are examining the creation, and for non-theists, chance is a no starter), and that is the Universe cannot be understood without conducting science — meaning the constants are set.

[pevaquark (Matthew Pevarnik)]

@GJDS

The fact is that there is not a shred of data of other universes and all scientists know this.

That’s news to me though perhaps you mean something different by ‘not a shred’ than what it means to me. But in the spirit of quoting Cosmologists:

“It’s hard to build models of inflation that don’t lead to a multiverse,” Alan Guth, an MIT theoretical physicist unaffiliated with the new study, said during a news conference (in 2014). “It’s not impossible, so I think there’s still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously.”

There’s a big debate currently over inflation (which has some evidence) and by association some kind of multiverse (and thus I couldn’t say there’s not a shred of data of such but it is highly tentative for the time being). Scientific American covered it some last year: A Cosmic Controversy - Scientific American Blog Network

[GJDS]

@pevaquark

perhaps you mean something different by ‘not a shred’ than what it means to me

Maybe I am old fashioned (or not up to speculation) Mathew, so yes, I mean measured reproducible data that show us another Universe.

I have done my share of speculation, especially in my younger days (so long ago? ) but I think some in my discipline took a harder line that I do here.

The article you linked to argues for inflation and states,

" …… starting with the results of the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite in 1992, numerous experiments have confirmed that these predictions (along with several others too technical to discuss here) accurately describe our universe. "

Note these are for our universe - multi-universes are speculative and have not been tested. I think in a way you may unintentionally make my point. The models seem to be many and there is a great deal of debate - I cannot imagine a universe outside ours that any physicists has examined. As far as I can see, all data is from our universe and no other.

[Totti (Luca)]

@T_aquaticus

Which of those scientists has determined the number of universes that exist?

Hey aquaticus!
Are you implying that they cant make probability statements because they dont know how many universes there are?

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@MarkD

On the basis that we don’t know whether or not there are or have been other singularity expansions such as has been postulated as the origin of the known universe.

That is a fine example of argument from ignorance or No-God of the Gaps.

It seems to me that you and Matthew @pevaquark are using scientific thinking when you find it convenient, and rejecting scientific thinking when it is inconvenient. THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

@MarkD

For that, you would have to know that the singularity postulated for the known universe is the only one there is or ever was. But we don’t know that.

Relates:

No we do know that just like we do not know if there will be tomorrow. That is what all of life including science is based on faith that reality is real and consistent. In other words what you see is what you get.

We only see one universe. When we see others, then and only then we will know that they exist.

@MarkD

It just means they do not think the clever use of science can force God’s hand in showing Himself. I appreciate the intellectual humility most people here demonstrate in that regard.

Psalm 19:1-4 (NIV2011)
1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge.
3 They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them.

It is good when good science and David are in agreement. God shows Godself in Truth.

When people based their knowledge on what the evidence indicates is true, that is humility When people base their knowledge on facts not in evidence, but speculation, that is arrogance.

@MarkD

but for the rest of us it is a false dilemma.

The false dilemma being having to decide between the Beginning or Multiverse. Presumably that is a false dilemma because you want to have your cake and eat it too. You think that Truth does not have to based on the facts as best we know it, but everyone can have their own version of the truth.

@MarkD

If you think everything was always there in potentia, then you don’t think all was null and void either; because you think God and all he is capable of was always there.

You are think about God and the universe as an idea, which is not science, nor is it Christianity. What we are talking about is the universe as matter/energy, and since no matter/energy means no time/space, that too based on our understanding of science. God is not matter/energy, nor is God dependent on time and space.

God is not dependent on the universe. The universe is dependent on God.

@MarkD

Since we don’t know that the universe we can see is all there is, we cannot in good conscience say there was nothing before the big bang.

I would not put it this way. What we know is there is nothing beyond this universe, unless one counts God Who is not a thing, but the Source of the universe. So we can say in good conscience that the universe is all there is. There is nothing beyond it boundaries, which are not physical. This is not the result of speculation, but the facts as best we know them.

[T_aquaticus]

@Totti

Are you implying that they cant make probability statements because they dont know how many universes there are?

Can you calculate the probability that someone will win the lottery without knowing how many tickets have been sold?

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@Relates

For that, you would have to know that the singularity postulated for the known universe is the only one there is or ever was. But we don’t know that.

Relates:

No we do know that just like we do not know if there will be tomorrow. That is what all of life including science is based on faith that reality is real and consistent. In other words what you see is what you get.

We only see one universe. When we see others, then and only then we will know that they exist.

MarkD:

Well you seem ready enough to assume on faith what it pleases you to think while being quick to accuse those who think otherwise of picking and choosing to use scientific thinking only when we find it convenient. That is neither consistent nor particularly gracious.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@MarkD

Well you seem ready enough to assume on faith what it pleases you to think while being quick to accuse those who think otherwise of picking and choosing to use scientific thinking only when we find it convenient. That is neither consistent nor particularly gracious.

Science and faith are complementary, not dualistic. We need to use Science, Theology, and Philosophy to best and most fully understand the universe in which we live. It is not faith or science, but faith and science which need to work together, which is why BioLogos exists.

Faith has its rules of evidence that need to be followed using logic, just as science has its rules that need to be followed using logic for it to work properly.

[pevaquark (Matthew Pevarnik)]

@Totti

Are you implying that they cant make probability statements because they dont know how many universes there are?

To go further on @T_aquaticus’ lottery example:

@T_aquaticus

Can you calculate the probability that someone will win the lottery without knowing how many tickets have been sold?

There are multiple reasons that we can’t make probability statements:

1. We don’t know what possible values the constants of nature can take (note: we can do parameter space scans where we vary them and see if stars are still stable or something like that but the boundaries on such scans are entirely arbitrary as discussed extensively above)
2. We don’t know what the odds of getting each value with some boundary
3. We don’t know how many universe’s are playing this cosmic ‘lottery’

Compared to the actual lottery

1. We know what possible combinations can be made. For the powerball, there are 292,000,000 possible combinations.
2. Interestingly enough, not all combinations are created equal. People tend to choose the same numbers (i.e. their ‘lucky’ numbers which often tend to overlap with loads of other people) but let’s just pretend all combinations are created equal
3. We can then calculate (let’s say 100,000,000 play) and then we calculate the odds of anyone winning at: 1-(291,999,999/292,000,000)^100,000,000=29.0%. If there are 292,000,000 players the odds of one of them winning increases to 63.2%. To calculate this probability we knew all the possible combinations and the total number of players- for our universe we know neither and all probability calculations must make up both numbers (i.e. like with Smolin’s calculation I’ve explained several times above as well).