I occasionally visit Letters to Nature, which is a blog that Brendan used to contribute to, now just Luke Barnes. It has a link to:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/bad-news-for-the-multiverse-it-s-still-not-likely-20180513-p4zf1o.html
which I don’t understand.

The usual argument presented by LB is that the Universe seems to be fine tuned, which is very unlikely, so there must be something else going on.

One alternative explanation is that there are an infinite number of universes, so a “fine tuned” one is not unlikely at all.

The link talks about statistical analyses by LB which claims to show that the Universe is not actually fine tuned, so the multiverse hypothesis is not necessary, but as far as I can see he still argues that the Universe is fine tuned as evidence that there must be a god.

Am looking missing something here?

The Rev Dodgson said:

I occasionally visit Letters to Nature, which is a blog that Brendan used to contribute to, now just Luke Barnes. It has a link to:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/bad-news-for-the-multiverse-it-s-still-not-likely-20180513-p4zf1o.html
which I don’t understand.

The usual argument presented by LB is that the Universe seems to be fine tuned, which is very unlikely, so there must be something else going on.

One alternative explanation is that there are an infinite number of universes, so a “fine tuned” one is not unlikely at all.

The link talks about statistical analyses by LB which claims to show that the Universe is not actually fine tuned, so the multiverse hypothesis is not necessary, but as far as I can see he still argues that the Universe is fine tuned as evidence that there must be a god.

Am looking missing something here?

What if there are an infinite number of Gods?

Why does a finely tuned universe need a God?

Maybe you need to write a letter to LB?

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I occasionally visit Letters to Nature, which is a blog that Brendan used to contribute to, now just Luke Barnes. It has a link to:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/bad-news-for-the-multiverse-it-s-still-not-likely-20180513-p4zf1o.html
which I don’t understand.

The usual argument presented by LB is that the Universe seems to be fine tuned, which is very unlikely, so there must be something else going on.

One alternative explanation is that there are an infinite number of universes, so a “fine tuned” one is not unlikely at all.

The link talks about statistical analyses by LB which claims to show that the Universe is not actually fine tuned, so the multiverse hypothesis is not necessary, but as far as I can see he still argues that the Universe is fine tuned as evidence that there must be a god.

Am looking missing something here?

What if there are an infinite number of Gods?

Why does a finely tuned universe need a God?

Maybe you need to write a letter to LB?

Maybe the mathematics to describe God is missing?

> the Universe is not actually fine tuned

Will read article in a moment. My understanding is that results from about five or ten years ago are that the universe does not need to be as fine tuned as previously thought in order to satisfy the weak anthropic principle.

That doesn’t mean that the universe isn’t fine tuned, just that the tuning isn’t as fine.

On the other hand, last I heard, billions of simulations using string theory had failed to find a universe that is fine tuned enough.

I wonder, given that we now know from the Higgs mass that the universe is metastable with a long lifetime. Suppose we use long-lifetime-metastability as a constraint and only consider those universes. How would that affect the level of fine tuning needed for the weak anthropic principle?

From link in OP.

> There are a whole lot of properties – like say how heavy an electron is – we don’t know why they are that weight. And if you change them, even slightly, the universe becomes too simple to make life. Imagine gravity is on a dial that ranges from one to 100. It needs to be tuned right to make atoms compress into stars. Without stars, there are no planets, and without planets there is no life. The odds of our universe being so perfect are too low

Yep.

> if we exist in a multiverse containing all possible universes

Whoa. Don’t need all.

> scientists like Dr Barnes are trying to find ways of estimating the probability of the existence of a multiverse.

Isn’t that back to front? Assuming the existence of a multiverse, find the probability of the universe?

> Return to the idea of gravity as a dial that can range between one and 100. According to the mathematical model, multiverses with one “setting” will be more likely than those with another setting.

How does he calculate “more likely”? I’m not saying it can’t be done, just saying that I’d like more information about the method. Off the top of my head I can think of at least three and possibly four different methods. One would be string theory compactification. A second would be evolutionary, with a strictly reducing vacuum energy at each step. A third would be satisfying constraints such as long duration metastability. A possible fourth, and I don’t know how to do this, would be a random walk through a quantum multiverse.

> Then you can check the strength of gravity in our universe. If the model deems it likely, it adds weight to the possibility of the existence of a multiverse. If the model deems it unlikely, it suggests something else altogether is going on.

I’m tempted to say no. What he’s really doing is testing the assumpions by which he assigned “more likely” above.

> It was thought you needed a small amount of dark energy in the universe to allow stars to form. The fact we had about the right amount was considered good evidence for the multiverse. … We turned it up to 300 and still did not kill the universe. We tried, but we still did not see that star obliterating universe. The team found nearly every setting from 1 to 300 could support life.

That’s a very interesting result. Dark energy is not nearly as fine tuned as had been thought.

Although it’s a very interesting result, it doesn’t really tell us anything about the existance of a multiverse. It only tells us that the universe isn’t as unique as we thought.

Let me think a little deeper about this. About the nature of dark energy. The cosmological constant has value … what is the value of the cosmological constant? Lambda is Λ = 2.036 × 10^−35 s^−2 . Not a nice value like 1. OK.

Spotted in ArXiv.

Review of Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes, A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.09509
Authors: Yann Benétreau-Dupin

Abstract: This new book by cosmologists Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes is another entry in the long list of cosmology-centered physics books intended for a large audience. While many such books aim at advancing a novel scientific theory, A Fortunate Universe has no such scientific pretense. Its goals are to assert that the universe is fine-tuned for life, to defend that this fact can reasonably motivate further scientific inquiry as to why it is so, and to show that the multiverse and intelligent design hypotheses are reasonable proposals to explain this fine-tuning. This book’s potential contribution, therefore, lies in how convincingly and efficiently it can make that case.

Defending The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4359
Authors: Victor J. Stenger

Abstract: In 2011, I published a popular-level book, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed for Us. It investigated a common claim found in contemporary religious literature that the parameters of physics and cosmology are so delicately balanced, so “fine-tuned,” that any slight change and life in the universe would have been impossible. I concluded that while the precise form of life we find on Earth would not exist with slight changes in these parameters, some form of life could have evolved over a parameter range that is not infinitesimal, as often claimed. Postdoctoral fellow Luke Barnes has written a lengthy, highly technical review of the scientific literature on the fine-tuning problem. I have no significant disagreement with that literature and no prominent physicist or cosmologist has disputed my basic conclusions. Barnes does not invalidate these conclusions and misunderstands and misrepresents much of what is in the book.

If we don’t exactly know everything that makes up the universe then fine tuning might be moot as the unknown could be what makes our universe stable and you could have a wide range of values and it still works

mollwollfumble said:

Spotted in ArXiv.

Review of Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes, A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.09509
Authors: Yann Benétreau-Dupin

Abstract: This new book by cosmologists Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes is another entry in the long list of cosmology-centered physics books intended for a large audience. While many such books aim at advancing a novel scientific theory, A Fortunate Universe has no such scientific pretense. Its goals are to assert that the universe is fine-tuned for life, to defend that this fact can reasonably motivate further scientific inquiry as to why it is so, and to show that the multiverse and intelligent design hypotheses are reasonable proposals to explain this fine-tuning. This book’s potential contribution, therefore, lies in how convincingly and efficiently it can make that case.

Defending The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4359
Authors: Victor J. Stenger

Abstract: In 2011, I published a popular-level book, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed for Us. It investigated a common claim found in contemporary religious literature that the parameters of physics and cosmology are so delicately balanced, so “fine-tuned,” that any slight change and life in the universe would have been impossible. I concluded that while the precise form of life we find on Earth would not exist with slight changes in these parameters, some form of life could have evolved over a parameter range that is not infinitesimal, as often claimed. Postdoctoral fellow Luke Barnes has written a lengthy, highly technical review of the scientific literature on the fine-tuning problem. I have no significant disagreement with that literature and no prominent physicist or cosmologist has disputed my basic conclusions. Barnes does not invalidate these conclusions and misunderstands and misrepresents much of what is in the book.

Yeah there was some thing some bible thumpers used that our orbit was so precise that if it was out by 10 kms either way we’d freeze or burn and god made it that way

This paper from 2004 is interesting. It renews my belief in supersymmetry – a bit.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0405159.pdf

Supersymmetric Unification Without Low Energy Supersymmetry And Signatures for Fine-Tuning at the LHC

The cosmological constant problem is a failure of naturalness and suggests that a fine-tuning mechanism is at work, which may also address the hierarchy problem. An example – supported by Weinberg’s successful prediction of the cosmological constant – is the potentially vast landscape of vacuum string theory, where the existence of galaxies and atoms is promoted to a vacuum selection criterion.

Then, low energy SUSY becomes unnecessary, and supersymmetry – if present in the fundamental theory – can be broken near the unification scale. All the scalars of the supersymmetric standard model become ultraheavy, except for a single finely tuned Higgs.Yet, the fermions of the supersymmetric standard model can remain light,protected by chiral symmetry, and account for the successful unification of gauge couplings. This framework removes all the difficulties of the SSM: the absence of a light Higgs and sparticles, dimension five proton decay, SUSY flavor and CP problems, and the cosmological gravitino and moduli problems.

Then there’s this one from 1994.

“Large Scale Structure and Supersymmetric Inflation Without Fine Tuning”

We present a new class of inflationary models based on realistic supersymmetric grand unified theories which do not have the usual ‘fine tuning’ problems. The amplitude of primordial density fluctuations is reminiscent of cosmic strings.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I occasionally visit Letters to Nature, which is a blog that Brendan used to contribute to, now just Luke Barnes. It has a link to:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/bad-news-for-the-multiverse-it-s-still-not-likely-20180513-p4zf1o.html
which I don’t understand.

The usual argument presented by LB is that the Universe seems to be fine tuned, which is very unlikely, so there must be something else going on.

One alternative explanation is that there are an infinite number of universes, so a “fine tuned” one is not unlikely at all.

The link talks about statistical analyses by LB which claims to show that the Universe is not actually fine tuned, so the multiverse hypothesis is not necessary, but as far as I can see he still argues that the Universe is fine tuned as evidence that there must be a god.

Am looking missing something here?

What if there are an infinite number of Gods?

Why does a finely tuned universe need a God?

Maybe you need to write a letter to LB?

1. Good question :)
2. It doesn’t, but some people think it does.
3. I’m not sure that would serve any useful purpose :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I occasionally visit Letters to Nature, which is a blog that Brendan used to contribute to, now just Luke Barnes. It has a link to:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/bad-news-for-the-multiverse-it-s-still-not-likely-20180513-p4zf1o.html
which I don’t understand.

The usual argument presented by LB is that the Universe seems to be fine tuned, which is very unlikely, so there must be something else going on.

One alternative explanation is that there are an infinite number of universes, so a “fine tuned” one is not unlikely at all.

The link talks about statistical analyses by LB which claims to show that the Universe is not actually fine tuned, so the multiverse hypothesis is not necessary, but as far as I can see he still argues that the Universe is fine tuned as evidence that there must be a god.

Am looking missing something here?

What if there are an infinite number of Gods?

Why does a finely tuned universe need a God?

Maybe you need to write a letter to LB?

1. Good question :)
2. It doesn’t, but some people think it does.
3. I’m not sure that would serve any useful purpose :)

If we have numerous failed multiverses and god then it kind of says it’s fallible for not getting it correct the first time

mollwollfumble said:

From link in OP.

> There are a whole lot of properties – like say how heavy an electron is – we don’t know why they are that weight. And if you change them, even slightly, the universe becomes too simple to make life. Imagine gravity is on a dial that ranges from one to 100. It needs to be tuned right to make atoms compress into stars. Without stars, there are no planets, and without planets there is no life. The odds of our universe being so perfect are too low

Yep.

> if we exist in a multiverse containing all possible universes

Whoa. Don’t need all.

Agreed
mollwollfumble said:

> scientists like Dr Barnes are trying to find ways of estimating the probability of the existence of a multiverse.

Isn’t that back to front? Assuming the existence of a multiverse, find the probability of the universe?

Given the WAP and an infinite (or sufficiently large) number of universes, doesn’t the probability of this particular universe become irrelevant?
mollwollfumble said:

> Return to the idea of gravity as a dial that can range between one and 100. According to the mathematical model, multiverses with one “setting” will be more likely than those with another setting.

How does he calculate “more likely”? I’m not saying it can’t be done, just saying that I’d like more information about the method. Off the top of my head I can think of at least three and possibly four different methods. One would be string theory compactification. A second would be evolutionary, with a strictly reducing vacuum energy at each step. A third would be satisfying constraints such as long duration metastability. A possible fourth, and I don’t know how to do this, would be a random walk through a quantum multiverse.

I’m inclined to say it can’t be done. Not without making completely unfounded assumptions.
mollwollfumble said:

> Then you can check the strength of gravity in our universe. If the model deems it likely, it adds weight to the possibility of the existence of a multiverse. If the model deems it unlikely, it suggests something else altogether is going on.

I’m tempted to say no. What he’s really doing is testing the assumpions by which he assigned “more likely” above.

Yes, that’s how I see it (the bit you are tempted to say)
mollwollfumble said:

> It was thought you needed a small amount of dark energy in the universe to allow stars to form. The fact we had about the right amount was considered good evidence for the multiverse. … We turned it up to 300 and still did not kill the universe. We tried, but we still did not see that star obliterating universe. The team found nearly every setting from 1 to 300 could support life.

That’s a very interesting result. Dark energy is not nearly as fine tuned as had been thought.

Although it’s a very interesting result, it doesn’t really tell us anything about the existance of a multiverse. It only tells us that the universe isn’t as unique as we thought.

Agreed.

Doesn’t it still leave a whole load of properties that can’t be varied over a wide range though?
mollwollfumble said:

Let me think a little deeper about this. About the nature of dark energy. The cosmological constant has value … what is the value of the cosmological constant? Lambda is Λ = 2.036 × 10^−35 s^−2 . Not a nice value like 1. OK.

Wouldn’t it be extraordinary if it was 1?

Cymek said:

If we have numerous failed multiverses and god then it kind of says it’s fallible for not getting it correct the first time

But all powerful and totally infallible gods are just a requirement of some religions.

If we are considering the possibility of a scientific god, we don’t have to require total infallibility, it just has to have sufficiently low fallibility to allow it to create at least one universe containing at least one planet with a living species capable of contemplating the possibility of non-infallible god(s).

mollwollfumble said:

Spotted in ArXiv.

Review of Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes, A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.09509
Authors: Yann Benétreau-Dupin

Abstract: This new book by cosmologists Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes is another entry in the long list of cosmology-centered physics books intended for a large audience. While many such books aim at advancing a novel scientific theory, A Fortunate Universe has no such scientific pretense. Its goals are to assert that the universe is fine-tuned for life, to defend that this fact can reasonably motivate further scientific inquiry as to why it is so, and to show that the multiverse and intelligent design hypotheses are reasonable proposals to explain this fine-tuning. This book’s potential contribution, therefore, lies in how convincingly and efficiently it can make that case.

Defending The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4359
Authors: Victor J. Stenger

Abstract: In 2011, I published a popular-level book, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed for Us. It investigated a common claim found in contemporary religious literature that the parameters of physics and cosmology are so delicately balanced, so “fine-tuned,” that any slight change and life in the universe would have been impossible. I concluded that while the precise form of life we find on Earth would not exist with slight changes in these parameters, some form of life could have evolved over a parameter range that is not infinitesimal, as often claimed. Postdoctoral fellow Luke Barnes has written a lengthy, highly technical review of the scientific literature on the fine-tuning problem. I have no significant disagreement with that literature and no prominent physicist or cosmologist has disputed my basic conclusions. Barnes does not invalidate these conclusions and misunderstands and misrepresents much of what is in the book.

Interesting.

I knew about the Cusp/LB connection, but I hadn’t seen the Stenger book.

I occasionally visit Cusp’s blog as well, and judging from that, it seems to be LB who is really driving the Fine tuning/Intelligent Design thing.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

If we have numerous failed multiverses and god then it kind of says it’s fallible for not getting it correct the first time

But all powerful and totally infallible gods are just a requirement of some religions.

If we are considering the possibility of a scientific god, we don’t have to require total infallibility, it just has to have sufficiently low fallibility to allow it to create at least one universe containing at least one planet with a living species capable of contemplating the possibility of non-infallible god(s).

A scientific god is interesting and it sets events into motion and has no control of them which is why its doesn’t answer prayers or show evidence of its existence.

The Cusp Blog – Cosmic Horizens

If the universe is an ancestor simulation then the program would allow for the universe to exist and the real universe is quite different

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Cusp Blog – Cosmic Horizens

I was just over there 10 minutes ago. He hasn’t updated in over a year.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

If we have numerous failed multiverses and god then it kind of says it’s fallible for not getting it correct the first time

But all powerful and totally infallible gods are just a requirement of some religions.

If we are considering the possibility of a scientific god, we don’t have to require total infallibility, it just has to have sufficiently low fallibility to allow it to create at least one universe containing at least one planet with a living species capable of contemplating the possibility of non-infallible god(s).

A scientific god is interesting and it sets events into motion and has no control of them which is why its doesn’t answer prayers or show evidence of its existence.

Agreed.

My only problem with a scientific god is that something capable of creating a universe that could not have happened by chance must be even more complex than what it is creating, and hence even less likely to have happened by chance.

So you need a super god to make the god.

So you need gods all the way up.

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Cusp Blog – Cosmic Horizens

I was just over there 10 minutes ago. He hasn’t updated in over a year.

I know, it’s still worth a look though (for those who haven’t seen it already).

Cymek said:

If we don’t exactly know everything that makes up the universe then fine tuning might be moot as the unknown could be what makes our universe stable and you could have a wide range of values and it still works

Agreed.

Basically it seems to me that it is futile to try and estimate the probability of particular universes when we only know about one little bit of one universe, and even our ideas on that have numerous unproven assumptions.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But all powerful and totally infallible gods are just a requirement of some religions.

If we are considering the possibility of a scientific god, we don’t have to require total infallibility, it just has to have sufficiently low fallibility to allow it to create at least one universe containing at least one planet with a living species capable of contemplating the possibility of non-infallible god(s).

A scientific god is interesting and it sets events into motion and has no control of them which is why its doesn’t answer prayers or show evidence of its existence.

Agreed.

My only problem with a scientific god is that something capable of creating a universe that could not have happened by chance must be even more complex than what it is creating, and hence even less likely to have happened by chance.

So you need a super god to make the god.

So you need gods all the way up.

We were taught that God always was and always will be.
However that is using the time dimension that we have here in this universe.
God’s world may have a different set of dimensions or none at all, we may just not have the tools to define God.

Peak Warming Man said:

We were taught that God always was and always will be.
However that is using the time dimension that we have here in this universe.
God’s world may have a different set of dimensions or none at all, we may just not have the tools to define God.

But if you can accept a God that always was and always will be (and hence didn’t need creating), you surely must be able to accept something far simpler, like the Universe we live in, always was and always will be (and hence didn’t need creating).

However that is using the time dimension that we have here in this universe.
The physical process that created our Universe may have a different set of dimensions or none at all, we may just not have the tools to define the Universe creation process.

I thunk I see the God connection.

Luke Barnes is a John Templeton research fellow at Western Sydney University.

The John Templeton Foundation has religious partners.

Tau.Neutrino said:

I thunk I see the God connection.

Luke Barnes is a John Templeton research fellow at Western Sydney University.

The John Templeton Foundation has religious partners.

The John Templeton Foundation is a philanthropic organization with a spiritual or religious inclination that funds inter-disciplinary research about human purpose and ultimate reality.

hmmm.

>he still argues that the Universe is fine tuned as evidence that there must be a god.

Very unlikely he’s saying that, since it’s not a scientific hypothesis. It amounts to saying “I don’t understand the universe so it must be a supernatural thing created by magic”.

Tau.Neutrino said:

I thunk I see the God connection.

Luke Barnes is a John Templeton research fellow at Western Sydney University.

The John Templeton Foundation has religious partners.

Ah.

Bubblecar said:

>he still argues that the Universe is fine tuned as evidence that there must be a god.

Very unlikely he’s saying that, since it’s not a scientific hypothesis. It amounts to saying “I don’t understand the universe so it must be a supernatural thing created by magic”.

Nonetheless, I think that is just what he is saying.

Bubblecar said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I thunk I see the God connection.

Luke Barnes is a John Templeton research fellow at Western Sydney University.

The John Templeton Foundation has religious partners.

Ah.

OTOH, he co-authored a book on “fine-tuning” with one Geraint Lewis, and I don’t remember him being at all religious.

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I thunk I see the God connection.

Luke Barnes is a John Templeton research fellow at Western Sydney University.

The John Templeton Foundation has religious partners.

Ah.

OTOH, he co-authored a book on “fine-tuning” with one Geraint Lewis, and I don’t remember him being at all religious.

The Letters to Nature blog is quite open about the God connection of LB’s work.

As far as I have seen, Cusp doesn’t talk about that side of it at all.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

Ah.

OTOH, he co-authored a book on “fine-tuning” with one Geraint Lewis, and I don’t remember him being at all religious.

The Letters to Nature blog is quite open about the God connection of LB’s work.

As far as I have seen, Cusp doesn’t talk about that side of it at all.

I’ve thought of looking into that book but the whole idea of “fine-tuning” just sounds like nonsense to me, involving elementary errors of logic, and I don’t like wasting time on nonsense.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I thunk I see the God connection.

Luke Barnes is a John Templeton research fellow at Western Sydney University.

The John Templeton Foundation has religious partners.

The John Templeton Foundation is a philanthropic organization with a spiritual or religious inclination that funds inter-disciplinary research about human purpose and ultimate reality.

hmmm.

Jeez. I thought that was an obvious connection. Can’t you all remember the brouhaha that occurred when Paul Davies received the Templeton prize. He was at Adelaide uni at the time, IIRC.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

OTOH, he co-authored a book on “fine-tuning” with one Geraint Lewis, and I don’t remember him being at all religious.

The Letters to Nature blog is quite open about the God connection of LB’s work.

As far as I have seen, Cusp doesn’t talk about that side of it at all.

I’ve thought of looking into that book but the whole idea of “fine-tuning” just sounds like nonsense to me, involving elementary errors of logic, and I don’t like wasting time on nonsense.

I wonder if the end of the book says fine tuned by God?

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

OTOH, he co-authored a book on “fine-tuning” with one Geraint Lewis, and I don’t remember him being at all religious.

The Letters to Nature blog is quite open about the God connection of LB’s work.

As far as I have seen, Cusp doesn’t talk about that side of it at all.

I’ve thought of looking into that book but the whole idea of “fine-tuning” just sounds like nonsense to me, involving elementary errors of logic, and I don’t like wasting time on nonsense.

Sorry to have wasted your time :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Letters to Nature blog is quite open about the God connection of LB’s work.

As far as I have seen, Cusp doesn’t talk about that side of it at all.

I’ve thought of looking into that book but the whole idea of “fine-tuning” just sounds like nonsense to me, involving elementary errors of logic, and I don’t like wasting time on nonsense.

Sorry to have wasted your time :)

I’m rather surprised Cusp is involved in this given his deep loathing of “hand waving” :)

Maybe he’s found Jesus.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

I’ve thought of looking into that book but the whole idea of “fine-tuning” just sounds like nonsense to me, involving elementary errors of logic, and I don’t like wasting time on nonsense.

Sorry to have wasted your time :)

I’m rather surprised Cusp is involved in this given his deep loathing of “hand waving” :)

Maybe he’s found Jesus.

The universe bought to you today by god the letters B & S and the number 42

> as far as I can see he still argues that the Universe is fine tuned as evidence that there must be a god. Am I missing something here?

The only thing you’re missing is that LB is holding two diametrically opposed views at the same time.

First is:
The universe is fine tuned for life. Therefore God exists.

Second is:
The universe is not fine tuned for life. Therefore the weak anthropic principle fails to explain the universe. Therefore God exists.

As I say, two diametrically opposed viewpoints.

mollwollfumble said:

> as far as I can see he still argues that the Universe is fine tuned as evidence that there must be a god. Am I missing something here?

The only thing you’re missing is that LB is holding two diametrically opposed views at the same time.

First is:
The universe is fine tuned for life. Therefore God exists.

Second is:
The universe is not fine tuned for life. Therefore the weak anthropic principle fails to explain the universe. Therefore God exists.

As I say, two diametrically opposed viewpoints.

OK, that’s how I read it too.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> as far as I can see he still argues that the Universe is fine tuned as evidence that there must be a god. Am I missing something here?

The only thing you’re missing is that LB is holding two diametrically opposed views at the same time.

First is:
The universe is fine tuned for life. Therefore God exists.

Second is:
The universe is not fine tuned for life. Therefore the weak anthropic principle fails to explain the universe. Therefore God exists.

As I say, two diametrically opposed viewpoints.

OK, that’s how I read it too.

Two diametrically opposed viewpoints which probably keep the John Templeton Foundation and Donors happy.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> as far as I can see he still argues that the Universe is fine tuned as evidence that there must be a god. Am I missing something here?

The only thing you’re missing is that LB is holding two diametrically opposed views at the same time.

First is:
The universe is fine tuned for life. Therefore God exists.

Second is:
The universe is not fine tuned for life. Therefore the weak anthropic principle fails to explain the universe. Therefore God exists.

As I say, two diametrically opposed viewpoints.

OK, that’s how I read it too.

Two diametrically opposed viewpoints which probably keep the John Templeton Foundation and Donors happy.

That Gods exists in both arguments.

If one is wrong maybe the other is right.

That maybe if both are wrong then God exists somehow somewhere anyway.

so they argue that “MULTIVERSE” = “GOD”

sure

SCIENCE said:

so they argue that “MULTIVERSE” = “GOD”

sure

I think it’s more like: we don’t need a multiverse to explain “fine tuning”, so the multiverse doesn’t explain what we explain with a God, so there must be a God.

i’d expect the multiverse are the potential structures from possibility space, we see what they resolves to.

possibilities that are displaced by the actual, the physical, they aren’t obliterated entirely, instead they’re invested it what is and happens.

you’ll note it’s hard to know what something is without a substantial idea of what it isn’t. It’s easy to think the work of isn’t is the product of a computational apparatus, like a brain.

I don’t believe operations or functions resolving isn’t are peculiar to variously things that do computation.

lots of isn’t seems to be invested in what is, of that natural world outside what minds do. It appears to be a feature of space and time.

humans see and explain things from cause and effect, or work it out from the reverse.

it’s why you can anticipate a trajectory of a ball to catch it, that hasn’t been thrown yet. The possibility preceded you.

that you can conceive a geometry that extends outside the universe says something.

transition said:

i’d expect the multiverse are the potential structures from possibility space, we see what they resolves to.

Why would you expect that?

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

i’d expect the multiverse are the potential structures from possibility space, we see what they resolves to.

Why would you expect that?

dunno really, the question though of what makes the idea thinkable, or even marginally conceivable, that crossed my mind, if I was to further word the brain fart.

Cusp posts a lot about this sort of thing, he also wrote a book about it ..

I’m sure you’re aware of that though

Dropbear said:

Cusp posts a lot about this sort of thing, he also wrote a book about it ..

I’m sure you’re aware of that though

The book was a joint authorship with Luke Barnes, who wrote the linked article, and really seems to be the only one who pushes the fine tuning as evidence for God angle.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Dropbear said:

Cusp posts a lot about this sort of thing, he also wrote a book about it ..

I’m sure you’re aware of that though

The book was a joint authorship with Luke Barnes, who wrote the linked article, and really seems to be the only one who pushes the fine tuning as evidence for God angle.

weird.. Feynman is all about many/all paths interpretation … I would have thought the many/all possible universes interpretation would make more sense..

Dropbear said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Dropbear said:

Cusp posts a lot about this sort of thing, he also wrote a book about it ..

I’m sure you’re aware of that though

The book was a joint authorship with Luke Barnes, who wrote the linked article, and really seems to be the only one who pushes the fine tuning as evidence for God angle.

weird.. Feynman is all about many/all paths interpretation … I would have thought the many/all possible universes interpretation would make more sense..

speaking of feynman, one of my “heroes”, apparently he could be a bit of an arsehole.

Dropbear said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Dropbear said:

Cusp posts a lot about this sort of thing, he also wrote a book about it ..

I’m sure you’re aware of that though

The book was a joint authorship with Luke Barnes, who wrote the linked article, and really seems to be the only one who pushes the fine tuning as evidence for God angle.

weird.. Feynman is all about many/all paths interpretation … I would have thought the many/all possible universes interpretation would make more sense..

With unknown factors in play with the existence of our universe the fine tuning might not be that fine tuned as the unknowns are what’s needed for it to work

Dropbear said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Dropbear said:

Cusp posts a lot about this sort of thing, he also wrote a book about it ..

I’m sure you’re aware of that though

The book was a joint authorship with Luke Barnes, who wrote the linked article, and really seems to be the only one who pushes the fine tuning as evidence for God angle.

weird.. Feynman is all about many/all paths interpretation … I would have thought the many/all possible universes interpretation would make more sense..

Probably because you’r a filthy atheist.

JudgeMental said:

Dropbear said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The book was a joint authorship with Luke Barnes, who wrote the linked article, and really seems to be the only one who pushes the fine tuning as evidence for God angle.

weird.. Feynman is all about many/all paths interpretation … I would have thought the many/all possible universes interpretation would make more sense..

speaking of feynman, one of my “heroes”, apparently he could be a bit of an arsehole.

Like Deadpool hey

sibeen said:

Dropbear said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The book was a joint authorship with Luke Barnes, who wrote the linked article, and really seems to be the only one who pushes the fine tuning as evidence for God angle.

weird.. Feynman is all about many/all paths interpretation … I would have thought the many/all possible universes interpretation would make more sense..

Probably because you’r a filthy atheist.

If god created a perfect universe just for us then a) she went a bit excessive in size, and b) she did a pretty shit job.

Dropbear said:

sibeen said:

Dropbear said:

weird.. Feynman is all about many/all paths interpretation … I would have thought the many/all possible universes interpretation would make more sense..

Probably because you’r a filthy atheist.

If god created a perfect universe just for us then a) she went a bit excessive in size, and b) she did a pretty shit job.

Yes that argument does work against god as even the human species is susceptible to all manner of disease and disorders

If God exists he’d be pretty smart and he wouldn’t make His presence discernable by scribbles and equations on a blackboard.
If you are looking to science to prove God exists or not you’re looking in the wrong place.
You are more likely to find him in a baby’s smile or a lovers eyes.

Peak Warming Man said:

If God exists he’d be pretty smart and he wouldn’t make His presence discernable by scribbles and equations on a blackboard.
If you are looking to science to prove God exists or not you’re looking in the wrong place.
You are more likely to find him in a baby’s smile or a lovers eyes.

is that the babies eyes with the parasite that eats them?

Dropbear said:

Peak Warming Man said:

If God exists he’d be pretty smart and he wouldn’t make His presence discernable by scribbles and equations on a blackboard.
If you are looking to science to prove God exists or not you’re looking in the wrong place.
You are more likely to find him in a baby’s smile or a lovers eyes.

is that the babies eyes with the parasite that eats them?

Or the lover that has herpes in their eye?

poikilotherm said:

Dropbear said:

Peak Warming Man said:

If God exists he’d be pretty smart and he wouldn’t make His presence discernable by scribbles and equations on a blackboard.
If you are looking to science to prove God exists or not you’re looking in the wrong place.
You are more likely to find him in a baby’s smile or a lovers eyes.

is that the babies eyes with the parasite that eats them?

Or the lover that has herpes in their eye?

that bitch gets around

Peak Warming Man said:

If God exists he’d be pretty smart and he wouldn’t make His presence discernable by scribbles and equations on a blackboard.
If you are looking to science to prove God exists or not you’re looking in the wrong place.
You are more likely to find him in a baby’s smile or a lovers eyes.

Isn’t that a cop out, proof without needing actual evidence.
Even god would have some sort of physical evidence of its presence.

believe in me or go to hell, plus i’ll make it impossible for you to see any evidence at all that I exist.

Dropbear said:

believe in me or go to hell, plus i’ll make it impossible for you to see any evidence at all that I exist.

You’ve got to admit, it is a cunning plan.

sibeen said:

Dropbear said:

believe in me or go to hell, plus i’ll make it impossible for you to see any evidence at all that I exist.

You’ve got to admit, it is a cunning plan.

like i said, she’s an arse.

Dropbear said:

sibeen said:

Dropbear said:

believe in me or go to hell, plus i’ll make it impossible for you to see any evidence at all that I exist.

You’ve got to admit, it is a cunning plan.

like i said, she’s an arse.

Not just the above but asking for evidence is a sin, gotta just have faith

There never will be scientific evidence that God exists or not.
Spirituality and science are two different paradigms.

I for one are pretty taken with the simulation idea.

Peak Warming Man said:

There never will be scientific evidence that God exists or not.
Spirituality and science are two different paradigms.

I believe in an energy field created by all living things, it surrounds us and penetrates us and binds the galaxy together. I call it the force.

Peak Warming Man said:

There never will be scientific evidence that God exists or not.
Spirituality and science are two different paradigms.

The scientific evidence is: there’s no God there to see.

But the believers just say, “Of course not, he’s not accessible to science.”

The scientists then shrug and return to more interesting matters.

Witty Rejoinder said:

I for one are pretty taken with the simulation idea.

Yes its an interesting concept, and could explain “miracles”, “prophets” etc they have found a way to hack the code of the simulation and make it do things it normally wouldn’t allow

Cymek said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I for one are pretty taken with the simulation idea.

Yes its an interesting concept, and could explain “miracles”, “prophets” etc they have found a way to hack the code of the simulation and make it do things it normally wouldn’t allow

Exactly. And a digital environment might explain ‘glitches’ like epilepsy when sufferers see lights flashing at 3 times per second.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I for one are pretty taken with the simulation idea.

Yes its an interesting concept, and could explain “miracles”, “prophets” etc they have found a way to hack the code of the simulation and make it do things it normally wouldn’t allow

Exactly. And a digital environment might explain ‘glitches’ like epilepsy when sufferers see lights flashing at 3 times per second.

And could explain mental illness, hearing the creators on team speak

Witty Rejoinder said:

I for one are pretty taken with the simulation idea.

neat idea but i don’t think we are and if we are does it matter?

;-)

JudgeMental said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I for one are pretty taken with the simulation idea.

neat idea but i don’t think we are and if we are does it matter?

;-)

No I don’t either and no it probably wouldn’t unless you could hack it

Cymek said:

JudgeMental said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I for one are pretty taken with the simulation idea.

neat idea but i don’t think we are and if we are does it matter?

;-)

No I don’t either and no it probably wouldn’t unless you could hack it

and go “outside”??

quelle horreur!

JudgeMental said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I for one are pretty taken with the simulation idea.

neat idea but i don’t think we are and if we are does it matter?

;-)

Not at all. It could just be that a real universe has some of the hallmarks of a simulation anyway.

JudgeMental said:

Cymek said:

JudgeMental said:

neat idea but i don’t think we are and if we are does it matter?

;-)

No I don’t either and no it probably wouldn’t unless you could hack it

and go “outside”??

quelle horreur!

Perhaps or get superpowers

Witty Rejoinder said:

JudgeMental said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I for one are pretty taken with the simulation idea.

neat idea but i don’t think we are and if we are does it matter?

;-)

Not at all. It could just be that a real universe has some of the hallmarks of a simulation anyway.

The simulation might only be detailed down to the quantum level and the real universe goes further than this and that’s why we have no unifying theory of everything as the information doesn’t exist in the simulation, perhaps a way of keeping the simulations in check

If the universe is a simulation it’s been going for a while without a reboot.

AwesomeO said:

If the universe is a simulation it’s been going for a while without a reboot.

Does it have a patch Tuesday cycle as well

AwesomeO said:

If the universe is a simulation it’s been going for a while without a reboot.

More to the point, now that we know the mass of the Higgs, we can calculate how long it will be until the next reboot.

mollwollfumble said:

AwesomeO said:

If the universe is a simulation it’s been going for a while without a reboot.

More to the point, now that we know the mass of the Higgs, we can calculate how long it will be until the next reboot.

I like the idea of a reboot, an unwinding universe never to be repeated in pretty goddamn depressing.

there is something else, if you look at the now as encoding, and the view back as decoding.

and to anticipate the future involves both.

there’s like some shadow world of geometry, math, a potential of forces, accompanying that asserted of the now, the soft structure of which is lost in noise, for us. Probably an ordering force.

I should have read the comments at LTN before posting here.

It seems he still thinks there is huge evidence for fine tuning, but there is unlikely to be a multiverse because the observed expansion rate is near one end of a wide possible range.

So it seems he’s using a different logical fallacy to the one I thought he was.