Improbable Universe Part 2

[ryan]

Ya, nobody’s going to be backing up your claim for you or trying to track down your sources in order to validate them.

It may be that you’re taking some statement out of context or using a bad source or have a valid point that we’re not seeing. We won’t do your homework for you to turn your vague statement into a valid scientific methodology, though.

What exactly do you think I have wrong?

 

[skepticalbip]

You are still sticking with 'scientists say'. Who the hell are these 'scientists'? I know of none that say such a silly thing.

Here grab my hand and stay close, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/#DoesFineTuniForLifeRequResp

"Many researchers believe that the fine-tuning of the universe’s laws, constants, and boundary conditions for life calls for inferring the existence of a divine designer (see Section 3) or a multiverse—a vast collection of universes with differing laws, constants, and boundary conditions"

Thanks but you may note that this was thoughts from the Philosophy department, not a science department.

It seems that you may want to open this thread in the philosophy forum rather than the science forum.

Philosophers have for thousands of years been known for advocating absurdities;

There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it.

~Marcus Tullius Cicero

In one of the philosophy courses I had, the professor took it on himself to explain Einstein's theory of relativity to the class. It was the funniest lecture I heard anywhere in my college career. The prof. didn't intend it to be funny, he actually thought he knew what he was talking about.

 

[ryan]

Thanks but you may note that this was thoughts from the Philosophy department, not a science department.

It seems that you may want to open this thread in the philosophy forum rather than the science forum.

Philosophers have for thousands of years been known for advocating absurdities;

There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it.

~Marcus Tullius Cicero

In one of the philosophy courses I had, the professor took it on himself to explain Einstein's theory of relativity to the class. It was the funniest lectures I heard anywhere in my college career. The prof. didn't intend it to be funny, he actually thought he knew what he was talking about.

Notice the term "researches" in the quote. But I knew this would happen. I finally try to show a legit resource to back up my claims and somehow you find a way to dismiss it, no more hand-holding.

 

[skepticalbip]

Thanks but you may note that this was thoughts from the Philosophy department, not a science department.

It seems that you may want to open this thread in the philosophy forum rather than the science forum.

Philosophers have for thousands of years been known for advocating absurdities;

There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it.

~Marcus Tullius Cicero

In one of the philosophy courses I had, the professor took it on himself to explain Einstein's theory of relativity to the class. It was the funniest lectures I heard anywhere in my college career. The prof. didn't intend it to be funny, he actually thought he knew what he was talking about.

Notice the term "researches" in the quote. But I knew this would happen. I finally try to show a legit resource to back up my claims and somehow you find a way to dismiss it, no more hand-holding.

Yes, and my old philosophy prof referred to "Einstein said" many times in his relativity talk. He didn't understand relativity any more then the philosophers you linked to understand.

If you want to refer to a scientist's statement then it would be helpful if you actually referred to a scientist rather than a philosopher's mistaken understanding of a scientist's statement.

 

[ryan]

Notice the term "researches" in the quote. But I knew this would happen. I finally try to show a legit resource to back up my claims and somehow you find a way to dismiss it, no more hand-holding.

Yes, and my old philosophy prof referred to "Einstein said" many times in his relativity talk. He didn't understand relativity any more then the philosophers you linked to understand.

If you want to refer to a scientist's statement then it would be helpful if you actually referred to a scientist rather than a philosopher's mistaken understanding of a scientist's statement.

I would not underestimate the philosophy of science.

What exactly do you not agree with or want verified? I can't believe I have to do this.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, nobody’s going to be backing up your claim for you or trying to track down your sources in order to validate them.

It may be that you’re taking some statement out of context or using a bad source or have a valid point that we’re not seeing. We won’t do your homework for you to turn your vague statement into a valid scientific methodology, though.

What exactly do you think I have wrong?

That’s what I’ve been asking. Give a claim to be right or wrong about and I can tell you why I agree or disagree with that claim.

If you just give vague and unbacked statements, I’m not saying that you’re either right or wrong. I’m saying that you’re not actually saying anything.

 

[ryan]

Ya, nobody’s going to be backing up your claim for you or trying to track down your sources in order to validate them.

It may be that you’re taking some statement out of context or using a bad source or have a valid point that we’re not seeing. We won’t do your homework for you to turn your vague statement into a valid scientific methodology, though.

What exactly do you think I have wrong?

That’s what I’ve been asking. Give a claim to be right or wrong about and I can tell you why I agree or disagree with that claim.

If you just give vague and unbacked statements, I’m not saying that you’re either right or wrong. I’m saying that you’re not actually saying anything.

After numerous discussions, you did not know what I have been claiming? It begins in the thread before this - sighhhhhhhhhh.

Scientists claim that the universe is improbable because it is so fine-tuned for life. I don't have a claim; I am just trying to understand how this universe, or any universe, that comes into existence is improbable.

 

[skepticalbip]

nm

 

[ryan]

nm

You found it yourself?

 

[steve_bank]

That’s what I’ve been asking. Give a claim to be right or wrong about and I can tell you why I agree or disagree with that claim.

If you just give vague and unbacked statements, I’m not saying that you’re either right or wrong. I’m saying that you’re not actually saying anything.

After numerous discussions, you did not know what I have been claiming? It begins in the thread before this - sighhhhhhhhhh.

Scientists claim that the universe is improbable because it is so fine-tuned for life. I don't have a claim; I am just trying to understand how this universe, or any universe, that comes into existence is improbable.

I've gone through this on creationists debates when thy references scientists. Invariably they turn out to be theists. Your argument is not science per say, it is analogous to a proof of god or a cosmic spirit.

You can infer what you want philosophically or religiously. Working scientists can and do venture into philosophical speculation on what it all 'means', but that is not really science at least IMO.

On the forum you are always looking for a proof on scince of mind out of body, life after death. and the supernatural.

In one of the Indiana Jones movies Jones is addressing a class saying archeology is not the search for truth, for that philosophy is down the hall.

 

[bilby]

Yup. Any claim that contains the phrase 'scientists say' or 'scientists claim', had better contain the names and ideally the credentials of the scientists who say (or claim) whatever follows; Or better still, a link to their published paper on the claim or statement.

In the absence of these supporting facts, 'scientists' are no more reliable than 'unicorns', or 'the gods', or 'last night I had a dream that...'.

 

[Speakpigeon]

In my view, if images of the cmbr showed the words "This universe supports life", it would be an incredible coincidence. I would start going to Church immediately.

What's the difference between having the words "This universe supports life" and what images of the cmbr actually show?

As I see it, given that the distribution of the cmbr is understood as random, the number N of possibilities where the cmbr would show anything incredible, broadly anything looking like a message, from script to likenesses of things like people, animals, plants, or physical models like an atom of hydrogen, geometrical figures etc. is staggering.

Yet, the number A of possibilities of the kind of distributions we see in actual fact is not just staggering. It is staggering even compared to the first number N.

The reason for that is the human brain. We can't distinguish between two random distributions. We couldn't even remember any one of them. The best we can do is remember what a random distribution broadly looks like.

Since we can't remember any particular random distribution, we wouldn't notice any coincidence if there was one.

However, the human brain can immediately identify the words "This universe supports life" or any remarkable distribution, if it was what the cmbr showed.

So, in this case, there would indeed be a coincidence, coincidence between one seemingly random distribution out of a very large number of them, and the very small set of distributions that would be somehow remarkable to the human brain.

Thus, we would have a coincidence between two seemingly independent processes: the distribution of the cmbr and the make-up of the human brain, brain which obviously could not possibly have evolved to recognise cmbr distributions.

So, the coincidence wouldn't be in the occurrence of any particular distribution since they are all equally probable. The coincidence would be between a particular distribution and the very small set, relatively speaking, of distributions that are remarkable to the human brain.
EB

Okay, but if it is about sets of kinds of cmbr maps, then we must be in a rare set of a different kind of randomness. Humans imagine and choose these sets, so the sets really are arbitrary.

No, they are definitely not arbitrary.

All humans do the same thing here, so there as to be something special about what the brain can easily recognise.

As I see it, our brain can easily distinguish and recognise distributions like "This universe supports life" and not random distributions like the actual cmbr because the brain needs less energy to process, represent and memorise distributions like "This universe supports life". Basically, our survival in a natural environment required that our brain could identify patterns in our environment. However, most patterns are costly to represent and identify. So, our survival means that the brain had to develop through evolution to recognise only patterns that are less demanding in energy, what we would generally consider to be signs, marks, shapes, figures etc.

There shouldn't be anything special about "This universe supports life" written on the map.

There would be nothing special about the cmbr showing "This universe supports life" since it is in effect an actual physical possibility (at least to believe the science of it).

However, we, as humans, could not possibly not take this as a sign, a message.

And this seems to be exactly what scientists who mused about fine-tuning did, or rather what their brain did. Because that what brains do.

And in effect, if we understand their argument, we can only agree with them, that there would be something fishy in this universe supporting life if there were no natural mechanism making life necessary. We don't similarly marvel on reading a whole book because we understand that there is rational explanation and a natural process as to why there is in fact such an improbable object. So, all we need is an explanation as to why this universe got to feature life.

But, that ain't going to be easy.

Because it would explain exactly why we're here.
EB

 

[Peez]

You are still sticking with 'scientists say'. Who the hell are these 'scientists'? I know of none that say such a silly thing.

Here grab my hand and stay close, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/#DoesFineTuniForLifeRequResp

"Many researchers believe that the fine-tuning of the universe’s laws, constants, and boundary conditions for life calls for inferring the existence of a divine designer (see Section 3) or a multiverse—a vast collection of universes with differing laws, constants, and boundary conditions"

Since the you have linked to an encyclopedia of philosophy, and the specific text does not mention scientists, and it refers to "many" researchers, can we assume that when you posted "scientists say" you really meant "some philosophers say"?

Peez

- - - Updated - - -

Well the whole fine-tuning problem is explained in a pretty simple way. They simply say that our universe's propensity to produce life is highly improbable due to constants, laws and boundary conditions being just right. Any slightly different value for any of them would result in a universe unable to have life. Although, I am definitely missing something about why it is a coincidence that needs an explanation.

I think it is a matter of you misreading and misunderstanding what 'scientists say'. The fact that the universe being radically different (different universal constants) would not allow for life does not mean that scientists are claiming that our universe is improbable. It also doesn't mean that they believe that the constants could be different than they are. They don't know why the constants have the specific values they have but that too doesn't mean they are claiming they could be different.

Again, I didn't say that the constants could have been different.

Here grab my hand and stay close: if they could not have been different, then they are not unlikely.

Peez

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks but you may note that this was thoughts from the Philosophy department, not a science department.

It seems that you may want to open this thread in the philosophy forum rather than the science forum.

Philosophers have for thousands of years been known for advocating absurdities;

There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it.

~Marcus Tullius Cicero

In one of the philosophy courses I had, the professor took it on himself to explain Einstein's theory of relativity to the class. It was the funniest lectures I heard anywhere in my college career. The prof. didn't intend it to be funny, he actually thought he knew what he was talking about.

Notice the term "researches" in the quote. But I knew this would happen. I finally try to show a legit resource to back up my claims and somehow you find a way to dismiss it, no more hand-holding.

So, you think that "researchers" is synonymous with "scientists", or are you going to keep being coy (and condescending)?

Peez

 

[Peez]

Notice the term "researches" in the quote. But I knew this would happen. I finally try to show a legit resource to back up my claims and somehow you find a way to dismiss it, no more hand-holding.

Yes, and my old philosophy prof referred to "Einstein said" many times in his relativity talk. He didn't understand relativity any more then the philosophers you linked to understand.

If you want to refer to a scientist's statement then it would be helpful if you actually referred to a scientist rather than a philosopher's mistaken understanding of a scientist's statement.

I would not underestimate the philosophy of science.

What exactly do you not agree with or want verified? I can't believe I have to do this.

That is beside the point. You clearly are not aware of a single scientist who has said what you claim "scientists" say. This is bizarre, personally I would be surprised if there was not a single scientist, somewhere, who has said something like that. Nevertheless it is clear that you just made it up, you have no basis for your claim.

Peez

 

[Peez]

That’s what I’ve been asking. Give a claim to be right or wrong about and I can tell you why I agree or disagree with that claim.

If you just give vague and unbacked statements, I’m not saying that you’re either right or wrong. I’m saying that you’re not actually saying anything.

After numerous discussions, you did not know what I have been claiming? It begins in the thread before this - sighhhhhhhhhh.

Perhaps, just perhaps, it is not entirely their fault. Perhaps.

Scientists claim that the universe is improbable because it is so fine-tuned for life. I don't have a claim;

See that part, just before "I don't have a claim"? That is a claim.

I am just trying to understand how this universe, or any universe, that comes into existence is improbable.

That question only makes sense if the universe is, indeed, improbable. Never mind the alleged "scientists", why do you think that it is improbable?

Peez

 

[Gun Nut]

In my opinion the most improbable universe would be the one that many theists believe we live in today.

Say the right prayer and a loved one dying of some fatal disease will magically be cured. Pray, "Oh lord, want you buy me a Mercedes Benz" and in the morning a new Mercedes will be found in the driveway. Praying during a war for the defeat of some enemy will assure your nation's victory. etc. etc. In other words, a universe where a simple reverent prayer will alter the laws of nature and overcome any obstacle.

a universe where all prayers are answered.. for both sports teams at the same time.

 

[Gun Nut]

Notice the term "researches" in the quote. But I knew this would happen. I finally try to show a legit resource to back up my claims and somehow you find a way to dismiss it, no more hand-holding.

Yes, and my old philosophy prof referred to "Einstein said" many times in his relativity talk. He didn't understand relativity any more then the philosophers you linked to understand.

If you want to refer to a scientist's statement then it would be helpful if you actually referred to a scientist rather than a philosopher's mistaken understanding of a scientist's statement.

I would not underestimate the philosophy of science.

What exactly do you not agree with or want verified? I can't believe I have to do this.

perhaps not... but I would be right to underestimate a philosopher's word about science just as much as you might a scientist's word about philosophy.