Shaken Atheism: A Look at the Fine-Tuned Universe

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

2 hours ago, Occupational Hubris said:

Talking apes

Objection, I am a squid wearing a fetching hat and a monocle. 
Bloody vertebrates, think they own the place.

Edited September 18, 2023 by Sir Wearer of Hats

[Occupational Hubris]

20 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Objection, I am a squid wearing a fetching hat and a monocle. 
Bloody vertebrates, think they own the place.

[cormac mac airt]

32 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Objection, I am a squid wearing a fetching hat and a monocle. 
Bloody vertebrates, think they own the place.

cormac

[Arbenol]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

A lot are all very excited at the prospect of change. 

Leaving phlogiston behind for the periodic table was extremely lucrative for the field. It's always been a gift when things are upturned, it just happens every rarely. Science is often expanded but rarely rewritten.

There are some dogs who can't learn new tricks but it's a pretty small contingent. 

Major paradigm changes have been rare. As for the bolded - I don't think it's as small a contingent as we'd like it to be. As I said to Hammer - I was surprised to learn of the very staunch (and often vitriolic) resistance to plate tectonic theory, even when the evidence was overwhelming. It was a much larger number than you might think.

If you have the inclination, it's a good read: https://www.amazon.com.au/Plate-Tectonics-Insiders-History-Modern/dp/0813341329

In fact, anything by Oreskes is a good read. Check out "Merchants of Doubt" - it's also a documentary if that works better for you.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

2 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

cormac

 

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, Arbenol said:

Major paradigm changes have been rare. As for the bolded - I don't think it's as small a contingent as we'd like it to be. As I said to Hammer - I was surprised to learn of the very staunch (and often vitriolic) resistance to plate tectonic theory, even when the evidence was overwhelming. It was a much larger number than you might think.

If you have the inclination, it's a good read: https://www.amazon.com.au/Plate-Tectonics-Insiders-History-Modern/dp/0813341329

In fact, anything by Oreskes is a good read. Check out "Merchants of Doubt" - it's also a documentary if that works better for you.

Docos work better as I'm always short on time. 

I can tell you what I do know. Hope you don't mind comparing notes and views.

Wegener was a scientist. That strikes me as an all important part of this discussion that may be getting swept aside. Scientists also came up with the original hypothesis, followed it up relentlessly for fifty years and used evidence to make it fact. 

To be honest he should have outright expected rejection. It doesn't matter that he was correct. His fault wac not offering proof of his hypothesis. There was just an idea. No proof, not even a mechanism. Nobody could even theorise how it could work at the time. A brilliant idea as it turns out, but all the same, it should be recognised for what it was at the time. 

You just don't go throw new theories around that rewrite current hypotheses without evidence. Who does that in this day and age? Back then, maybe, I don't remember Einstein having an easy start either. 

Which is another aspect. We had little knowledge of geology at the time. This was a very long time ago and a very different mindset to today's scientists. It's like hating on slave owners for doing what was very normal at the time. That didn't make slave ownership right, but we have to accept it's how thing were. Science today isn't anything like it was 70 + years ago. 

Had Wegener had the instruments we do today in 1915, there wouldn't have been fifty years of debate. It would be settled with some simple experiments. However, he simply couldn't support his hypothesis. It would be the 1940s before we made paleomagnetic discoveries that supported Wegener's hypothesis, helping it gain traction into scientific theory (different to theory). Then in the sixties,  deep ocean technology was able to start mapping the ocean floor illustrating seafloor movement which confirmed the, what was by now, scientific theory. Once the evidence supported the hypothesis, all was settled. 

Now it's just my opinion of course, but in hindsight I don't think anyone was doing "science" on plate tectonics when Wegener unleashed his hypothesis in the world. I would more consider his contribution a brilliant observation that would go on to change the way we thought about geology. I wouldn't argue that Harold Jeffreys and Charles Schuchert weren't doing their jobs. I'd agree there, but your forgetting that Vening-Meinesz and Otto Ampferer followed his work further recognising the merits of Wegener's original hypothesis. Science done by scientists actually validated Wegener's work and the opinions of some scientists based on long held theories were wrong. Science by scientists prevailed and because Wegener wasn't just making up stuff, his works stood the test of time. 

Like Lord Kelvin often being cited as "science and scientists" as wrong about heavier than air flight, it was Lord Kelvin, not "scientists" who said that. Scientists proved that scientist wrong. Same with plate tectonics. 

The takeaway I see here is just how stringent science is about what fact and what's not. Considering a century and more has passed since tectonics was first proposed, a great deal of information has gone through the same rigorous standard of not being accepted without actual evidence completely supporting a fact without a shadow of a doubt. Wegener provided a hypothesis without evidence. Because it was valid, science would eventually illustrate why that hypothesis is beyond doubt fact. I feel when we factor how quickly tectonics was accepted once proof was produced (5 or 6 years wasn't it?) is good reason to have confidence in the current methods. I mean scientists are smart people. It's not like they wouldn't learn from history too  

Just my thoughts on the subject anyways. 

Cheers.

[psyche101]

40 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

 

Did ya lose the monocale? 

[lightly]

I was liking the idea of Balance ..until someone in here said it was a quantum IMbalance which caused the Big Bang???   In a way, imbalance is the cause of motion???   (thinkaboutitforawhile;)   Anyway,  I’m a Be ist ;  .. And an Ignoramist. .which means I am aware of existence/being.. but don’t understand it.       

[psyche101]

1 minute ago, lightly said:

I was liking the idea of Balance ..until someone in here said it was a quantum IMbalance which caused the Big Bang???   In a way, imbalance is the cause of motion???   (thinkaboutitforawhile;)   Anyway,  I’m a Be ist ;  .. And an Ignoramist. .which means I am aware of existence/being.. but don’t understand it.       

That woulda been me.

Imbalance makes sense to me. It's all downhill - and picking up speed!!!! Especially after fifty.....

[lightly]

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

That woulda been me.

Imbalance makes sense to me. It's all downhill - and picking up speed!!!! Especially after fifty.....

I was fairly certain it was you!           I hear ya.   I’m imbalanced, and have to get moving for a morning skull to mid-thigh PET scan..    HUGS,  our tiny teddy bear says it will be good.       He’s a Be ist too.

[psyche101]

1 minute ago, lightly said:

I was fairly certain it was you!           I hear ya.   I’m imbalanced, and have to get moving for a morning skull to mid-thigh PET scan..    HUGS,  our tiny teddy bear says it will be good.       He’s a Be ist too.

A tough bloke like you, walk in the park. This vintage isn't for the faint hearted

See you when you get back. You got this. 

[Arbenol]

17 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Docos work better as I'm always short on time. 

I can tell you what I do know. Hope you don't mind comparing notes and views.

Wegener was a scientist. That strikes me as an all important part of this discussion that may be getting swept aside. Scientists also came up with the original hypothesis, followed it up relentlessly for fifty years and used evidence to make it fact. 

To be honest he should have outright expected rejection. It doesn't matter that he was correct. His fault wac not offering proof of his hypothesis. There was just an idea. No proof, not even a mechanism. Nobody could even theorise how it could work at the time. A brilliant idea as it turns out, but all the same, it should be recognised for what it was at the time. 

You just don't go throw new theories around that rewrite current hypotheses without evidence. Who does that in this day and age? Back then, maybe, I don't remember Einstein having an easy start either. 

Which is another aspect. We had little knowledge of geology at the time. This was a very long time ago and a very different mindset to today's scientists. It's like hating on slave owners for doing what was very normal at the time. That didn't make slave ownership right, but we have to accept it's how thing were. Science today isn't anything like it was 70 + years ago. 

Had Wegener had the instruments we do today in 1915, there wouldn't have been fifty years of debate. It would be settled with some simple experiments. However, he simply couldn't support his hypothesis. It would be the 1940s before we made paleomagnetic discoveries that supported Wegener's hypothesis, helping it gain traction into scientific theory (different to theory). Then in the sixties,  deep ocean technology was able to start mapping the ocean floor illustrating seafloor movement which confirmed the, what was by now, scientific theory. Once the evidence supported the hypothesis, all was settled. 

Now it's just my opinion of course, but in hindsight I don't think anyone was doing "science" on plate tectonics when Wegener unleashed his hypothesis in the world. I would more consider his contribution a brilliant observation that would go on to change the way we thought about geology. I wouldn't argue that Harold Jeffreys and Charles Schuchert weren't doing their jobs. I'd agree there, but your forgetting that Vening-Meinesz and Otto Ampferer followed his work further recognising the merits of Wegener's original hypothesis. Science done by scientists actually validated Wegener's work and the opinions of some scientists based on long held theories were wrong. Science by scientists prevailed and because Wegener wasn't just making up stuff, his works stood the test of time. 

Like Lord Kelvin often being cited as "science and scientists" as wrong about heavier than air flight, it was Lord Kelvin, not "scientists" who said that. Scientists proved that scientist wrong. Same with plate tectonics. 

The takeaway I see here is just how stringent science is about what fact and what's not. Considering a century and more has passed since tectonics was first proposed, a great deal of information has gone through the same rigorous standard of not being accepted without actual evidence completely supporting a fact without a shadow of a doubt. Wegener provided a hypothesis without evidence. Because it was valid, science would eventually illustrate why that hypothesis is beyond doubt fact. I feel when we factor how quickly tectonics was accepted once proof was produced (5 or 6 years wasn't it?) is good reason to have confidence in the current methods. I mean scientists are smart people. It's not like they wouldn't learn from history too  

Just my thoughts on the subject anyways. 

Cheers.

Thanks. I don't disagree with anything you've written there. 

Wegener certainly deserves credit for the idea but, like you say, he proposed no mechanism. He also didn't propose plate tectonic theory. He called it continental drift and did not conceive of landmasses being "rafted' by ocean floors. I don't consider rejections of his idea at the time to be an example of what I was talking about. The resistance to the new paradigm continued well into the 1960s and also 1970s. The point that Oreskes makes (so much better than I could) is that a significant number of eminent geologists remained entrenched in their incorrect views and never accepted the theory, notwithstanding the fact that it was universally accepted by the majority. Harold Jeffreys is a good example of one of these scientists who never accepted the reality of PT theory, and still didn't when he died in 1989.

I hope you don't misunderstand me. I have complete confidence in the scientific method. For me, the example I gave is a perfect illustration of the beauty of science and how it succeeds independent of human foibles and biases.

 

[lightly]

10 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

Thanks. I don't disagree with anything you've written there. 

Wegener certainly deserves credit for the idea but, like you say, he proposed no mechanism. He also didn't propose plate tectonic theory. He called it continental drift and did not conceive of landmasses being "rafted' by ocean floors. I don't consider rejections of his idea at the time to be an example of what I was talking about. The resistance to the new paradigm continued well into the 1960s and also 1970s. The point that Oreskes makes (so much better than I could) is that a significant number of eminent geologists remained entrenched in their incorrect views and never accepted the theory, notwithstanding the fact that it was universally accepted by the majority. Harold Jeffreys is a good example of one of these scientists who never accepted the reality of PT theory, and still didn't when he died in 1989.

I hope you don't misunderstand me. I have complete confidence in the scientific method. For me, the example I gave is a perfect illustration of the beauty of science and how it succeeds independent of human foibles and biases.

 

Hmmm. . Isn’t plate tectonics what causes mountains to lift…at fault lines??     Did he ever accept the reality of mountains?   

 Ok, now I really do gotta move!   

Edited September 18, 2023 by lightly

[+Sherapy]

9 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Where there is a Law - there is a Lawgiver.   

In the context of science, a law is a statement or principle that describes a consistently observed phenomenon or pattern in nature. Scientific laws are typically derived from extensive observations, experimentation, and empirical evidence. These laws provide a concise and general description of how certain aspects of the natural world behave or interact under specific conditions.

 

 

[Antigonos]

8 hours ago, Arbenol said:

There's a belief that scientists will always follow the evidence and adjust their world view based on that. But the reality tells a somewhat different story.

Some years ago I read Naomi Oreskes' book on the history of plate tectonics. The reality of this great paradigm change was that for those geologists who favoured a theory of fixed continents, many of them were never persuaded by the evidence. They clung desperately to their old paradigms and often took them to their graves. 

I wasn’t aware of the book, thanks for mentioning it. I’m going to get myself a copy.

[Antigonos]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Now it's just my opinion of course, but in hindsight I don't think anyone was doing "science" on plate tectonics when Wegener unleashed his hypothesis in the world. 

I don’t think so either. Hypothetical land bridges were being proposed to explain mysteries of biogeography caused by plate tectonics.

Edited September 18, 2023 by Antigonos

[Tatetopa]

3 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

 

Over on the UAP hearing  thread when the witness said they had found non-human remains in a crashed space craft, I thought that we would be just as disturbed if it had not been an unfamiliar alien but a cephalopod.

[+Sherapy]

14 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

I know they are not off. That is definitely not my argument. We have at work in the universe fundamental constants of physics and chemistry, exact numerical values that are in operation at any given moment. And as I said before, if any of these values were slightly off, it would cause huge disruptions in the world and the rest of the universe. It's not just one constant but multiple, perfectly fine-tuned to allow for life. This is astonishing! Intelligence at work. 

From OP article - "change various particle masses and charges, and the stars would burn too quickly or too slowly, or atoms and molecules, including water, carbon and oxygen, would not form or would not remain stable.

It is not that we cannot imagine another world in which intelligence or life might exist. It is rather that, in this world, any of a hundred small shifts this way or that would render everything blank. Astrophysicists John D. Barrow and Joseph Silk calculate that "small changes in the electric charge of the electron would block any kind of chemistry" ("The Structure of the Early Universe," Scientific American, April 1980: see also John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle). A fractional difference, and there would have been nothing. It would be so easy to miss, and there are no hits in the revised universes we can imagine: and yet this universe is a delicate, intricate hit."

 The fine-tuning argument often raises questions about the possibility of an intelligent designer or a higher power behind the precise arrangement of fundamental constants in the universe. However, it is important to note that this argument does not conclusively prove the existence or identify the nature of an intelligent designer.

Science aims to investigate the natural world and understand natural phenomena using empirical evidence. While the fine-tuning argument has philosophical and theological implications, it goes beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. Science focuses on uncovering the mechanisms and processes that underlie the observable universe, without necessarily addressing questions about a specific intelligent designer or higher power.

It is essential to maintain a clear distinction between scientific explanations and philosophical or theological perspectives, or personal biases. The fine-tuning argument rests on philosophical assumptions and personal beliefs rather than empirical scientific evidence at this time. 

 

 

[Antigonos]

15 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

 The fine-tuning argument often raises questions about the possibility of an intelligent designer or a higher power behind the precise arrangement of fundamental constants in the universe. However, it is important to note that this argument does not conclusively prove the existence or identify the nature of an intelligent designer.

Science aims to investigate the natural world and understand natural phenomena using empirical evidence. While the fine-tuning argument has philosophical and theological implications, it goes beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. Science focuses on uncovering the mechanisms and processes that underlie the observable universe, without necessarily addressing questions about a specific intelligent designer or higher power.

It is essential to maintain a clear distinction between scientific explanations and philosophical or theological perspectives, or personal biases. The fine-tuning argument rests on philosophical assumptions and personal beliefs rather than empirical scientific evidence at this time. 

 

 

I could not have said it better. Thank you. 

[+Sherapy]

On 9/15/2023 at 7:08 PM, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

"It is impossible that the universe has escaped being manipulated by a superintellect. The facts indicate that the numbers of combinations necessary for life to have happened through random choice is a conclusion beyond belief."  

https://www.religion-online.org/article/shaken-atheism-a-look-at-the-fine-tuned-universe/

*Multiple finely-tuned simultaneous constants make life on earth possible.   

Blindfold several individuals and give each a Rubik's Cube. What are the chances of each person coming to the same conclusion at the exact same time? 

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. - Psalm 19:1

Read, if I may offer some feedback (in order to strengthen arguments), it is important to support them with facts. The argument presented above is more of a theological viewpoint, rather than one based solely on empirical evidence or scientific facts. FYI the correlation between the fine-tuned constants and the conclusion about the existence of a divine being is subjective and does not provide concrete factual evidence at this time. It can only be taken on faith at this time. 

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

Quote

Nevertheless, given the innumerable other things that could have happened, we have reason to be impressed by the astonishing fact of our existence.

"it is an astonishing reflection that at this critical early moment in the history of the universe, all of the hydrogen would have turned into helium if the force of attraction between protons—that is, the nuclei of the hydrogen atoms—had been only a few percent stronger. . . . No galaxies, no stars, no life would have emerged.

If one atomic level had varied half a per cent, life would have been impossible.

Never been impressed with the fine-tuning argument at least as I understand it.  What does science know about the 'innumerable other things that could have happened', I didn't know we knew so much about universe creation?  If constants had varied by a few per cent there'd be no life... what is the probability that these constants can vary at all let alone by half or a few percent?  If the probability is zero or very small, that seems to eliminate the fine tuning argument as far as this point from incredulity over the 'precision' of our constants.

[+Sherapy]

2 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Never been impressed with the fine-tuning argument at least as I understand it.  What does science know about the 'innumerable other things that could have happened', I didn't know we knew so much about universe creation?  If constants had varied by a few per cent there'd be no life... what is the probability that these constants can vary at all let alone by half or a few percent?  If the probability is zero or very small, that seems to eliminate the fine tuning argument as far as this point from incredulity over the 'precision' of our constants.

Exactly, there is so much we don’t know. Excellent post.

[Portre]

"Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. But if they called everything divine which they do not understand, why, there would be no end of divine things." - Hippocrates

In a series of podcasts titled Great Mysteries of the Universe, the question of whether the universe is fine-tuned was discussed. The episode title is "Fundamental constants: is the universe fine tuned for life to exist?" Relevant discussion starts at 11:40. The transcript is here. 

"There was a general feeling that the ranges were small, and all I'm saying is that we should calculate the ranges. And when you do the calculation, the general result is that the ranges are usually a couple orders of magnitude. Sometimes bigger, sometimes a little smaller. But most of the time when you look at the allotted parameter space, it can vary by at least a couple orders of magnitude. That's a couple factors of 10 to be clear.

And companion article: “If you want to tune a radio, you have to know the frequency of the signal to 1% – and 1% is much more tuned than a factor of seven,” explains Adams. “So it’s much harder to tune a radio than to tune a universe”.

Edited September 18, 2023 by Portre

[Piney]

12 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

I majored in anthropology and have watch the Clovis First hypothesis die a slow death the last fifty years for much the same reason.

I haven't met a archaeologists who believed the Clovis First Hypothesis since the 80s.

Personally, I think it was a shared lithic industry. Not a "culture" or ethnic group. 

 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

10 hours ago, lightly said:

I was liking the idea of Balance ..until someone in here said it was a quantum IMbalance which caused the Big Bang???   In a way, imbalance is the cause of motion???   (thinkaboutitforawhile;)   Anyway,  I’m a Be ist ;  .. And an Ignoramist. .which means I am aware of existence/being.. but don’t understand it.       

Given evolution and entropy the system IS imbalanced.