Re: Can any old earther refute common genetic ancestry?

Danwood wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

Danwood wrote:


John Harshman wrote:


Danwood wrote:



John Harshman wrote:



Danwood wrote:




John Harshman wrote:




Danwood wrote:


[snip]

on but to the one that was asked.




[snip]

What I have been unable to prove to you is wheather or not other
parameters were possible. But there is _only_ two possibilities.

1) The values any of the constants could _not_ have been different;
they were somehow set in concrete at the beginning.
2) The values of the constants could have been infinitely different.
in random, purposeless, chaotic processes.

Of the 2 possibilities, the second seems to be the most reasonable and
most logical.

Why? And there are more than two.

3) The values of the constants could have been different within some
narrow range.


Same as # 2. Narrow range would certainly fall under within infinite
different range.

Then I didn't understand what you meant by "infinitely different".
Wouldn't #1 fall under #2 also, if #3 does?

>
I don't think so. The two are opposites, antithetical. Number 1 is
confined, limited, straight-jacketed.
# 2 is unconfined, all-encompassing. Exact opposites.

If #2 is all-encompassing, then it must encompass #1, right? What you
have described could be considered two points on a continuum from zero
variability to infinite variability. I'm pointing out that there are
points in between.

4) The values of the constants are related in some consistent way,

though not fixed.


Same as #2 If any one were different the universe or life would not
have arisen. This affirms their relationship.

I must conclude that you have no idea what words mean.

>
Unfortunately, I think you are irrational. The idea that chaos and
random lead to the values the constants have just isn't logical.
And that is the only other possibility.

And you are incapable of understanding the assumptions you make.

I cannot prove to you that there were infinate sets of parameters.
and you haven't atempted to either falsify the second are give
reason for your choice.

I don't have a choice.


Then you have nothing to say!


I don't know what was possible. I'm just pointing>
out that you don't either, and that your argument relies on an
assumption for which you have no basis.


It's more than an assumption. The reality of life strongly conveys
the impression that the constants were "fine tuned" otherwise we
would not be here. Surely, you can see this. You are playing games.

I assure you that I'm not playing games, and that I can't see what you
find so obvious that there is apparently no need to justify it rationally.


The fact that we live in a bio-friendly universe, and
we do, otherwise we would not be here.

We live in a slightly bio-friendly universe. But it's not a very
bio-friendly one. Most of it is nasty, radiation-filled vacuum. If I was
going to specify a bio-friendly universe it wouldn't look like that.
Again, you justify your claims either by refusing to think about other
possibilities or to specify that the options for a universe are variable
only within certain narrow parameters.

I _am_ willing to consider other possibilities. But what other
possibilities do you know about? The Cosmological constants are what
they are - they are real. This needs to be dealt with and explained.
Not just try to explain them away.

Again you contradict yourself in multiple ways. In the just previous
paragraph you say that the constants can't be explained.

No, the constant are real. What cannot be explained is why they have the
precise values they have.

That's what we were talking about.


Of course, this is from the scientific point of view. As I passed on
the scientist I referenced were moot on the subject. None even attempted
to explain why the values of the cosmic constants were as they were.
The just accepted these values as the results of their observations and
research. But I took the next step!

You need to provide a justification for taking that step.

>
Since the parameters are fine tuned, either they are self-styled by wild
coincidence or there must be another explanation. I believe the other
explanation could be a super intellect. I have difficulty accepting
everything ie all 26 + parameters are the result of coincidences.

Again, the existence of either coincidence or arrangement by a super
intellect assumes variability for which you have given no reason.

Now you say they need to be explained. You say you will consider other
possibilities, and then deny that there can be any, but your theory
requires that other possibilities exist. Go figure.

You misunderstand. There are two related issues here which you roll into
one. 1th) The constants themselves, and the values of the constants. The
constants are real. ie the ratio between strength the big bang, the mass
in the universe, gravity and the speed of the expansion.
2nd) Why each has the values it has is another matter.

You misunderstand. We weren't talking about the constants themselves,
but about their values. I never brought up the other issue at all, nor
do I understand what that issue would be.


This is true, I wasn't certain you understood this. But you also
realize that the values of these constants are real.


What is at issue is the second, not the first. If the first were
different we would be here.

I don't understand this. Did you leave something out?


This was in reference to the #1 above.

Then I don't understand what "if the first were different we would be
here" is supposed to mean.


Just one example if the ratio between big bang, gravity and the rate of
expansion. If the B.B. didn't occur or if it was too weak
or too strong, gravity would have prevented the universe from
forming. Too weak the Cosmos would have collapsed too soon, too strong
and gravity would have allowed hydrogen to expand too far and gases
would have been too diffused for stars to form. If no stars no periodic
table. If no matter no life. This ratio is balanced on the edge of a
razor. There are at least 25 or more such finely tuned parameters.
There is no question the laws of physics are "fine tuned", the only
question which science has not answered is how this came about.
The standard argument against fine the tuned argument is the multiverse
theory, which I know you personally reject. But if there are infinite
numbers if universes, each with its own set of constants, then the one
or more universe like ours is a certainty. This is the approach that
Martin Rees takes.

Is it possible that when you said "would" above, you actually meant to
say "wouldn't"? That would make a bit more sense.

Anyway, I don't reject the multiverse theory. There is no basis on which
to accept or reject it. Nor is there any basis to accept or reject the
idea that the parameters are what they are because there is no other
possible way they could have been. What I'm arguing against is your
assumption that you know these theories to be false.

And so you avoid discussing the question.


I've been discussing this. You haven't. All you've done is repeat the
same line and ignore my responses.

This is because none of your responses were relevant.

>
They are not as far as I am concerned they are logical and reasonable.
And you are just being recalcitrant, and completely negative with
nothing to offer as to why these curious parameters just happen to be
just right to enable to allow life to emerge on at least one planet.

Nor do you have anything to offer. I believe my viewpoint is more
consistent with our lack of knowledge than is your simple assurance.

And once more you find a way to avoid discussing the issue.


NO. you are unwilling to consider anything beyond you narrow question.

And you are unwilling to answer my narrow question.


There is no way to come to a mutual agreement on this issue. I have
nothing more to add. Is there reason to carry it onward? I'm not
sure.

I've been wondering that for a while.

How can you determine what is likely unless you know something about
what might have been?


There is no way to know this. Closer at hand: What might have been if
Lincoln had not won the presidency. What might have been had the 13
Colonies lost the revolutionary war. This should demonstrate the
absurdity of your argument.

If there is no way to know what might have been, then you have no
argument for fine-tuning. Fine-tuning assumes that something else might
have been. "If the constants were just a little bit different..." --
that's a "might have been". If we don't know whether the constants might
have been a little bit different or whether they had to be exactly what
they are, you can't say there was a choice, one that had to be made by
an intelligent being. Everything depends on an assumption that you claim
here is absurd. And that's what I mean when I say you contradict yourself.


As you stated earlier perhaps your argument is with Hawking and maybe
Davies and Rees. Because they are the ones who advanced and persistently
maintain the "fine-tuned" argument. I accepted this as valid. You don't,
but I have no reason to distrust these scientist when they say the
Cosmic constants are "finely tuned" and we live in a "Goldilocks" Universe.

I think you're reading more into their claims than are there. Except for
Davies, who is into theism.

how a random,
chaotic early universe resulted in the necessary yet precise value
for the constants which led to the universe and life.



But that fact does not do away with the "fine tuned" aspect of our
universe.

Yes it does. Fine-tuning demands that there were other possibilities at
the beginning. Without other possibilities, no fine-tuning. How can you
not understand this?

I sorry, but you are wrong. The laws of physics are "fine tuned". we
know this, because the universe and life exist on at least one planet.
Why the values of the constants are as they are is the _only_ issue.

Yes, and that's the issue we're discussing, supposedly. Now either
they're as they are because there was a range of possibilities and we
got the one we see or because there was only one possibility. I have no
reason to believe one of these choices over another. You claim that
there is a reason, but you are unable to state it.


I have several times. This is because it's the better of the two
choices. I mentioned earlier (there _are_ no more).

"It's the better" is not a reason. It's just a repetition of the claim.
Why is it better?

>
Nothing chaotic and random has any chance of ordering the constants so
precisely as those observed and studied as our universe happen to
have. And this is the _only_ alternative to deliberate selecting the
exact values needed. Of course, there is always the wild fantastic list
of coincidences which at least theoretically could have possibly
rendered the right values.

You persist in arguing against a strawman. I will agree that if the
constants could have assumed an infinite number of values, all unrelated
to each other, the odds are negligible that we would have a universe
like this one. But your assumptions, which I have tried in vain to point
out to you, are unfounded.

We don't know that the laws of physics are fine-tuned. We only know that
they have particular values. In order to know that they are fine-tuned,
we have to know that there were other possible values. Which we don't.


Then you must deny that the initial state was tumultuous, random and
chaotic.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. A hot gas is tumultuous, random, and
chaotic, but it follows certain laws. One doesn't rule out the other. A
system may be random in some ways but not in others. This is no argument.

Why are you ignoring this?

I hope you understand, that at no time and no place have I
claimed that any of the scientist I have read, concluded that the
reason for this fine attuning is because of divine intervention.

Yes, and since your only argument is from the authority of those
scientists, you would appear to have nothing.

If I have nothing, then these scientist have nothing. But who are you
to make this judgment. What are your credentials in this area? I
admit I have none, consequently I must rely on their research and their
data.

Ah, but you don't. You only take the bits you want and reject the rest.
But why am I bothering to argue with you? Apparently I should be taking
this up with Hawking, since you have no argument of your own.



Wheeler has taken the Anthropic Principle further that Hawking
and Carter. I quote, "Wheeler agrees with Hawking and Carter that our
own universe
is uniquely fine-tuned to produce life, even in just one small lost corner.
Ref: Boslough, Stephen Hawking's Universe. 1989, pg. 113.

If this is true (and we have it only third-hand), so what? Are you
making an argument from authority?

Just a reference. I'm a dentist (semi retired) so, I have no choice but
to take the word of those who have studied and researched. When I am
ill I go to an MD, When I want to know something about philosophy
I go to a philosopher. When I want to know something about ancient
History, I go to history books. So I don't understand your problem.

My problems are two-fold. The first is that you have no argument.
Arguments from authority are not valid. The second is that you pick and
choose what to believe from your authorities. On what basis, since you
agree you're not competent to judge?

False accusation, I do not pick and choose. Furthermore, you do not
even attempt to back it up.

Back what up? I'm asking you for evidence of an assertion. You have
presented no evidence. Not even your quotes make the assertion you make.
You claim that some intelligence is responsible for the values of
universal constants. All the people you quote (except Davies) reject
that claim.


No one rejected it. In which quote did I offer which anyone actually
denied the claim. You are mistaken.

I swear that one of your quotes mentioned someone coming up with
theories in order to specifically deny that intelligence was involved.
But never mind, I found my own quote.

>
I believe you are in reference to Hawking's "no boundary proposal" in
which he postulates a "universe without a beginning: in which case he
says there would be no place for God. But he also says this is only a
proposal which cannot be deduced from any other principle.
I would suggest this is shades of Hoyle's "steady state" hypothesis.

Not really. He's just talking about time and space both being closed.
That's much different from an eternal universe.


It's the most reasonable because a random, chaotic Big bang and it's
aftermath can render nothing else.
[snip]

Why?

Still Why?

There is no observation of fine-tuning. There is an observation that the
constants have particular values.

And the values of these constants are critical to the emergence of the
universe and life. The critical values of the contstants is why the term
"fine tuned" is applied by scientist.

That assumes that the values could have been different. What is your
justification for that assumption?



There is a theoretical claim that if
they had different values we wouldn't be here. Then again, I have a
theoretical claim that if red was green, strawberries would look funny.
But this is not a claim that red could have been green.

And I will note again that your argument from authority is silly,
especially since you feel free to reject whatever your authorities say
on other matters.

What have I rejected? Nothing. You have repeatedly ignored every
reference I made where these scientist discussed the "fine tuned"
aspect of the cosmological constants. You accuse me of that which
you are guilty of.

How many of these scientists agree with you that an intelligent creator
was responsible for fixing the values of the constants?


This is a claim I haven't made. But neither has any actually rule it out.

See Hawking quote, below.


Then you will be able to answer the question: what evidence do you have
that the constants in question were initially able to assume different
values than they actually did?

The fact that these 26 constants were not arbitrary, erratic or
capricious does nothing for your position. It indicates to me
that some intellect must have been involved at the beginning.

Yes, and I'm asking why it indicates this. But you are not answering.
You just repeat your assertions, and refuse to engage my actual arguments.

I have answered it, you simply refuse to accept anything outside
your philosophy. My contention is that random capricious process will
generate chaotic capricious results.

You are still forcing your assumptions onto me. I am not claiming that
the values of the universal constants arose by random capricious
process. I'm merely pointing out that you assume that these constants
could have taken infinitely many values, and that you have no basis for
that assumption.


There is _not_ another logical option given that the B.B and the initial
condition was random and chaotic. And you are being illogical and
irrational to deny this.

If that's your argument, it just doesn't follow. Just because a big bang
is random in some respects doesn't mean it's random in all respects.

>
Why not, what mechanism would render anything except chaos
tumultuousness and disorder. Without some organizing force this would be
the result.

"Chaos" in this sense is not a meaningful term. It's just a placeholder
for your vaguely imagined assumptions. I can see why you ignored the
analogy of a hot gas, which is chaotic in some ways but not in others.

In

fact you have already imposed order on it by demanding that only a
particular number of constants could have had infinite values. By doing
this, you rule out a vast number of potential states of the universe,
including ones with quite different physical laws, that are much more
hospitable for life than the one we have. You are thinking way inside
the box here.


Again, it's impossible to show that differing values or random values
of the constants for our universe existed and were possible.

Then your argument is based on unfalsifiablable our universe

is endowed with. The odds are against a random, unguided big
bang and expansion accidently giving rise to a 'fine-tuned"
universe such as ours.
Note: I will take the word of scientist such as Rees, Davies,
Wheeler Hawking etc. over your. no insult intended.

So all you have is an argument from authority. And note that most of
these authorities do not agree with you about anything else. I believe
that Rees, Wheeler, and Hawking all reject the need for a creator.

Actually, they were moot on this. Science is secular. And they have
their professional reputations to think about, so they were unwilling to
go the next step.

Do you have any evidence for their internal thought processes? Is it
really your claim that they are lying in their public utterances that
are counter to your beliefs?

No, I trust them, you on the otoh, ignore their "fine tuned constants"
theory which means you consider them to be either deluded or lying.

If you trust them, then you must agree with them that the universe
probably was not created by an intelligent being. Do you agree?


I trust their data, there is no justification for your comment, but
where they refuse to draw a conclusion I do.


So




you have in fact an argument from authorities that you otherwise reject.
This is supposed to make sense?

I didn't reject their data, they drew no conclusions. I was willing to
go the next step.

I believe your quotes indicate that they did draw conclusions, but
contrary to your desires.

They did not, I read their books, you did not. Therefore, you have no
basis for you opinion of them. They were moot on the issue. They simply
did not want to go there.

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the
universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it
would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe
began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not
necessary." [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]


Come'mon I don't speak German, and if I did, I do not have access to a
foreign magazine almost two decades old. However, I did take two
semesters of German at the University, which is enough to know that in
translating from one language to another, meaning is lost, altered of a
somewhat different meaning is given. But I do know that Hawking has
attempted to "get the elephant out of the living room". One is his
attempts is his "no boundary proposal". in which he says if the universe
had no beginning it would simply be. "What place then for a creator?"
So, the quote from the German magazine is questionable.

What if, speaking hypothetically here, the quote were accurately
translated, and did reflect Hawking's views? He's obviously not talking
here about a universe with no beginning; he's talking about "the way the
universe began".

>
Having read several Books and articles by Hawking,I know he goes into
great details to support his views and conclusions. If this quote is
accurate I certainty would want to look at his reasoning.
When he described his no boundres, no beginning, this at first confused
me, he seemed to be going against his other position, but in another
place in his book he went into detail which he explained this was a
proposal based upon no other principle. .

I suppose I'll have to look for more Hawking quotes. But is it worth the
trouble when you will be able to find something to complain about in
each of them?


I afraid you are decades behind in astrophysics and astronomy.

Could be. But you seem unable to provide answers to any of my questions.


In all due respect, you are not being reasonable or rational.

Then you should be able to present an argument showing that I'm wrong,
and answer my questions.

I have, it isn't my problem since you do not seem to understand The
illogical position you have staked out and refuse to be moved by
what I consider logical and reasoned arguments I offered or the
conviction of many scientist that our universe is "fine tuned".

You have offered no logical arguments, only that your feelings tell you
that A is better than B, and that you think some scientists like A.
Neither is a logical argument.

Frankly, John I see no reason to carry this discourse farther. But I
have enjoyed it, and I always looked forward to you next response.
I appreciate you civil and polite tone. You are a fine man and I
Thank you,

Sure. Now any time you would like to discuss evolution (which was
supposedly the topic of this thread), I would be happy to do so.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Logarithm of transfinite numbers
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... But since you criticize other mathematics on ... widespread usage of the Leibniz notation, how in the limit via infinite ... The universe is infinite, infinite sets are equivalent. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: ping Frez
    ... physicists have had a particularly difficult relationship with the notion of boundlessness. ... The general theory of relativity predicts that singularities in which physical properties become infinite occur in the centre of black holes and in the Big Bang that kicked our Universe into existence. ... Unless we are missing something of fundamental importance, these observations indicate that our expanding Universe is about 14 billion years old, contains copious quantities of dark matter in some unidentified form, and is expanding at an accelerating rate. ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
  • Re: Logarithm of transfinite numbers
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... But since you criticize other mathematics on ... widespread usage of the Leibniz notation, how in the limit via infinite ... The universe is infinite, infinite sets are equivalent. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... >>>Separation is sufficient to contradict the existence of such a set. ... >> There is no set in ZF which is the universe in a model (i.e. for any set ... Thus, with a non hereditarily finite set, ... So, if infinite sets are irregular, and finite sets are not, then, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Can any old earther refute common genetic ancestry?
    ... Narrow range would certainly fall under within infinite different range. ... The Universe exist life exist, ...
    (talk.origins)