|
sent2null (June 21, 2008 at 11:00 pm)
The latter not the former which was some other guys typo. ;)
TechnojunkFactory (June 20, 2008 at 2:25 pm)
So you are not an athiest? But...are you an atheist?
sent2null (February 19, 2008 at 4:43 pm)
I see, so you just don't understand probabilities. Anything can be gaged for probability *against it* happening after it has already happened. It was improbable that Babe Ruth would hit so many home runs, but he did. Improbable that we could land on the moon, but we did. It was improbable that the Earth even has a mooon, but it does. Defining an improbability does not imply a guiding hand for a given event, this is a mistake many people make so don't take this as a personal attack.
dcaruthers34 (February 18, 2008 at 11:51 am)
I'm not playing anything. Using the phrase "fine tuned" is only describing it for what it is. Whatever Weinburg's perspective may be is irrelevant, it is obvious to me that a 1 in10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance doesn't happen by chance. If his calculations are remotely close to the truth, as hard as you may ignorantly try, there is no simplistic/naturalistic explaination you can give me.
sent2null (February 16, 2008 at 10:50 pm)
again you are playing semantics here. the term "fine tuned" implies a tuner. Weinberg doesn't believe in an anthropic principle (that things are the way they are for us)..things are the way they are because if they were not we would not be here to ask the question. Obviously OUR life couldn't form in a universe with different constants this is trivially true but bolsters no argument for "tuning" let alone a sentient tuner(ie a God).
dcaruthers34 (February 16, 2008 at 11:10 am)
"makes no sense"I'm sorry, but the opposite (existence of anything without cause) makes no sense. It's not just because Penrose said so, it's virtually all astrophysicist/astronomers agree with the calculations of finely tuned constants. By the way, Weinberg quantified the aforementioned fine tuning (10 to the 120th pwr) of energy during the big bang. I got it from him, he didn't get it for me.
sent2null (February 16, 2008 at 12:08 am)
To clarify, the second part above was in answer to your question concerning chance emergence of the universe.
sent2null (February 15, 2008 at 11:58 pm)
It isn't recent work, it is at least 50 years old, as old as proof of the big bang model (mid 50's by Arno Penzias)As for natural laws, we know EM,S and W broke symmetry after the bang we still don't know how gravity fits in, the LHC should answer that. Quantum fluctuations are **very** different, there are no laws that predict them they emerge from the mathematical tools (quantum mechanics) themselves and have been verified..so they could very well exist a priori of a big bang event.
sent2null (February 15, 2008 at 11:47 pm)
Your first sentence makes no sense. Sounds like you are spouting debate points you've read elsewhere. Roger Penrose statement aside, there are a great deal **more** mathematicians, physicists and engineers who do not take improbability of our existence as "proof" of *intelligent* creation...it is an unscientific claim..and if Roger Penrose said it (I have not verified your claim) shame on him. To be clear the universe just could have had a creator behind it, an absent minded one.
sent2null (February 15, 2008 at 11:33 pm)
There is no fine tuned constants, no more true is it that the Earth is precisely in this orbit to support life on it. You are free to look at our existence a posteriori and claim the improbabilities of said existence as proof of an *even more* improbable God, but you are definitely not making a rational choice in doing so.It is rational and we know through evidence (the aforementioned zero point energy and quantum fluctuations) it has empirical support. Where is the hard data for your god? |
