Big Bang

[Leon Roskilly]

A man comes upon a snow-flake, and realises that for that snowflake to exist at all requires a fantastically improbable series of events beginning with the creation of the universe itself, and intial conditions that evolve into new conditions dependent upon the conditions that have happened before.

 

And he realises that all of this must show that there is a god who designed a universe simply so that snowflake could have existed, because any slight variation to the way the universe works would have made it impossible for the snowflake to ever come into being.

 

So, was the universe made for mankind, or made for snowflakes and we, like the trees, just happened to appear as a consequence of a universe fine-tuned to make snowflakes possible?

 

I'd say it was pretty arrogant of us to assume that the univers was made especially for us, when there's an incomprehensible number of other things that could only exist because of the way that the universe is 'tuned'!

Edited December 1, 2009 by Leon Roskilly

[Jim Roper]

Life, but not as we know it!

[corydoras]

Do I?

I'd be very interested to hear what an electron is. Of course I don't want to be told that it's a Fermion with a charge of -1, a spin of a 1/2 and a rest mass of 0.511MeV. That's like trying to say a car is something that is blue, does 30mpg and weighs a ton. Doesn't really explain what a car is, does it?

As I said I know how an electron behaves. I know quite a lot about its properties. I don't, however, have a clue what one is.

I know what you mean Colin, but I can 'imagine' an electron in my head. I can imagine neutron stars and black holes too.

[The Flying Tench]

I know what you mean Colin, but I can 'imagine' an electron in my head. I can imagine neutron stars and black holes too.

 

And so did Einstein, I think, when he said they were red!

[corydoras]

And so did Einstein, I think, when he said they were red!

My electrons don't have colour. Black holes emit no light so by definition don't have 'colours'. Neutron stars are blue or violet, but would appear red to human eyes if one were close enough. Mind you if you got close enough to a neutron star to actually see it you would in all likelyhood die of spaghettification. Edited December 2, 2009 by corydoras

[The Flying Tench]

Hmm, yes, but to my mind the circularity comes from the assumption that this particular outcome is preferable to the other possible outcomes - which seems to presuppose the existence of one who prefers.

 

I think that if you could prove the existence of a god and that this reality is its preferred one (or if you accept it on faith), you would have some circumstantial evidence that it has been fiddling with the levers, so to speak, but I don't think that it works the other way round. So I can see how fine tuning tells someone who believes something about the nature of God (though perhaps something about omnipotence and benevolence that is already theological orthodoxy?), but as a non-believer I don't find it convinces me that it is more likely that there is a god.

 

The other thing that bothers me about it is that we seem to be looking at it as if the two constants are independent random variables which could have landed at any value at all and came out at the required numbers by chance - I don't know enough about cosmology to know what determines those values or what the set of possible values is.

On your third para I think I can see what you are saying - though it still seems to me a remarkable coincidence the constants should need to be at such 'useful' values .

 

On your first 2 paras I'm either not undersanding you or you are not understanding me. I vaguely remember something called bayes' theorem about conditional probabilities, and I suppose that is at eh heart of what I am saying.

 

Assume you know absolutely identical girl twins, and Susan usually wears red dresses, but occasionally wears yellow, and Angela is t'other way round. If you see them in other clothes it is a 50% chance which twin it is. The 'prior' probability is 50%. But if you see one of them and she is wearing a yellow dress it is more likely to be Anglela, as the posterior probability for someone wearing a yellow dress being Angela is higher than 0.5%.

 

In the same way, can I perhaps oversimplify the issue we are debating to clarify this point? If we say that the options for the origin of the universe are god (broadly defined) or chance, and the prior probability of each is 0.5%. But it is unlikely chance would produce stars and life, where with the god option this is a more likely option. What I think Bayes theorem, or the example of the red and yellow dresses, tells us is that the posterior probability of god is higher than 0.5%, whereas for chance it is less.

 

Apologies if you know loads about bayes theorem and i'm simply missing the point you were making!

[The Flying Tench]

So, was the universe made for mankind, or made for snowflakes and we, like the trees, just happened to appear as a consequence of a universe fine-tuned to make snowflakes possible?

 

I'd say it was pretty arrogant of us to assume that the univers was made especially for us, when there's an incomprehensible number of other things that could only exist because of the way that the universe is 'tuned'!

 

I partly agree. I don't think anyone on this thread has argued that the universe was made for us alone, though I have argued that LIFE could not have occurred without fine tuning, and therefore was meant to be in some way. In terms of my personal beliefs I do indeed believe humankind is very important to God, but I think it would be a bridge too far to argue that from fine tuning alone, and of course I believe all God's creation is important to him.

[The Flying Tench]

• 1) I agree with your first premise, either there is or isn't a god/life force.
  
• 2) Your points 2 & 3, as Porgie said in Porgie and Bess It ain't necessarily so.
  
• 3) Even if there is some supreme being that created the Universe and all life in it, by whatever means, how do you come to the conclusion that this must be the god of the Ibrahamic religion of the Jews, Christians and Moslems? How do you know it was not Shiva or Ra?
  

OK, well we don't agree on your 2), but I fully agree on 3). You mention Hindu deities, and indeed pantheism is compatible with fine tuning. Indeed, some have described the kind of life force Einstein believed in as a version of patheism, and I have already agreed early in the thread that this is compatible.

[corydoras]

OK, well we don't agree on your 2), but I fully agree on 3). You mention Hindu deities, and indeed pantheism is compatible with fine tuning. Indeed, some have described the kind of life force Einstein believed in as a version of patheism, and I have already agreed early in the thread that this is compatible.

1. Who is 'we'?
   
2. What is all this talk about Einstien being a Theist? Einstien was as much an atheist as I.
   

Edited December 2, 2009 by corydoras

[Jim Roper]

Who is 'we'?

 

You and him?