Register to reply

Kenneth miller thinks god exists in quantum mechanics

Share this thread:
chronon
#19
May11-11, 12:37 AM
chronon's Avatar
P: 499
Quote Quote by Jack21222 View Post
Physicists fail just as hard trying to do biology. I don't see it as harsh.
Well Francis Crick didn't do too badly
vjk2
#20
May11-11, 08:45 AM
P: 74
I do think it is an ingenious idea though, one that I hadn't really thought of before. In a way, it makes the universe more alive, like...The Force :)

I also think that it is more valid than the multiple universes theory. Simply because...with the multiple universes theory, it is in-fact impossible to find evidence of their existence. It is in-fact "only a theory." The fine-tuned argument is quite compelling. If the gravitational constant were a little weaker, by only a tiny decimal to the negative power, then matter would not have been able to form. If it were a little stronger it would have collapsed back onto itself. This universe you can in-fact touch and feel and verify its existence, so the fine-tuned argument wins I feel.
Ryan_m_b
#21
May11-11, 09:32 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,469
Quote Quote by vjk2 View Post
I do think it is an ingenious idea though, one that I hadn't really thought of before. In a way, it makes the universe more alive, like...The Force :)

I also think that it is more valid than the multiple universes theory. Simply because...with the multiple universes theory, it is in-fact impossible to find evidence of their existence. It is in-fact "only a theory." The fine-tuned argument is quite compelling. If the gravitational constant were a little weaker, by only a tiny decimal to the negative power, then matter would not have been able to form. If it were a little stronger it would have collapsed back onto itself. This universe you can in-fact touch and feel and verify its existence, so the fine-tuned argument wins I feel.
Except there is no evidence of universe tuning at all. The only thing that we see as being tuned is the life that had to evolve in that universe. If the fundamental rules of this universe were totally different as long as there was the chance that in some situation stable enough patterned structures able to self-replicate with error could could arise then life could evolve. It might be radically different but it would still be life and it could still be able to look at it's universe and say "isn't this fine tuned?"

And whilst we're at it mankind masses 3.35e8kg, the total biomass on Earth is 5.6e11kg. The estimated mass of the universe is 1e50 kg.

Do you really think a system is fine tuned for a component when that component makes up ~0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the mass?
vjk2
#22
May11-11, 12:06 PM
P: 74
Quite literally, Te way the math works out, if the electromagnetic constant were a little weaker, like .000001 weaker, the elements would not have been able to form.
JaredJames
#23
May11-11, 12:51 PM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by vjk2 View Post
Quite literally, Te way the math works out, if the electromagnetic constant were a little weaker, like .000001 weaker, the elements would not have been able to form.
Really?
Ryan_m_b
#24
May12-11, 04:17 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,469
Quote Quote by vjk2 View Post
Quite literally, Te way the math works out, if the electromagnetic constant were a little weaker, like .000001 weaker, the elements would not have been able to form.
Did you even read my post? That doesn't matter at all. It's like me picking up a rock and finding it fits perfectly in my pocket before concluding that the rock was fine tuned for my pocket.

There is no evidence this universe is fine tuned, there is only evidence that life evolves to it's environment.
vjk2
#25
May12-11, 04:54 AM
P: 74
Did you read mine?

This isn't about basic physics. you're acting like g on the earth could vary from 2 to 200 ft/sec, like it basically would mean that you might be able to jump higher.

"If the rate of expansion one second after hte big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million it would have recollapsed before it reached its present size. Conversely, if g were smaller, the dust from the big band would just have continued to expand, never coalescing into galaxies, stars, planets, or us"

from the book. Also,

"if the strong nuclear force were just a little weaker, no elements other than hydrogen would have been formed following the big bang. if it were a little stronger, all of the hydrogen in the universe would be gone by now, converted into helium and heavier elements without hydrogen, no sun, no stars, no water."

p. 227 and 228 if you're wondering.

so in other words, quite literally, without these "fine tunings" there would be no planets. It is an argument of "why is there something instead of nothing".
Ryan_m_b
#26
May12-11, 05:20 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,469
Quote Quote by vjk2 View Post
Did you read mine?

This isn't about basic physics. you're acting like g on the earth could vary from 2 to 200 ft/sec, like it basically would mean that you might be able to jump higher.

"If the rate of expansion one second after hte big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million it would have recollapsed before it reached its present size. Conversely, if g were smaller, the dust from the big band would just have continued to expand, never coalescing into galaxies, stars, planets, or us"

from the book. Also,

"if the strong nuclear force were just a little weaker, no elements other than hydrogen would have been formed following the big bang. if it were a little stronger, all of the hydrogen in the universe would be gone by now, converted into helium and heavier elements without hydrogen, no sun, no stars, no water."

p. 227 and 228 if you're wondering.

so in other words, quite literally, without these "fine tunings" there would be no planets. It is an argument of "why is there something instead of nothing".
The point is you have no evidence of fine tuning at all. Pointing to something and saying "if Y wasn't Y then X would never happen" is no evidence that anything has been "tuned". The implication of fine tuning is that some process set the laws of the universe so that X would occur. You have no evidence of this.
Darken-Sol
#27
May12-11, 06:17 AM
Darken-Sol's Avatar
P: 154
Quote Quote by ryan_m_b View Post
Did you even read my post? That doesn't matter at all. It's like me picking up a rock and finding it fits perfectly in my pocket before concluding that the rock was fine tuned for my pocket.

There is no evidence this universe is fine tuned, there is only evidence that life evolves to it's environment.
doesn't inflation imply tuning? or evolution? at the very least life is learning.
Ryan_m_b
#28
May12-11, 06:21 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,469
Quote Quote by Darken-Sol View Post
doesn't inflation imply tuning? or evolution? at the very least life is learning.
Why would it? How is the fact that that X arose from Y evidence for Y being tuned for X?

Remember the fine tuning argument isn't just an observation that "If Y was A different then X couldn't be possible". The fine tuning argument is "If Y was A different then X couldn't be possible. Therefore Y was tuned for X"
vjk2
#29
May12-11, 06:45 AM
P: 74
again, this is in the context of the book. Read it! it is a good read.

I think miller points to physics in contrast to evolution. In evolution which is his expertise he sees no evidence of divine tampering. his point is that the stage was set just so that life could evolve -- this is where he delves into physics.

yes, he is saying that the world is fine-tuned to the extent that at some point an intelligent being would evolve. He says that it could have gone in any such direction, but that doesn't matter so much than as God chose to reveal himself to the product of his evolution.

and he points to physics to show that while evolution is messy and has millions of permutations, physics does not have similar room for error as evolution. A tiny fraction of a difference in the constants would have resulted in nothing.
JaredJames
#30
May12-11, 06:50 AM
P: 3,387
The worst thing I'm seeing here is the insistence that there are no other possibilities.

How do we know that there haven't been trillions of universes with trillions of permutations previously and this just happens to be the one that stuck?

Simple answer, we don't. There is nothing either way. But that would certainly rule out fine tuning and has as much supporting evidence (that's none by the way).

I'd like my closing statement to be the quote below from Dara O'Briain in my signature.
Darken-Sol
#31
May12-11, 06:52 AM
Darken-Sol's Avatar
P: 154
Quote Quote by ryan_m_b View Post
Why would it? How is the fact that that X arose from Y evidence for Y being tuned for X?

Remember the fine tuning argument isn't just an observation that "If Y was A different then X couldn't be possible". The fine tuning argument is "If Y was A different then X couldn't be possible. Therefore Y was tuned for X"
i am probably misunderstanding inflation. i thought it was something that happened early on then quit for no apparent reason, like me adjusting the volume on my i pod.
Ryan_m_b
#32
May12-11, 06:52 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,469
Quote Quote by vjk2 View Post
again, this is in the context of the book. Read it! it is a good read.

I think miller points to physics in contrast to evolution. In evolution which is his expertise he sees no evidence of divine tampering. his point is that the stage was set just so that life could evolve -- this is where he delves into physics.

yes, he is saying that the world is fine-tuned to the extent that at some point an intelligent being would evolve. He says that it could have gone in any such direction, but that doesn't matter so much than as God chose to reveal himself to the product of his evolution.

and he points to physics to show that while evolution is messy and has millions of permutations, physics does not have similar room for error as evolution. A tiny fraction of a difference in the constants would have resulted in nothing.
If thats what Miller chooses to believe then fine by him. But there is no evidence for that. There is no evidence that the laws of physics were put in place by an intelligent being with the intent that 14 billion years later on some speck of dust a bunch of hominids would start living in buildings, drinking coffee and dying of thousands of lovely different diseases.

Again there is no evidence for the universe being tuned, pointing to Y giving rise to X is not an indication that Y was tuned for X. The fact that Y had to be within certain parameters doesn't matter.

If you are going to say "tiny differences would have resulted in nothing" you better have some pretty strong peer-reviewed evidence. As I posted before the laws can be literally anything but as long as they allow stable structures that can self-replicate with error there is potential for life.

Finally if we reversed the universe back to just after the big bang it is highly unlikely it would happen this way again, the universe is only determinate to a certain point. Quantum uncertainty means that it would not be possible to set up this universe with the intent that a certain time later something will happen when there are so many variables between the beginning and that time.
vjk2
#33
May12-11, 06:54 AM
P: 74
we don't know if there weren't trillions of universes before, true. But at the same time, there is NOTHING remotely resembling proof of these universes AS THERE exists proof of evolution. There is, however, proof of this universe, which we have made extensive study of. the trillions of preceding universes theory is in-fact..."just a theory"
Ryan_m_b
#34
May12-11, 06:54 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,469
Quote Quote by Darken-Sol View Post
i am probably misunderstanding inflation. i thought it was something that happened early on then quit for no apparent reason, like me adjusting the volume on my i pod.
Even if we don't know the reason (as JaredJames's great Dara O'Briain quote points out) that doesn't mean that there isn't one. It also doesn't mean that the claim "it was tuned by intelligence" has any value.
JaredJames
#35
May12-11, 06:54 AM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by Darken-Sol View Post
i am probably misunderstanding inflation. i thought it was something that happened early on then quit for no apparent reason, like me adjusting the volume on my i pod.
Nope, it's still happening.

We observer it now.
JaredJames
#36
May12-11, 06:56 AM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by vjk2 View Post
we don't know if there weren't trillions of universes before, true. But at the same time, there is NOTHING remotely resembling proof of these universes AS THERE exists proof of evolution. There is, however, proof of this universe, which we have made extensive study of. the trillions of preceding universes theory is in-fact..."just a theory"
I'm still waiting for the evidence of fine tuning. Because right now it's no different to my "trillions of universes" idea.

As ryan has said, what we have now is not evidence of fine tuning.

I toss 10 heads in a row, it doesn't mean it was fine tuned for that outcome. It's purely the odds allowing it to happen.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Do I need Classical mechanics and waves in order to understand Quantum mechanics? Academic Guidance 22
Do we know for sure if gravity exists in quantum states? Quantum Physics 32
What's the (Electron) Frequency, Kenneth? Quantum Physics 33
Kenneth Arnold UFO case falacies General Discussion 0