Register to reply

Kenneth miller thinks god exists in quantum mechanics

Share this thread:
JaredJames
#55
May12-11, 07:50 AM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by vjk2 View Post
why didn't I wikipedia search this notion to start off? silly me.

yeah, that's what I"m arguing in a nutshell.
No, you're arguing a god(s) forced things this way for us. That is the context I've been reading throughout this.
vjk2
#56
May12-11, 07:53 AM
P: 74
Quote Quote by JaredJames View Post
No, you're arguing a god(s) forced things this way for us. That is the context I've been reading throughout this.
Proponents of fine-tuning include physicist Paul Davies who has stated "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
JaredJames
#57
May12-11, 07:54 AM
P: 3,387
And the line directly before that:
The existence and extent of fine-tuning in the universe is a matter of dispute in the scientific community.
And directly after it:
Other physicists such as Victor Stenger dispute fine-tuning, saying that even though "life as we know it would not exist if any one of several of the constants of physics were just slightly different, [we] cannot prove that some other form of life is feasible with a different set of constants. Anyone who insists that our form of life is the only one conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory.
Also note that the line you quote simply means people agree we have things pretty well set out for life. Not that they agree it was produced by something(one) such as a god. It also doesn't rule out it being freak occurrence and neither does it rule out other possibilities of life etc.
vjk2
#58
May12-11, 07:56 AM
P: 74
Quote Quote by JaredJames View Post
And the line directly before that:


And directly after it:
Yes, some people disagree with the notion of a fine-tuned universe.
JaredJames
#59
May12-11, 07:58 AM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by vjk2 View Post
Yes, some people disagree with the notion of a fine-tuned universe.
The line you quoted doesn't change what I wrote (the bit you quoted of me).

You are arguing for a god(s) or creator. That line, doesn't support your view. In fact, that almost strikes me as trying to pass off misinformation.
vjk2
#60
May12-11, 08:00 AM
P: 74
Quote Quote by JaredJames View Post
The line you quoted doesn't change what I wrote (the bit you quoted of me).

You are arguing for a god(s) or creator. That line, doesn't support your view.
Who said that it had to? That's the notion. draw what conclusions you may from it.

and...read the book!
Ryan_m_b
#61
May12-11, 08:02 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,462
Quote Quote by vjk2 View Post
Who said that it had to? That's the notion. draw what conclusions you may from it.

and...read the book!
This is just going round in circles. vjk2 you are just ignoring peoples points and making erroneous arguments whilst not supplying evidence for your claim that an intelligent entity did it.
JaredJames
#62
May12-11, 08:02 AM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by vjk2 View Post
Who said that it had to? That's the notion. draw what conclusions you may from it.
So why post it?

It didn't have anything to do with my posts, it didn't support you, what exactly was it's purpose?
Dotini
#63
May12-11, 08:03 AM
PF Gold
P: 513
Don't most of today's most-published, trendsetting super-thinkers like Hawking, Davies, Kaku et al accept the multiverse theory precisely because of apparent fine-tuning?

Respectfully,
Steve
vjk2
#64
May12-11, 08:09 AM
P: 74
The wikipedia entry did a better job of explaining a concept I was trying to explain a few pages back. and someone else linked it, not me.

if there is only one universe (there might be multiple universes, but we have no evidence of these alternate universes in which gravitational constants are different), then the fact that it has been "fine-tuned" for the periodic table of elements and from there, life, is evidence of a God.

That is Ken Miller's argument.

You guys are saying that it is reductionist, like say, how a lucky lottery ticket winner might attribute some superstition to his win when it was mere probability. That is why creationists are wrong. But, for the universe to exist as it is there is a one in infinity chance, and there is only one shot at it. Finely tuned.

That's the argument.
Ryan_m_b
#65
May12-11, 08:10 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,462
Quote Quote by vjk2 View Post
The wikipedia entry did a better job of explaining a concept I was trying to explain a few pages back. and someone else linked it, not me.

if there is only one universe (there might be multiple universes, but we have no evidence of these alternate universes in which gravitational constants are different), then the fact that it has been "fine-tuned" for the periodic table of elements and from there, life, is evidence of a God.

That is Ken Miller's argument.

You guys are saying that it is reductionist, like say, how a lucky lottery ticket winner might attribute some superstition to his win when it was mere probability. That is why creationists are wrong. But, for the universe to exist as it is there is a one in infinity chance, and there is only one shot at it. Finely tuned.

That's the argument.
That may be the argument but it is unsubstantiated.

Claiming something is evidence does not make it so. You have to have demonstrable data, you cant just say "X is evidence of Y", you actually have to support that.
JaredJames
#66
May12-11, 08:10 AM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by vjk2 View Post
if there is only one universe (there might be multiple universes, but we have no evidence of these alternate universes in which gravitational constants are different), then the fact that it has been "fine-tuned" for the periodic table of elements and from there, life, is evidence of a God.
No it is not. That is a key point you are missing.

So far you are inferring this without supporting evidence, despite requests. This thread is going round and round.
vjk2
#67
May12-11, 08:33 AM
P: 74
Quote Quote by JaredJames View Post
No it is not. That is a key point you are missing.

So far you are inferring this without supporting evidence, despite requests. This thread is going round and round.
well.

the point hinges on whether or not there are multiple universes or not.

If there are multiple universes, then it all procedes much as natural selection.

If there is only one universe, then there is a one in infinity chance that the various physical constants are put into just hte right balance that hydrogen and oxygen can form, that stars can ignite and planets coalesce.

if there is only one universe and there is a one in infinity chance for all of this happening, then that would be evidence of some sort of deity.

there is no conclusive evidence that this is the only universe that has ever been...however there is mroe evidence of this one universe's existence than there is of infinity parallel univereses with different physical constants. Our current reality could have been one of infinity prior universes, or it might be the only one. there is no conclusive proof either way, true.

But, if it is the only universe in existence, the one in infinity chance is pretty convincing. You guys are basically saying that...it's so obvious that fine-tuning didn't happen b/c there were multiple preceding universes. If you don't want god to exist, then you're pretty much forced to argue for multiple preceding universes. So where's the proof for those universes?
Ryan_m_b
#68
May12-11, 08:40 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,462
Quote Quote by vjk2 View Post
well.

the point hinges on whether or not there are multiple universes or not.

If there are multiple universes, then it all procedes much as natural selection.

If there is only one universe, then there is a one in infinity chance that the various physical constants are put into just hte right balance that hydrogen and oxygen can form, that stars can ignite and planets coalesce.

if there is only one universe and there is a one in infinity chance for all of this happening, then that would be evidence of some sort of deity.

there is no conclusive evidence that this is the only universe that has ever been...however there is mroe evidence of this one universe's existence than there is of infinity parallel univereses with different physical constants. Our current reality could have been one of infinity prior universes, or it might be the only one. there is no conclusive proof either way, true.

But, if it is the only universe in existence, the one in infinity chance is pretty convincing. You guys are basically saying that...it's so obvious that fine-tuning didn't happen b/c there were multiple preceding universes. If you don't want god to exist, then you're pretty much forced to argue for multiple preceding universes. So where's the proof for those universes?
You're presenting a string of logical fallacies.

Firstly; our understanding of the 'creation' of the universe is limited. There is no evidence for the claim 'there were infinite chances'

Secondly; even if there were an infinity of chances there is no requirement for an omnipotent intelligence to make one of those options happen

Thirdly; it is a false dichotomy to suggest that the only two options are god or multiple universes

Fourthly; multiple universes would not undergo natural selection, unless you are suggesting that within some meta-universe all universes compete for existence and the chance to procreate and that there is some criteria for selecting universes with this meta-universe. Pure conjuncture.

My second point is by far the worst logical fallacy that you (and/or miller) has made
Dotini
#69
May12-11, 08:43 AM
PF Gold
P: 513
Quote Quote by ryan_m_b View Post
Do you really think a system is fine tuned for a component when that component makes up ~0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the mass?
Quote Quote by vjk2 View Post
well.
If you don't want god to exist, then you're pretty much forced to argue for multiple preceding universes. So where's the proof for those universes?
I don't want to be forced into a choice between God and multiverses!

Therefore, I accept as evidence the relative lack of biology in the universe to argue against fine tuning for biology. Biology may be merely an accident - an error.

Respectfully,
Steve
vjk2
#70
May12-11, 08:49 AM
P: 74
close, but not quite.

YOU should be arguing that there are multiple universes, because if there is only one universe than than by the finely-tuned argument that is evidence of a deity (one in infinity).

If there are multiple universes, then the constants that arrived at existence as we know it, those constants were arrived at by chance, constant trial and error.

those multiple universes would not be competing with each other...but it would be something like universe one would have the gravitational constant be 6.7 × 10^-11 and another would be 6.8x10^-11...and ours is the one with 6.67300 × 10^-11 and we popped up in this one.

but all theories of those other universes is all conjecture, while we do have ample evidence of this universe.
Ryan_m_b
#71
May12-11, 08:52 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,462
Quote Quote by vjk2 View Post
close, but not quite.

YOU should be arguing that there are multiple universes, because if there is only one universe than than by the finely-tuned argument that is evidence of a deity (one in infinity).

If there are multiple universes, then the constants that arrived at existence as we know it, those constants were arrived at by chance, constant trial and error.

those multiple universes would not be competing with each other...but it would be something like universe one would have the gravitational constant be 6.7 × 10^-11 and another would be 6.8x10^-11...and ours is the one with 6.67300 × 10^-11 and we popped up in this one.

but all theories of those other universes is all conjecture, while we do have ample evidence of this universe.
Can you thoroughly explain why a deity is needed. The fine-tuning argument for god simply claims that there must have been a deity. Saying "by the fine-tuned argument that is evidence" doesn't give any support to your proposition
vjk2
#72
May12-11, 08:55 AM
P: 74
one in infinity.

for instance...speech is a series of sounds. how do you differentiate between when someone is talking to you and just random noise? If you hear your name being called, there is a very very small chance that it could have been the result of everyday background noise, and there is a much much higher chance that it is someone addressing you.


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