Kenneth miller thinks god exists in quantum mechanics

[JaredJames]

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.

 

[vjk2]

"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."

the laws cannot literally be anything. If the strong nuclear force were different, elements would not have been able to form. That is his conclusion by his reading of Stephen Hawking. as I said earlier...it's a "why is there something instead of nothing" argument.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

"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."

the laws cannot literally be anything. If the strong nuclear force were different, elements would not have been able to form. That is his conclusion by his reading of Stephen Hawking. as I said earlier...it's a "why is there something instead of nothing" argument.

You are misunderstanding me, I meant the laws could have been literally anything. I am not suggesting that the laws can change within this universe, I'm saying it's entirely conceivable that the universe could have had different laws than the ones it has.

Again: do you have any evidence for tuning?

 

[Darken-Sol]

Nope, it's still happening.

We observer it now.

oh my bad i thought that was expansion. I've confused the two before.

 

[JaredJames]

oh my bad i thought that was expansion. I've confused the two before.

Oh, don't know then. Could be different. I thought they were the same thing.

 

[vjk2]

I"m not saying that you're saying that they can change within the universe :)

I'm saying that they could not have been anything. basic constants like the strong nuclear force constant, if different, would have made it impossible for water to form, let alone stable compounds. If it were different there literally would be no hydrogen, or there would be all hydrogen and nothing else. That's the point that miller makes.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Oh, don't know then. Could be different. I thought they were the same thing.

Inflation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology )

Expansion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I"m not saying that you're saying that they can change within the universe :)

I'm saying that they could not have been anything. basic constants like the strong nuclear force constant, if different, would have made it impossible for water to form, let alone stable compounds. If it were different there literally would be no hydrogen, or there would be all hydrogen and nothing else. That's the point that miller makes.

I'm sorry if that's the impression you got but that was not what I was saying. I was referring to your assertion that if they had have been different then things would be different now.

My responses have been that if they had have been different life could have occurred if stable self-replicating structures were allowed.

Again for the Nth time

The fact that Y conditions gave rise to X formations is no evidence that Y was tuned for X.

 

[JaredJames]

Inflation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology )

Expansion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

Thanks. Didn't know that.

 

[Darken-Sol]

I"m not saying that you're saying that they can change within the universe :)

I'm saying that they could not have been anything. basic constants like the strong nuclear force constant, if different, would have made it impossible for water to form, let alone stable compounds. If it were different there literally would be no hydrogen, or there would be all hydrogen and nothing else. That's the point that miller makes.

you are just arguing that there "are" laws. which he is saying too. under these laws by chance we could have happened. there is not proof either way. the designer idea makes me more comfortable so i choose that. i don't need evidence i go with what works for me

 

[Darken-Sol]

Thanks. Didn't know that.

i need to read up on how they differ, they sound similar. especially when thinking of that damn baloon.

 

[vjk2]

which is why I say it's a "why is there something instead of nothing" argument.

under these laws, yes, life is possible. but there are an infinite number of values that these laws could have taken. The strong nuclear force could have been anything from negative infinity to infinity. That they exist within that tiny little frame so that a periodic table of elements can form and from there evolution of species is miraculous, and evidence of divine intent.

these are the only values of the strong nuclear force and gravitational constant, it appears that allow for stable compounds to form.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

which is why I say it's a "why is there something instead of nothing" argument.

under these laws, yes, life is possible. but there are an infinite number of values that these laws could have taken. The strong nuclear force could have been anything from negative infinity to infinity. That they exist within that tiny little frame so that a periodic table of elements can form and from there evolution of species is miraculous, and evidence of divine intent.

these are the only values of the strong nuclear force and gravitational constant, it appears that allow for stable compounds to form.

Why do you insist that the 4 forces we observe are the only forces a universe can have?

And the notion that an improbability must require divine intervention to occur is not scientific at all. Without evidence all you have their is a statement of faith and those do not belong on this forum, from the PF rules (available here https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380 )

Discussions that assert the a priori truth or falsity of religious dogmas and belief systems, or value judgments stemming from such religious belief systems, will not be tolerated

 

[Darken-Sol]

which is why I say it's a "why is there something instead of nothing" argument.

under these laws, yes, life is possible. but there are an infinite number of values that these laws could have taken. The strong nuclear force could have been anything from negative infinity to infinity. That they exist within that tiny little frame so that a periodic table of elements can form and from there evolution of species is miraculous, and evidence of divine intent.

these are the only values of the strong nuclear force and gravitational constant, it appears that allow for stable compounds to form.

call it spontaneous symmetry breaking or descending from wu ji or gods plan, your taking a step without looking. even saying there was nothing goes too far for science. believe what you want everyone else does.

 

[chronon]

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.

Let's be clear about this, you are disagreeing with ryan. You are saying there is apparent fine tuning, (but it is explained by multiple universes), whilst ryan is saying that there is no apparent fine tuning.

Note that there is considerable support for the idea of apparent fine tuning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Let's be clear about this, you are disagreeing with ryan. You are saying there is apparent fine tuning, (but it is explained by multiple universes), whilst ryan is saying that there is no apparent fine tuning.

Note that there is considerable support for the idea of apparent fine tuning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Actually I'm arguing;

-Physical laws that allow self-replicating (with error) structures could result in life

-The term "fine tuning" in the context of this thread suggests that the conditions in this universe were set by an intelligence

-There is no evidence that the conditions of the universe are what they are specifically so that the structures we see now can occur

-Whilst there may be evidence that altering the constants in the universe would disrupt it there is no evidence that the reason the constants are what they are is so that what we see can exist.

 

[JaredJames]

Let's be clear about this, you are disagreeing with ryan. You are saying there is apparent fine tuning, (but it is explained by multiple universes), whilst ryan is saying that there is no apparent fine tuning.

I'm not arguing we have things well set out for life, but that doesn't mean something fine tuned it to be that way. The argument being given here is "things appear finely tuned therefore something did that".

To quote from your wiki page:

Anyone who insists that our form of life is the only one conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory."

I was going to mention this point. Just because we don't have a way of existing with things being different, doesn't mean something else couldn't have.

As per my coin toss example, just because something unlikely occurs, it doesn't mean someone caused that to happen (fine tuned it to occur). Sure, perhaps the particular circumstances were perfectly tuned for it to happen, but again that doesn't mean someone made it that way.

RE Bolded: I wasn't being serious, just throwing out something equally plausible as there being a god that fine tuned things.

Note that there is considerable support for the idea of apparent fine tuning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

How lovely, perhaps you could point out where they invoke a god?

 

[vjk2]

Let's be clear about this, you are disagreeing with ryan. You are saying there is apparent fine tuning, (but it is explained by multiple universes), whilst ryan is saying that there is no apparent fine tuning.

Note that there is considerable support for the idea of apparent fine tuning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

why didn't I wikipedia search this notion to start off? silly me.

yeah, that's what I"m arguing in a nutshell.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

why didn't I wikipedia search this notion to start off? silly me.

yeah, that's what I"m arguing in a nutshell.

The difference is you are arguing that the conditions of this universe are what they are because some intelligent process deliberately caused it to be so specifically so that what we have could come to be.

 

[JaredJames]

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]

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]

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 anyone 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]

And the line directly before that:


And directly after it:

Yes, some people disagree with the notion of a fine-tuned universe.

 

[JaredJames]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 can't just say "X is evidence of Y", you actually have to support that.

 

[JaredJames]

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]

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]

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]

Do you really think a system is fine tuned for a component when that component makes up ~0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the mass?

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]

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.