Kenneth miller thinks god exists in quantum mechanics

vjk2

if x or y was different we wouldn't be here :)

I'm pointing to probability. There are infinite other combinations of possible different physical constants. Some might work. You might see, instead of carbon-based life, aluminum-based life. Others would not. It's not absolute, but slightly different variables would result in a very thin cloud of matter too far apart for molecules to meet let alone form life, or missing basic building things like water, etc.

If there is only one shot at this, and this phrase is important, then the fact that the universe is "tuned" within this small range is extraordinary. 1 or maybe 2-3 in a very large number.

So the proof really is just a logical argument from probability.

So most people trying to argue against fine-tuning don't dwell on the 1 in infinity chance, instead they move on to the argument of a series of alternate universes with slightly different constants and we popped up on the one with this specific bunch, thus making 1 in infinity, um, infinity in infinity.

Ryan_m_b

Not at all.

Firstly where is the evidence that there was a 1 in infinity chance? Citations from peer-reviewed literature please
Secondly where is the evidence that a God is needed to resolve that 1 in infinity chance? Citations from peer-reviewed literature please
Thirdly where is the evidence that the constants of this universe were deliberately set up? Citations from peer-reviewed literature please.

Your argument is nothing to do with logic let alone "logical argument from probability". Improbabilities, no matter how large (or indeed infinite) are not evidence of the supernatural.

Again you haven't provided any evidence for your claims

FlexGunship

This is an incredibly specious argument. If nothing else it's a bit like arguing how lucky we are that gasoline is combustible since we have so many cars that wouldn't work if it weren't combustible.

If the universe had slightly different qualities, then evolved life would have different qualities. If the universe had significantly different qualities (i.e. such that mass didn't exist), then the discussion is moot. But, and THIS is important, there's nothing to suggest that these values could be anything other than what they are.

• We are very lucky that the perimeter of a square is four times the length of a side, because if it weren't the perimeter would be larger than the square!
• We are so incredibly fortunate that the area of a square is EXACTLY the square of one side because if it weren't, there wouldn't be enough room for the square to fit inside of itself.
• What a great thing it is that the volume of a cube is the cube of one of it's edges. If it weren't, then there would be too small of a space to fit the cube in!

This is what it sounds like when you post statements like the ones above. No one "tuned" a cube to be the correct size. It's an axiomatic property. Until there is evidence of a multi-verse, there is no reason to believe the universe comes in many "flavors." And if there is ever evidence of a multi-verse, then you may apply the anthropic principle to our existence.

thorium1010

how do you know there is only one shot for the universe ? Big bang was an only an event in space and time, from which the universe exists as we see it now. (its actually a model which explains all current observations) Where is the evidence that it was forced or put into subsequent events by something outside the universe ?

vjk2

I don't know. I'm not making an argument that YOU should believe in god based on the reasons, I'm saying that this is a compelling reason to believe in God.

Of course it's not certain. But I do feel that it is compelling.

Darken-Sol

your connection with your god is your own. i know mine is. you can look for reasons to share this connection but there are none. if you doubt your gods existence or need to prove it try another one. god is simply an advanced template with which to compare our selves. science is a god, well, the entire collection of sciences. a means to apply permanence where there is none. a creator as opposed to creation running rampant, which it appears to do. structure amidst chaos. cause and effect and purpose.

thorium1010

Belief has nothing to do with the way physics of universe work. Sometimes faith or belief can cloud science. Having a belief (in god ) and then going out to look for certain things in universe that validates your belief, says more about your belief rather than workings of universe.

whatever scientists observe and predict within that observation has to have evidence or be experimentally verified. Belief (in god) so far has not produced any evidence. when you say there is a compelling reason, as said before Non of the sciences can validate this argument.

JaredJames

You've taken A, linked it to B through nothing more than blind assumption and your own willing to do so and then declared it compelling.

There is nothing logical about it and certainly nothing to support it.

The whole premise is non-sense. Of course, you could provide some evidence as has been requested for the last 3 pages...

Ryan_m_b

Any evidence or logical arguments to back up that claim? If not it's just another faith-based claim

Dotini

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that many prominent scientists such as Hawking adopt the uncomfortable and unobservable multiverse theory precisely because of the need for this universe to be random, i.e., free of apparent fine-tuning?

Respectfully,
Steve

Ryan_m_b

What gave you that idea?

Dotini

"Hawking, like every other physicist, is confronted with powerful evidence of design, as he explains in his book:

Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained and raises the natural question of why it is that way…. The discovery relatively recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many of the laws of nature could lead at least some of us back to the old idea that this grand design is the work of some grand designer…. That is not the answer of modern science…our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws.(12)"

http://www.rzim.org/justthinkingfv/t...efault.aspx#12

Thus, if you are a "modern scientist", you are forced by Hawking into choosing between a designer and a multiverse. Doesn't he imply you can't have it both ways - or even neither? This bothers me.

Ryan_m_b

I'm very skeptical about this source. For a start the author is claiming that Hawking is trying to come up with excuses not to believe in god, in actual fact Hawking is explaining in a pop science book the various ideas currently rattling around in the physics community. Neither Hawkins, nor any prominent scientist would bow to fine tuning as a valid argument.

Hawking is not forcing any scientists to follow anything, scientists do not defer to some high authority! Science is expressed through evidence, nothing else. Even if Hawking is suggesting that our options are designer or multiverse that doesn't make him right; just like any scientist he is bound by evidence.

None of this is getting us closer to any evidence for fine tuning as myself, Jared, FlexGunship and Thorium1010 have all asked for.

Dotini

I apologize for that source. It was merely on a google search. Here's a better source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Weak anthropic principle (WAP) (Barrow and Tipler): "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so."[18]
Unlike Carter they restrict the principle to carbon-based life, rather than just "observers." A more important difference is that they apply the WAP to the fundamental physical constants, such as the fine structure constant, the number of spacetime dimensions, and the cosmological constant —, topics that fall under Carter's SAP.

Strong anthropic principle (SAP) (Barrow and Tipler): "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history."[19]
This looks very similar to Carter's SAP, but unlike the case with Carter's SAP, the "must" is an imperative, as shown by the following three possible elaborations of the SAP, each proposed by Barrow and Tipler:[20]

* "There exists one possible Universe 'designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining 'observers.'"
This can be seen as simply the classic design argument restated in the garb of contemporary cosmology. It implies that the purpose of the universe is to give rise to intelligent life, with the laws of nature and their fundamental physical constants set to ensure that life as we know it will emerge and evolve.
* "Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being."
Barrow and Tipler believe that this is a valid conclusion from quantum mechanics, as John Archibald Wheeler has suggested, especially via his participatory universe and Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP).
* "An ensemble of other different universes is necessary for the existence of our Universe."
By contrast, Carter merely says that an ensemble of universes is necessary for the SAP to count as an explanation.

[21]

I personally am not arguing for a designer or fine-tuning. I'm more concerned about multiverses, and I can see that the apparent trend in most levels of physics is to accept the multiverse in order that the universe not be non-random. Fine-tuning is evidently a strong argument for some highly regarded scientists. I sincerely want you to win this argument, but be aware that you're up against Stephen Hawking and a well-accepted fine tuning science literature.

pftest

Quote from Paul Davies:Published in the International Journal of Astrobiology, which is in the PF list of accepted journals.

This is the wikipedia article that mentioned the paper:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

thorium1010

First of all paul davies is a physicist not a biologist. He makes assertions that neither supported by evidence nor verified. Its like writing a popular article about making claims of one's pre conceived idea's. Again he is discussing philosophy and making claims which are not supported.


would welcome comments on this

pftest

Apparently his paper is good enough for a peer reviewed scientific journal.

Which claims?