Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 17 of 18
 [ 352 posts ] 
The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism
Author Message
leroyPosts: 1563Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Dragan Glas wrote:Leroy, your problem is that you're not as good at reading/understanding English as you think.

What do you think the word "fluctuation" means in the above paragraph?

Kindest regards,

James


Luckily for me, even if you where correct and even you show that I don't understand anything, that would be irrelevant since I am just repeating what experts say.

however in this particular case I do understand what fluctuation means,


is there anything along the following lines that you disagree with? or you are just trolling for the sake of trolling?
any model of the universe that asumes that the low entropy was caused by a random fluctuation has to deal with the BBP, if you personally don't believe in such kind of models then you don't have to worry about this paradox


remember whether if I understand this stuff or not is irrelevant, you can still answer to the question regardless of my understanding, even if I where to stupid to understand these stuff, other readers will eventually read your answer and they might understand it.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:14 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1083Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

leroy wrote:apart from your lies and strawmans that I said I was going to ignore...


The lies and strawman that you can't provide evidence of, but which you keep declaring in each and every thread just about the time when you have nowhere left to run to after having been shown wrong?

Those lies and strawmen?

Yeah, it would help if they existed in written form in this forum - then you'd be able to cite them instead of pretending they exist.

Your behavior here is atrocious. A truly pathetic individual.



leroy wrote:and appart from the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.............


So you declare after having been shown talking bollocks, and thereby cast your declaration about my abilities (or rather, pretend to abilities of your own) in a completely different light.

Remember, your ego doesn't communicate very well to other people who employ honesty.



leroy wrote:we both agree with your conclusion (or the conclusion presented by your quote to be precise)


I bet you don't. I bet you've not written anything in this thread that previously showed your agreement.

I bet you don't offer any substance for this supposed agreement.

I bet you just pretend you're right as you always do because of how you're such a sorry little individual whose sense of self-worth revolves around hating strangers on the internet.



leroy wrote:so we both agree that our universe is not a fluctuation.....


No, we don't. If you want my agreement, it is me who will be doing the agreeing, not you on my behalf.

Don't know how many times you've been told this, but clearly your parents failed to teach you elementary manners.


leroy wrote: that is the intent of the BBP,...


Did you read the text I cited?

Only, you don't seem to have read the text you're now pretending is your position.


leroy wrote:any model of the universe that asumes that the low entropy was caused by a random fluctuation has to deal with the BBP,...


In what way does it 'have to deal with the BBP'?

Can you explain what you think the Boltzmann Brain Paradox actually is because you haven't actually shown any understanding of it yourself, just written the name several times and then declared my citation as being what you meant!

Aside from how that's laughably transparent, I still expect a bit more meat from you than this.

You asked me to go look into it, I have done so, and now where's your argument?


leroy wrote: if you personally don't believe in such kind of models then you don't have to worry about this paradox is there anything in your vast research that makes you conclude otherwise?


What vast research?

Not sure if this kind of thing works in your native tongue, LEROY, but in English when you put words into someone else's mouth, it just means you're a cunt.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:37 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1083Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

LEROY wrote:if you consider all the states and possible combinations in which particles can exist, there are more possible combinations that would produce 1 star than combinations that would produce billions of stars.


Citation, please.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:39 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1083Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Dragan Glas wrote:Leroy, your problem is that you're not as good at reading/understanding English as you think.


Remarkably charitable of you James. I think there's probably a little bit more to it than that! ;)
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:40 pm
leroyPosts: 1563Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Sparhafoc
Only, you don't seem to have read the text you're now pretending is your position
.


well that has a very simple solution, I can simply ask you. do you think (based on the evidence we have to date) that our universe is a random fluctuation?


A Yes

B NO
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:08 pm
leroyPosts: 1563Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Sparhafoc wrote:
LEROY wrote:if you consider all the states and possible combinations in which particles can exist, there are more possible combinations that would produce 1 star than combinations that would produce billions of stars.


Citation, please.


didn't you read the citations that I provided before? shame on you, I honestly thought that these time you where actually going to read the sources.


the answer is in this book
http://chaosbook.org/library/Penr04.pdf

I don't remember the exact page, but start reading from here,
A completely general initial state for the universe does not inflate


the answer is there
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:13 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1083Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

leroy wrote:didn't you read the citations that I provided before? shame on you, I honestly thought that these time you where actually going to read the sources.


the answer is in this book
http://chaosbook.org/library/Penr04.pdf

I don't remember the exact page, but start reading from here,
A completely general initial state for the universe does not inflate


the answer is there



That's not a citation.

Which of the 1123 pages do you wish to point me to?
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:29 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1083Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

As you are clearly primed to act the child again, I will head you off at the pass by saying: you're wrong about everything ever becayse it says so in here:

Introduction to Elementary Particles , 2nd, Revised Edition, David Griffiths

http://as.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle ... -PH20.html


See?

It's there! Proof that you were wrong about everything you ever said, because these are the playground rules by which you want to play... right? :roll:
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:05 pm
leroyPosts: 1563Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Sparhafoc wrote:
That's not a citation.

Which of the 1123 pages do you wish to point me to?


I gave you the citation on July 14, I gave it to you 2 days ago, and today, what is the point of repeating the same citation for the fourth time?


Leroy Wrote on july 14
http://chaosbook.org/library/Penr04.pdf
pages 762 to 767
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:44 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1083Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Sparhafoc wrote:
That's not a citation.

Which of the 1123 pages do you wish to point me to?


leroy wrote:I gave you the citation on July 14, I gave it to you 2 days ago, and today, what is the point of repeating the same citation for the fourth time?


Leroy Wrote on july 14
http://chaosbook.org/library/Penr04.pdf
pages 762 to 767



It's like getting blood from a stone. Why are you obfuscating so much, LEROY? Is it because there's nothing to see here?

So, here I am looking at 4 pages of notes.

Oh wait, no... you don't mean page 762 of the document - you wanted to drag this out further.

Instead, I scan to find page 762 of the photocopied book...

Ok, pages 762 to 767 read.

Now, point me to the part you are talking about, and explain how it substantiates your claims.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:54 pm
leroyPosts: 1563Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Sparhafoc wrote:Ok, pages 762 to 767 read.

Now, point me to the part you are talking about, and explain how it substantiates your claims.


again?

well ok

.
A completely general initial state for the universe does not inflate, but we can ask merely for a small initial region that is smooth enough to inflate to the universe that we observe (cost: 10 ^10 ^123).


(One can estimate that the entire solar system, including its living inhabitants, could be created from the random collision of particles and radiation with a probability of one part in 101060 (or probably a good deal less than 10 ^10 ^60). The Wgure 101060 is utter ‘chicken feed’ by comparison with the 10 ^10 ^123 needed for the Big Bang of the observable universe



what the author is doing, is comparing the probability of having a small fluctuation (as small as our solar system) compared to a big fluctuation (as big as the universe) being the first vastly more probable.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Last edited by leroy on Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:13 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1083Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

leroy wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Ok, pages 762 to 767 read.

Now, point me to the part you are talking about, and explain how it substantiates your claims.


again?

well ok



Yes, please.

You know this being a discussion forum and all - it's funny how markedly less rambunctious you are now that I am asking you to cite a passage and provide a reason why you would cite that passage.

Why so coy suddenly, LEROY? :)
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:17 pm
leroyPosts: 1563Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Sparhafoc wrote:
Yes, please.

You know this being a discussion forum and all - it's funny how markedly less rambunctious you are now that I am asking you to cite a passage and provide a reason why you would cite that passage.

Why so coy suddenly, LEROY? :)


I was simply editing the previous comment, before you answered
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:19 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1083Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

leroy wrote:[.
A completely general initial state for the universe does not inflate, but we can ask merely for a small initial region that is smooth enough to inflate to the universe that we observe (cost: 10 ^10 ^123).


(One can estimate that the entire solar system, including its living inhabitants, could be created from the random collision of particles and radiation with a probability of one part in 101060 (or probably a good deal less than 10 ^10 ^60). The Wgure 101060 is utter ‘chicken feed’ by comparison with the 10 ^10 ^123 needed for the Big Bang of the observable universe



what the author is doing, is comparing the probability of having a small fluctuation (as small as our solar system) compared to a big fluctuation (as big as the universe) being the first vastly more probable.




But the above is a hypothetical scenario. Penrose knows very well that you don't get complex systems such as living inhabitants from a single event of particle collisions. Complexity is the product of iterations. This is about the way this universe didn't happen, not about the way this universe does work. It's essentially fuel for speculation on how universes could be, not a statement of fact.

So can you please explain how you are utilizing this towards any of your arguments in this thread?
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:28 pm
leroyPosts: 1563Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Sparhafoc wrote:

But the above is a hypothetical scenario. Penrose knows very well that you don't get complex systems such as living inhabitants from a single event of particle collisions. Complexity is the product of iterations. This is about the way this universe didn't happen, not about the way this universe does work. It's essentially fuel for speculation on how universes could be, not a statement of fact.

So can you please explain how you are utilizing this towards any of your arguments in this thread?


the point that Penrose is making is that it is inconceivable more likely to have an area of order as big as our solar system, product of random collisions, than a universe like ours.

anyone who appeals to chance and the anthropic principle in order to explain the low entropy that we observe in our universe, has to deal with the fact that observers are more likely to exist in smaller universes, any observations of a big universe should be interpreted as an illusion because it is more likely to live in a small universe and imagine a big universe than to live in a real big universe.


*with small universe I simply mean a universe with a small area or order (as small as our solar system)
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:39 pm
leroyPosts: 1563Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

leroy wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:

But the above is a hypothetical scenario. Penrose knows very well that you don't get complex systems such as living inhabitants from a single event of particle collisions. Complexity is the product of iterations. This is about the way this universe didn't happen, not about the way this universe does work. It's essentially fuel for speculation on how universes could be, not a statement of fact.

So can you please explain how you are utilizing this towards any of your arguments in this thread?


the point that Penrose is making is that it is inconceivable more likely to have an area of order as big as our solar system, product of random collisions, than a universe like ours.

anyone who appeals to chance and the anthropic principle in order to explain the low entropy that we observe in our universe, has to deal with the fact that observers are more likely to exist in smaller universes, any observations of a big universe should be interpreted as an illusion because it is more likely to live in a small universe and imagine a big universe than to live in a real big universe.


*with small universe I simply mean a universe with a small area or order (as small as our solar system)


and of course, in response to my previous statement base on this calculations, a small universe would require less fine tuning than a big universe,
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:44 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1083Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

leroy wrote:and of course, in response to my previous statement base on this calculations, a small universe would require less fine tuning than a big universe,


And I still disagree.

What Penrose is doing is taking a fully formed Solar System, and imagining the chance of it forming out of a single interaction, and calculating the chance of all the component pieces falling in the right place.

Instead, the way in which Solar Systems form is due to inhomogeneity in the distribution of matter, collecting together slowly under the power of gravitation, and developing over hundreds of thousands of years until the sun ignites and dust in the sun's orbit clumps together to form planets.

The same forces are at work whether on a cm scale or a million, billion, light year scale.

One cannot simply ignore the process, because there's not just one event to make a solar system.

We could do the same with anything.

Take a single individual today. They are amazingly complex. Calculate the chance of a person forming out of a single interaction. It's similarly absurd. But people don't form spontaneously. They form via evolved processes (i.e. iterative) of protein manufacturing, they grow in the womb and continue growing and changing all their lives.

If you calculate the chance of any individual human spontaneously occurring (i.e. all the component pieces falling into place), then the number is ridiculous. So obviously, if you then calculate the chance of 2 individuals spontaneously occurring, the probability is even lower. Add more stuff, number becomes more absurd.

But as that's not how people are formed, why would that calculation offer any value?

So this goes back to my original point. What is the data to make such a claim? Penrose's data, in this case, is to take the product of a long and convoluted process, simplify it into a single interaction, and calculate the probability of that. What about all that process? Where is all that data?
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:51 am
leroyPosts: 1563Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Sparhafoc wrote:Instead, the way in which Solar Systems form is due to inhomogeneity in the distribution of matter, collecting together slowly under the power of gravitation, and developing over hundreds of thousands of years until the sun ignites and dust in the sun's orbit clumps together to form planets.


how do you know that? according to Penrose, it is more likely to have universes where solar systems (and observers) came in to existence as a result of random collisions than trough the process that you are describing.


the process that was suppose to create our solar system could have only operate if the entropy of the universe is low, and it is vastly less likely to have universes with low entropy than universes where solar systems where created trough random collisions.


chances say that we are more likely to live in a universe as described by Penrose, that in the ordered universe that we observe, all the observations that indicate order, cosmically evolution etc. are ought to be illusory including the evidence for the big bang and the evidence for galaxy and star formation etc..., all this is ought to be an ilusión (you are just a mentally ill patient who lives in a psychiatric hospital who is imagining to be having a conversation with an imaginary guy named "Leroy" in an imaginary forum, and who is also imagining that he lives in a universe with low entropy)


obviously this doesn't represent Penrose s view, this is just a critique to the anthropic principle, if you what to claim that the observed low entropy is simply a lucky accident, then we are ought to conclude that Penrose's scenario should be the considered as the best explanation for our observations. observes that imagine a universe with low entropy are more likely to exist than observers who live in a universe with low entropy.


consider this analogy,

If you observe yourself winning the lottery 1000 times in a row, then it is vastly more likely that you are mentally ill and hallucinating (imagining) that you won the lottery 1000 times, than actually winning the lottery.


obviously the point would be not that you are mentally ill, but that there most be an other explanation rather than chance, in order to explain the fact that you won the lottery 1000 times.

maybe someone is tricking the lottery in your favor, maybe everybody wins the lottery, maybe the lottery only has 1 number, maybe you are in a reality show,
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:22 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1083Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

You know what Leroy? Thank you for taking the time to engage in this topic. I honestly think this is the first time we've actually communicated together, rather than just talked past each other.

This is really what I am here for - to test my thoughts, and to see what's on offer that might be better.

As such, I disagree with what you think about this topic below, but I appreciate that you do actually have a position that is worth discussing, and worth reflecting on. I just don't think your position is any more reasonable than mine, or anyone else's.

But the exchange of ideas is the most important element here, because we're not talking about what is, but what could be.


leroy wrote:how do you know that?


By a vast multitude of independent evidence. By independent, I mean both that a) it's not intrinsically related to this question and b) was discovered in different fields by different groups of people and is generally useful for answering different questions.

Basically, the counter position is that everything came into being already in motion, with information of its past built in, making it only appear to have a long past and complex interactions necessary that lead up to it.

The consilience of evidence showing all manner of past interactions can only be counteracted by an appeal to a simulacrum intended to deceive all means of measurement.

Regardless of the whys or hows of it being deceitful, if all measurement is deceptive, then Penrose's measurements are deceptive, thereby resulting in contradiction and nullification of any conclusion he draws from those measurements.

Logic is an important tool here to resolve problems in the way people think. If an argument genetically nullifies itself, then it's difficult to understand why one should lend that credence over other explanations that don't genetically nullify themselves.



leroy wrote:according to Penrose, it is more likely to have universes where solar systems (and observers) came in to existence as a result of random collisions than trough the process that you are describing.


Please read again what you've just written.

It doesn't say anything about OUR universe. You agree, right?

It necessarily reads as: 'if there are essentially infinite universes, then in the majority of those universes, X or Y would happen.'

The inquiry is not making any claim about our own universe ( If I am wrong, please then cite where Penrose says this), rather it necessarily posits a multiverse of pocket universes.

As far as I am concerned, I have no reason to accept that the contents of our own universe could make predictions about the contents of other universes.

I think this would be a giant error in thinking, assuming that the person's aim was intended to have any truth or validity to it.

Even if Einstein, Bose, Newton, and Feynman mutually agreed and had Carl Sagan make me a wonderful video explaining it in his sonorous tones... I would still think this an error of thinking.

So perhaps it's my error, and perhaps all my concerns about the ability to posit the configurations of other universes are unjustified. But for me to accept that, I will need someone to convince me. I can't accept it as a working postulate.

Further though, it's not based on actually relevant data that would be required to make any valid scientific hypotheses - no sets of universe can be interrogated for the purpose of comparison, no evidence is available: this is just a form of bean-counting of our universe extrapolated out where it doesn't necessarily exist. The conclusion is not justified, it's not meant to be - it's hypothetical, intended to test the ramifications of various measurements of our own universe.

To me, what Penrose is saying is not what you are saying he's saying. But I might be wrong. I'd like to hear from other people too because I think there's a lot of interesting elements to discuss here.

Finally, if this idea was used as a mind exercise, an attempt to think for fun about how things might be given data from our universe, then I think it's a wonderful notion, and I support it wholly. I think a scientist (and any person, really) needs to maintain a child's mind, to play, have fun, try putting things together in ways they weren't intended to go together and see what results. I think it's important that people push the boundaries of science firmly into philosophy.

But I think we need to know that's happening, and we need to understand that it results in metaphysical claims, not physical ones.



leroy wrote:the process that was suppose to create our solar system could have only operate if the entropy of the universe is low, and it is vastly less likely to have universes with low entropy than universes where solar systems where created trough random collisions.


That doesn't follow even from what Penrose has written.

What Penrose has written says that if there are multiple universes, more of those universes which contain a low entropy would result in X than of those universes which contain Y.

To be honest, this doesn't seem to say much at all. If entropy is the measurement of how much stuff is unavailable for work in a system, then a system which has already got all its stuff tied up and unavailable for work isn't going to be able to 'do' anything because 'doing' something in our universe means a transition of energy necessarily resulting in an increase in entropy.

To put a human world metaphor, it's like comparing a bucket full of water to an empty bucket and asking which has the potential to add more water to. It doesn't really seem to say anything other than it already says.

However, I reject this too. How do we know that thermodynamics works the same in other universes? Again, this moves straight into metaphysics. We only know of thermodynamics in our own universe, and it appears to be central, basal, underlying nearly everything in a certain scale of our universe. But for it to affect all universes the same way would suggest that the 'parent' originator of all universes would need to be governed by the same thermodynamic rules that all its daughter universes thereby retain via some kind of inheritance.

Care you show where Penrose has answered this?

I don't think he has because he's not trying to make metaphysical claims - he's trying to look at factors in the way we think about things. I might be wrong here. Maybe Penrose is making metaphysical claims, and maybe you are accurately representing his position, but even if that is so, then my challenge above is one of many, many, many reasons why it's a faulty notion.

If multiple universes exist, then either they are all the same because universe only means one thing, exact copies of the thing that we're in. Or universes can exist in multiple configurations.

So, my take on this is simple - as far as I am concerned, no one knows what other universes could look like, and whatever probabilities exist arising from data in our own universe cannot be extrapolated to define universes we don't even know about.

We can play at it. We can imagine if X were so. But we can't take it as truly deriving any knowledge when we cannot know if our postulates are valid or true. Thinking for fun, not for deriving truth.



leroy wrote:chances say that we are more likely to live in a universe as described by Penrose, that in the ordered universe that we observe, all the observations that indicate order, cosmically evolution etc. are ought to be illusory including the evidence for the big bang and the evidence for galaxy and star formation etc..., all this is ought to be an ilusión (you are just a mentally ill patient who lives in a psychiatric hospital who is imagining to be having a conversation with an imaginary guy named "Leroy" in an imaginary forum, and who is also imagining that he lives in a universe with low entropy)


See above about how this presents a logical contradiction.

If the data (all observations) is an illusion, then so is Penrose's data, which results in nullification of any claim arising from that data, resulting in internal contradiction.

I am not sure that breaking the most foundational rule of logic is necessarily the right way to go about divining the nature of reality. If it is, then I think we need to be clear about what we're doing.


leroy wrote:obviously this doesn't represent Penrose s view, this is just a critique to the anthropic principle, if you what to claim that the observed low entropy is simply a lucky accident, then we are ought to conclude that Penrose's scenario should be the considered as the best explanation for our observations. observes that imagine a universe with low entropy are more likely to exist than observers who live in a universe with low entropy.


Ahhh ok, so it's not really what Penrose is saying.

That's fine. I appreciate it as a thought experiment.

However, the problem is that the results of the thought experiment don't actually produce any stipulation to respond to them.

There are too many flaws in the postulates we'd need to grant to thereby arrive at a conclusion worthy of consideration given the limitations of our ability to inquire or garner evidence. It's fun to think, but those thoughts need to be validated by the real world in order for people to need to create hypotheses to explain them as a phenomenon.

To me, Penrose's idea is like saying "If there are a vast number of universes, and if universes can have different configurations, and if all those configurations could somehow have the same fundamental forces operating, and if otherwise conditions were all the same so that no other fundamental laws were at play in those universes, then we'd have a set of postulates acknowledged in advanced as being just postulates by which we could start thinking about how stuff then would be.

I think we're purely hypothetical above, and we are not saying that the product of it is real, just interesting. So I am not sure how this notion graduates to some kind of fact in your presentation. Why would we take that as a serious proposition?

Could you explain that?

Or do you mean to have some fun thinking here? If so, then great... but the way you've written doesn't suggest that you are presenting this as a 'what if...' scenario, but rather that it is 'true'.


Just to share for fun, there's a humorous anecdote about the kind of rules needed to set up the thought experiment above:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow

Milk production at a dairy farm was low, so the farmer wrote to the local university, asking for help from academia. A multidisciplinary team of professors was assembled, headed by a theoretical physicist, and two weeks of intensive on-site investigation took place. The scholars then returned to the university, notebooks crammed with data, where the task of writing the report was left to the team leader. Shortly thereafter the physicist returned to the farm, saying to the farmer, "I have the solution, but it works only in the case of spherical cows in a vacuum".


The only difference with this analogy is that in Penrose's scenario, I don't see that there's any need resulting from the empirical world to provoke this speculation or justify its labour. It's just fun with thinking, something I am glad Penrose could do.



leroy wrote:consider this analogy,

If you observe yourself winning the lottery 1000 times in a row, then it is vastly more likely that you are mentally ill and hallucinating (imagining) that you won the lottery 1000 times, than actually winning the lottery.


Again, there are many unjustified assumptions here. If you observe yourself winning the lottery once, you then go down to the shops (or whatever it is you need to do - never played the lottery in my life) and collect your money.

What would happen is that you'd test your internal notion against the external. If the external corroborates it, then where is the hallucination? Or is that too part of the hallucination?

Basically, it's just the what if it's all a dream, notion. What if it is? Then we've all been deceived, either by intent or by accident.

I wonder if you could calculate the probability of a universe's configurations lining up in such a way as to perfectly deceive the complex inhabitants it also possesses the configuration to evolve?

Everything we observe is a lie? Then how likely would that be to happen? Presumably far less than whatever conclusion of the preceding thought experiment?

Or there's the God ontology - an intent. As such, this could all be an intent to deceive. Doesn't need to be a god, so we can posit momentarily the existence of a kind of supra-universe uberuniverse whose inhabitants prey on the complex evolved creatures of pocket sub-universes by deceiving them and then... somehow, profiting from the deception.

The wonder of the human mind is its ability to imagine such things. But there's a sharp divide between the content of one's thoughts and the validity of one's thoughts with respect to the encountered universe.

This is obviously a huge area of philosophy: qualia, noumena, phenomena etc. and I don't think either of us has the ability to do all of them real justice.

However, I don't think it contentious to say that I can imagine things that are either unlikely to the point of not really being true, or are impossible. I do think it's contentious to then declare any of those imaginations valid and expect others to agree to it.

So another question I'd have for you here: do you think any current claim about the configuration of other universes is science or philosophy?
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:32 pm
leroyPosts: 1563Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Too much data, and please be aware that even though the entire post was worth reading, and that you mentioned good stuff that is worth discussing, I would say that many of your comments go beyond the scope of Penrose's goal


Roger Penrose is simply presenting a critique to the anthropic principle.

please allow me to invent my own terms just to make things easier to explain

1 big universe (BU) represents a universe like ours, a universe with many stars and galaxies, and with low entropy

2 small universe (SU) represents a universes as describe by Penrose, universes where the entropy is high, there are few stars and where solar systems where created by random collisions


for example the weak anthropic principle (multiverse hypothesis) states that no matter how improbable big universes (BU) are, given a potentially infinite number of universes eventually a BU will emerge. We (observers) simply happened to live in a BU, otherwise we wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be wondering about the order and the low entropy of the universe.



the critic is that the premise (in red above) is wrong, given a potentially infinite amount of universes, small universes (SU) would also emerge once in a while.

> observers can also exist in SU
> SUs would be vastly, vastly, more common than BUs
> and in some SU there would be mentally ill individuals who imagine themselves living in a BU,


so it is not true that observers can only live in BUs, (as the anthropic principle claims) observers can also live in SUs and some of these observers would observe (imagine) a BU


if you calculate the probabilities of having an observer in a BU vs the probability of having and observer in a SU who imagines to be in a BU, the second type of observer is vastly, vastly more common than the first.

therefore we ether have to conclude that we are like the second type of observer or we would simply have to drop the anthropic principle.


and even more interesting Boltzman Brains are suppose to be even more common observers, than SU observers. So in reality you would have to conclude that you are a BB unless you reject the Anthropic principle


in this case I used the weak anthropic principle (multiverse hypothesis) as an example, but the objection would apply to all other variants of the anthropic principle.


So another question I'd have for you here: do you think any current claim about the configuration of other universes is science or philosophy?


I don t understand the question, we can test the configuration of the universe scientifically so why not calling it science?



what is your opinion on the anthropic principle?


just as a summery

1 we don't need to live in BU in order to exist, observers can also exist in SUs
2 we don't even need to live in a BU in order to observe a BU, we could simply be imagining a BU.

this is why the anthropic principle fails
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Jul 20, 2017 11:29 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 17 of 18
 [ 352 posts ] 
Return to Blog of Reason

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest