Comments on: The Basic Fine-Tuning Argument For God’s Existence http://intelligentscience.org/2008/09/18/the-basic-fine-tuning-argument-for-gods-existence/ Standing in Defense of the Christian Worldview Sun, 12 Jul 2009 23:48:16 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: A bit of Intelligence, very little Science « Sophismata http://intelligentscience.org/2008/09/18/the-basic-fine-tuning-argument-for-gods-existence/#comment-354 A bit of Intelligence, very little Science « Sophismata Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:18:21 +0000 http://intelligentscience.wordpress.com/?p=205#comment-354 [...] latest episode is “The Fine-Tuning Argument“. The post itself contains a good review of the idea, although it slowly transfigures into a [...] [...] latest episode is “The Fine-Tuning Argument“. The post itself contains a good review of the idea, although it slowly transfigures into a [...]

]]> By: Eric Kemp http://intelligentscience.org/2008/09/18/the-basic-fine-tuning-argument-for-gods-existence/#comment-351 Eric Kemp Sat, 27 Sep 2008 18:28:08 +0000 http://intelligentscience.wordpress.com/?p=205#comment-351 sofismando "Viggy, those are not facts." You have been unable to show that the statistics I gave about the fundamental forces of the universe and how they are fine-tuned for life at those values are not facts. In fact, you haven't even tried. "“The fundamental forces of the universe must have been present at the beginning of the universe in order for the universe to form” is not a fact. It contradicts the current theoretical understanding of the early universe." Again, you haven't even tried to explain this, you have only asserted it, continuing your fallacy of "Appealing to a Smarter Power". I've given an explanation for why the forces must have been there at the beginning and all you have said in response is "Nope" with no explanation. But here is the main point: "The evidence does not support that conclusion, which Eric came up by himself. But very good theoretical work spanning over 80 years has differents conclusions through different means." You said it yourself "theoretical work". As I've been attempting to tell you this whole time, you are refuting my statistics that points to fine-tuning with pure theory. As you've admitted yourself that "we can't know" wether those theories are correct or not, yet you still subscribe to them. In short, you are believing in pure speculation in order to deny the design implications of the evidence. You also seem to be giving the theories an age of 80 years to give credibility to them. The idea that the universe was created specifically for humanity is as old as the Torah which is thousands of years ago. "The sad thing is this would be obvious after just 10 minutes of googling around. But it seems you prefer to stick to your choice, label it “fact”, and refuse to even try to understand the actual science." I actually happen to know a bit about the Cyclic Model's mathematics. And if I'm not mistaken, it was first figured out by Hawking, correct? And in his formulas he used the imaginary number "i" did he not? I was under the impression that studying the forces of nature and finding the results of variation WAS science. Silly me. sofismando

“Viggy, those are not facts.”

You have been unable to show that the statistics I gave about the fundamental forces of the universe and how they are fine-tuned for life at those values are not facts. In fact, you haven’t even tried.

““The fundamental forces of the universe must have been present at the beginning of the universe in order for the universe to form” is not a fact. It contradicts the current theoretical understanding of the early universe.”

Again, you haven’t even tried to explain this, you have only asserted it, continuing your fallacy of “Appealing to a Smarter Power”. I’ve given an explanation for why the forces must have been there at the beginning and all you have said in response is “Nope” with no explanation.

But here is the main point:

“The evidence does not support that conclusion, which Eric came up by himself. But very good theoretical work spanning over 80 years has differents conclusions through different means.”

You said it yourself “theoretical work”. As I’ve been attempting to tell you this whole time, you are refuting my statistics that points to fine-tuning with pure theory. As you’ve admitted yourself that “we can’t know” wether those theories are correct or not, yet you still subscribe to them. In short, you are believing in pure speculation in order to deny the design implications of the evidence.

You also seem to be giving the theories an age of 80 years to give credibility to them. The idea that the universe was created specifically for humanity is as old as the Torah which is thousands of years ago.

“The sad thing is this would be obvious after just 10 minutes of googling around. But it seems you prefer to stick to your choice, label it “fact”, and refuse to even try to understand the actual science.”

I actually happen to know a bit about the Cyclic Model’s mathematics. And if I’m not mistaken, it was first figured out by Hawking, correct? And in his formulas he used the imaginary number “i” did he not?

I was under the impression that studying the forces of nature and finding the results of variation WAS science. Silly me.

]]> By: sofismando http://intelligentscience.org/2008/09/18/the-basic-fine-tuning-argument-for-gods-existence/#comment-350 sofismando Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:24:57 +0000 http://intelligentscience.wordpress.com/?p=205#comment-350 "How can you argue against facts with “could have” “might have” statements and theories?" Viggy, those are not facts. :-) "The fundamental forces of the universe must have been present at the beginning of the universe in order for the universe to form" is not a fact. It contradicts the current theoretical understanding of the early universe. If Eric read it in a book, then either the book is wrong or he misunderstood it. A quick search online would give out dozens of links explaining the theory in various levels of detail. "The Universe had only one chance" is not a fact. The fact that we are here in this universe and cant detect any other doesnt say anything about the singularity of the universe, or if this universe bounced back from previous big crunches before the big bang. The evidence does not support that conclusion, which Eric came up by himself. But very good theoretical work spanning over 80 years has differents conclusions through different means. And it's no crazy-lone-scientist work either: from Brian Greene to Scientific American, it's rather mainstream, available to anyone's criticism and review. One problem here is that you misunderstand "theory" for "imagination". Those theories that I mentioned have a strong mathematical background to give them basis. The sad thing is this would be obvious after just 10 minutes of googling around. But it seems you prefer to stick to your choice, label it "fact", and refuse to even try to understand the actual science. “How can you argue against facts with “could have” “might have” statements and theories?”

Viggy, those are not facts. :-)

“The fundamental forces of the universe must have been present at the beginning of the universe in order for the universe to form” is not a fact. It contradicts the current theoretical understanding of the early universe. If Eric read it in a book, then either the book is wrong or he misunderstood it. A quick search online would give out dozens of links explaining the theory in various levels of detail.

“The Universe had only one chance” is not a fact. The fact that we are here in this universe and cant detect any other doesnt say anything about the singularity of the universe, or if this universe bounced back from previous big crunches before the big bang. The evidence does not support that conclusion, which Eric came up by himself. But very good theoretical work spanning over 80 years has differents conclusions through different means. And it’s no crazy-lone-scientist work either: from Brian Greene to Scientific American, it’s rather mainstream, available to anyone’s criticism and review.

One problem here is that you misunderstand “theory” for “imagination”. Those theories that I mentioned have a strong mathematical background to give them basis. The sad thing is this would be obvious after just 10 minutes of googling around. But it seems you prefer to stick to your choice, label it “fact”, and refuse to even try to understand the actual science.

]]> By: Pat http://intelligentscience.org/2008/09/18/the-basic-fine-tuning-argument-for-gods-existence/#comment-349 Pat Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:06:59 +0000 http://intelligentscience.wordpress.com/?p=205#comment-349 Well, a couple of things. You can't force the strength of the forces to be anything you want by adding kinetic energy. In a rough sense, the more kinetic energy you use to shoot two particles at each other, the closer they get and you can start to see inside the cloud of virtual particles that cause the screening effects. There are different particles charged under the electromagnetic force and the weak force so the screening effects are different, and turn out to be a little stronger for electromagnetism. As a result, as you go to higher energies the electromagnetic force becomes stronger more quickly (because you are seeing past stronger screening effects) and at high enough energies it is the same as the weak force. If there were for example 20 additional particles that were charged under the weak force but not the strong force, then the screening effects for the weak force would have been stronger and at higher energies the weak force and electromagnetic force would get farther apart, not closer together. The story for the strong force is even more interesting. In this case, it turns out that virtual gluons cause an anti-screening effect, so the strong force actually looks weaker at short distances. My point of this somewhat long explanation is that you can't force the forces to do whatever you want, all you can do is look at the force between particles at much shorter distances in order to observe what the screening effect is. Once one does this, one finds that all the forces are the same at very short distance but they look different at long distances because they have different screening effects. As to whether or not they are the same force but with different magnitudes, you have to be careful to define what you mean here. One of the fascinating consequences of the anti-screening effect of gluons is that the strong force gets stronger at long distances, and at a certain scale called the Quantum ChromoDynamic (QCD) scale essentially becomes infinite. At this length, the force between objects with strong charge looks very different from the electromagnetic force between electrically charged objects. The electromagnetic force at long distances is a F~1/r^2 force where r is the distance between the objects, and so the force between two objects very far away is very small. However, the strong force at long distances continues to grow and is roughly more like a F~r force. There is another important detail that I have glossed over so far which is that the force carriers for the weak force have mass, in at long distances they have an F~ e^(-mr) /r^2 force where m is the mass of the force carriers (the W and Z bosons). So these forces look totally different at long distances. It is only at short distances where you can start to observe the screening and anti-screening effects that you can start to see they are actually unified. Anyway, apologies for the very long post. I think unification is a fascinating story but perhaps I have gone into too much detail for the present context. Well, a couple of things. You can’t force the strength of the forces to be anything you want by adding kinetic energy. In a rough sense, the more kinetic energy you use to shoot two particles at each other, the closer they get and you can start to see inside the cloud of virtual particles that cause the screening effects. There are different particles charged under the electromagnetic force and the weak force so the screening effects are different, and turn out to be a little stronger for electromagnetism. As a result, as you go to higher energies the electromagnetic force becomes stronger more quickly (because you are seeing past stronger screening effects) and at high enough energies it is the same as the weak force. If there were for example 20 additional particles that were charged under the weak force but not the strong force, then the screening effects for the weak force would have been stronger and at higher energies the weak force and electromagnetic force would get farther apart, not closer together. The story for the strong force is even more interesting. In this case, it turns out that virtual gluons cause an anti-screening effect, so the strong force actually looks weaker at short distances. My point of this somewhat long explanation is that you can’t force the forces to do whatever you want, all you can do is look at the force between particles at much shorter distances in order to observe what the screening effect is. Once one does this, one finds that all the forces are the same at very short distance but they look different at long distances because they have different screening effects.

As to whether or not they are the same force but with different magnitudes, you have to be careful to define what you mean here. One of the fascinating consequences of the anti-screening effect of gluons is that the strong force gets stronger at long distances, and at a certain scale called the Quantum ChromoDynamic (QCD) scale essentially becomes infinite. At this length, the force between objects with strong charge looks very different from the electromagnetic force between electrically charged objects. The electromagnetic force at long distances is a F~1/r^2 force where r is the distance between the objects, and so the force between two objects very far away is very small. However, the strong force at long distances continues to grow and is roughly more like a F~r force. There is another important detail that I have glossed over so far which is that the force carriers for the weak force have mass, in at long distances they have an F~ e^(-mr) /r^2 force where m is the mass of the force carriers (the W and Z bosons). So these forces look totally different at long distances. It is only at short distances where you can start to observe the screening and anti-screening effects that you can start to see they are actually unified.

Anyway, apologies for the very long post. I think unification is a fascinating story but perhaps I have gone into too much detail for the present context.

]]> By: Eric Kemp http://intelligentscience.org/2008/09/18/the-basic-fine-tuning-argument-for-gods-existence/#comment-348 Eric Kemp Fri, 26 Sep 2008 02:49:15 +0000 http://intelligentscience.wordpress.com/?p=205#comment-348 Pat I'm confused to what your point is. It seems that you are saying that you can force the forces to become equal when adding massive amounts of kenetic energy. Do I have that right? So what's the point? Also, if you look at a reply I gave, I think to sofismando, I elaborated that these forces are the same force with just diffent magnitudes. Pat

I’m confused to what your point is. It seems that you are saying that you can force the forces to become equal when adding massive amounts of kenetic energy. Do I have that right?

So what’s the point?

Also, if you look at a reply I gave, I think to sofismando, I elaborated that these forces are the same force with just diffent magnitudes.

]]> By: Pat http://intelligentscience.org/2008/09/18/the-basic-fine-tuning-argument-for-gods-existence/#comment-347 Pat Fri, 26 Sep 2008 00:06:22 +0000 http://intelligentscience.wordpress.com/?p=205#comment-347 Hi Eric, The different strength of the 4 forces is an interesting question with a fascinating answer, if you are interested. The answer is essentially that all the forces have the same strength at high energies but the effective strength of the forces appears different at low energies (equivalently, long distances) where most processes you are used to happen. The reason the forces appear to be different in strength is because of screening effects. For example, the electron is charged under the electromagnetic force, and every electromagnetic interaction involves virtual electron-positron pairs due to quantum mechanics. The effect of these virtual particles depends on the distances and energies involved, and what happens is that the strength of the electromagnetic force is not just a number like the one you quote in your post but in fact a number that changes as the energy of your experiment decreases. The weak forces has different particles charged under it (for example the Z boson) and the strong force as well (for example, gluons). This energy-dependence of the strength of the forces has been measured extremely precisely in collider experiments. If you look at the strengths of the forces as a function of energy and take into account virtual particle contributions, you find that the strong force, electromagnetic force, and weak force all all the same strength at a certain scale (about when a single particle carries kinetic energy of 10^6 Joules) that is referred to as the "Grand Unification Scale". If you then look at even higher energies, gravity becomes the same strength as the other three forces around a scale referred to as the "Planck scale" (which is about 10^9 Joules of kinetic energy on a single particle). So in fact, what appears to be a mysterious range of strengths of forces is due to forces of *exactly the same strength* but different virtual particles charged under those forces leading to different amounts of screening at low scales (there are further differences in the case of gravity but I think this is enough detail already). Hi Eric,
The different strength of the 4 forces is an interesting question with a fascinating answer, if you are interested. The answer is essentially that all the forces have the same strength at high energies but the effective strength of the forces appears different at low energies (equivalently, long distances) where most processes you are used to happen. The reason the forces appear to be different in strength is because of screening effects. For example, the electron is charged under the electromagnetic force, and every electromagnetic interaction involves virtual electron-positron pairs due to quantum mechanics. The effect of these virtual particles depends on the distances and energies involved, and what happens is that the strength of the electromagnetic force is not just a number like the one you quote in your post but in fact a number that changes as the energy of your experiment decreases. The weak forces has different particles charged under it (for example the Z boson) and the strong force as well (for example, gluons). This energy-dependence of the strength of the forces has been measured extremely precisely in collider experiments. If you look at the strengths of the forces as a function of energy and take into account virtual particle contributions, you find that the strong force, electromagnetic force, and weak force all all the same strength at a certain scale (about when a single particle carries kinetic energy of 10^6 Joules) that is referred to as the “Grand Unification Scale”. If you then look at even higher energies, gravity becomes the same strength as the other three forces around a scale referred to as the “Planck scale” (which is about 10^9 Joules of kinetic energy on a single particle). So in fact, what appears to be a mysterious range of strengths of forces is due to forces of *exactly the same strength* but different virtual particles charged under those forces leading to different amounts of screening at low scales (there are further differences in the case of gravity but I think this is enough detail already).

]]> By: Viggy http://intelligentscience.org/2008/09/18/the-basic-fine-tuning-argument-for-gods-existence/#comment-346 Viggy Tue, 23 Sep 2008 22:19:31 +0000 http://intelligentscience.wordpress.com/?p=205#comment-346 Sofismando- "Man, I gave you the *names* used in the scientific world to refer to those theories. They apply here by contradicting some “facts” or correct some misunderstandings that you have stated." How can you argue against facts with "could have" "might have" statements and theories? Eric gives factual seen evidence and you give imaginative ideas. Please explain how "imagination" can contradict facts. Also, you are caught up with only one thing that Eric supposedly didn't give any published articles (which he mentioned in the blog post already). It would seem that you are grasping at straws to maintain some sort of point, which I don't see what you are making. Rational Logic would tell me that speculated could haves based on guesses cannot refute Facts. Sofismando- “Man, I gave you the *names* used in the scientific world to refer to those theories. They apply here by contradicting some “facts” or correct some misunderstandings that you have stated.”

How can you argue against facts with “could have” “might have” statements and theories? Eric gives factual seen evidence and you give imaginative ideas. Please explain how “imagination” can contradict facts.

Also, you are caught up with only one thing that Eric supposedly didn’t give any published articles (which he mentioned in the blog post already). It would seem that you are grasping at straws to maintain some sort of point, which I don’t see what you are making. Rational Logic would tell me that speculated could haves based on guesses cannot refute Facts.

]]> By: Eric Kemp http://intelligentscience.org/2008/09/18/the-basic-fine-tuning-argument-for-gods-existence/#comment-345 Eric Kemp Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:53:35 +0000 http://intelligentscience.wordpress.com/?p=205#comment-345 sofismando The fundamental forces stuff came from Paul Davies' "Accidental Universe" as I stated to Critic. Would you like to now explain how your speculations and theories refute my argument? sofismando

The fundamental forces stuff came from Paul Davies’ “Accidental Universe” as I stated to Critic. Would you like to now explain how your speculations and theories refute my argument?

]]> By: sofismando http://intelligentscience.org/2008/09/18/the-basic-fine-tuning-argument-for-gods-existence/#comment-344 sofismando Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:36:04 +0000 http://intelligentscience.wordpress.com/?p=205#comment-344 I asked for one published scientific paper or book supporting that. None was given (at this point even Scientific American counts). It seems you came up to these "facts" on your own. I asked for one published scientific paper or book supporting that. None was given (at this point even Scientific American counts). It seems you came up to these “facts” on your own.

]]> By: Eric Kemp http://intelligentscience.org/2008/09/18/the-basic-fine-tuning-argument-for-gods-existence/#comment-343 Eric Kemp Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:56:34 +0000 http://intelligentscience.wordpress.com/?p=205#comment-343 sofismando "The universe had only one try" comes from the fact that we only have evidence of one universe. In refutation of this fact you offer speculation about a Cyclical Model that there is no evidence for. If you expect me to argue with speculation you've got the wrong guy. "The fundamental forces of the universe must have been present at the beginning of the universe in order for the universe to form" is evidenced by some deductive logic. Let me explain: As I said in my post, if the force of gravity was any lower than it is now then the solar systems would not have enough force to hold themselves together a.k.a. the universe would never have formed. If the force of gravity was any higher, the largest star would have a life-span of only 2 years and life would be impossible. In fact, if the gravity of Earth was only one thousand times larger than it is now (which is miniscule compared to the possible range of forces that I gave in the article), the largest planet would have a diameter of forty feet. And that's ignoring what would happen if the other 3 forces were any different. So considering what the universe would be like if the force of gravity was any different, we know what the force of gravity had to be set at the beginning of the universe in order for the universe to form in the first place. In response to this evidence, you gave me names of theories, expecting me to do research on my own. This is an unofficial logical fallacy that I call "Appealing to a Smarter Power". What in essence you are saying is this, "Well I don't know how or don't care to explain how this theory refutes your argument but these smarter guys know how so look it up yourself." Name all the theories you want, but at least explain to me how it refutes my argument / give me a reason to do research on the topic. Yea, it looks like perhaps we won't get passed this point but I'm always willing to try! sofismando

“The universe had only one try” comes from the fact that we only have evidence of one universe. In refutation of this fact you offer speculation about a Cyclical Model that there is no evidence for. If you expect me to argue with speculation you’ve got the wrong guy.

“The fundamental forces of the universe must have been present at the beginning of the universe in order for the universe to form” is evidenced by some deductive logic.

Let me explain: As I said in my post, if the force of gravity was any lower than it is now then the solar systems would not have enough force to hold themselves together a.k.a. the universe would never have formed. If the force of gravity was any higher, the largest star would have a life-span of only 2 years and life would be impossible. In fact, if the gravity of Earth was only one thousand times larger than it is now (which is miniscule compared to the possible range of forces that I gave in the article), the largest planet would have a diameter of forty feet.

And that’s ignoring what would happen if the other 3 forces were any different. So considering what the universe would be like if the force of gravity was any different, we know what the force of gravity had to be set at the beginning of the universe in order for the universe to form in the first place.

In response to this evidence, you gave me names of theories, expecting me to do research on my own. This is an unofficial logical fallacy that I call “Appealing to a Smarter Power”. What in essence you are saying is this, “Well I don’t know how or don’t care to explain how this theory refutes your argument but these smarter guys know how so look it up yourself.” Name all the theories you want, but at least explain to me how it refutes my argument / give me a reason to do research on the topic.

Yea, it looks like perhaps we won’t get passed this point but I’m always willing to try!

]]>