A riposte of fine-tuning

[jillery]

My previous topic on fine-tuning has become a spam magnet for
willfully dishonest arguments, where one poster unapologetically
admits to criticizing the video without even listening to it first.

To reboot, here is a very short 8-minute monologue by Sean Carroll,
another academically qualified and professional physicist, about
what's wrong with fine-tuning arguments:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR79HDEf9k8>

To be explicitly clear, I stipulate that I understand and agree with
everything Carroll says in the above video.

The video is short enough so that dishonest trolls have no excuse not
to listen to it *before* they start trolling with their willfully
stupid spam.


--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Öö Tiib]

On Saturday, 26 June 2021 at 01:06:05 UTC+3, jillery wrote:
> My previous topic on fine-tuning has become a spam magnet for
> willfully dishonest arguments, where one poster unapologetically
> admits to criticizing the video without even listening to it first.

Links good. Talks of behavior of posters bad.

> To reboot, here is a very short 8-minute monologue by Sean Carroll,
> another academically qualified and professional physicist, about
> what's wrong with fine-tuning arguments:
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR79HDEf9k8>
>
> To be explicitly clear, I stipulate that I understand and agree with
> everything Carroll says in the above video.

Why?

1) "It is true that changing properties of universe could change it
by a lot." Yes that is tautology.
1.1) "it does not grant that therefore life could not exist." Also true,
but debunks nothing.

2) "God does not need to fine tune anything." Odd argument from
ignorance. Intelligent beings we know of have desire to have
whatever they make elegant and efficient.

3) "Fine tuning may only be apparent." There are examples
where some parameters can't be adjusted in isolation from
others. He admits that we can't conclude from that therefore
*nothing* could be fine tuned.

4) "multiverse" This is woo debunked with woo.
4.1) "Theism is not well defined." True, but does not discuss fine
tuning but issues of theism.

5) Universe what we see is unexpected from viewpoint of any
theism but expected from viewpoint of naturalism. That is
strongest argument ... but it can also be just issue with theism
not fine tuning.

Half of the speech was some naturalism versus theism
propaganda ... so it made it all to smell as political lecture.
"Universe is kind of random and a mess." Huh?
"In naturalism you expect life to be insignificant." Strong argument
for not to be that kind of naturalist.
"Flattering stores we like to tell about ourselves." Strong argument
for not to be that kind of theist.
Political pot and kettle.

> The video is short enough so that dishonest trolls have no excuse not
> to listen to it *before* they start trolling with their willfully
> stupid spam.

Thanks, but note that discussions of behavior of posters are
still boring.

[jillery]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 02:43:55 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

>On Saturday, 26 June 2021 at 01:06:05 UTC+3, jillery wrote:
>> My previous topic on fine-tuning has become a spam magnet for
>> willfully dishonest arguments, where one poster unapologetically
>> admits to criticizing the video without even listening to it first.
>
>Links good. Talks of behavior of posters bad.

Fair point. In riposte, I say behavior of said posters badder. Said
behavior obfuscates the actual topics into insignificance. Hence this
reboot.

>> To reboot, here is a very short 8-minute monologue by Sean Carroll,
>> another academically qualified and professional physicist, about
>> what's wrong with fine-tuning arguments:
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR79HDEf9k8>
>>
>> To be explicitly clear, I stipulate that I understand and agree with
>> everything Carroll says in the above video.
>
>Why?

Why what? Why do I so stipulate? For the very thing to which you
object above, that the *talk* of some posters include allusions to
motives to which they can not possibly know are true, and are
irrelevant to the topic whether or not they are true.

>1) "It is true that changing properties of universe could change it
> by a lot." Yes that is tautology.

And so you agree with Carroll on this point? If so, what's your
point? If not, specify your disagreement.

>1.1) "it does not grant that therefore life could not exist." Also true,
>but debunks nothing.

That's Carroll's point. More comprehensively, variations of the
properties don't inform the existence of life. The "properties that
exist" support "life as we know it" in only a miniscule fraction of
the entire universe, while "properties that don't exist" arguably
could support "life as we don't know it" and in greater profusion.

>2) "God does not need to fine tune anything." Odd argument from
>ignorance. Intelligent beings we know of have desire to have
>whatever they make elegant and efficient.

Carroll refers to a similar theological claim you make, that the
nature of the universe reflects the nature of God. "Intelligent
beings we know of" could not have fine tuned the universe, as they are
too limited. Presumptions of God's intent don't inform the nature of
the universe. As Carroll says "He can do what He wants".

>3) "Fine tuning may only be apparent."

To be pedantically precise, Carroll says "fine tuning might only be
apparent".

>There are examples
>where some parameters can't be adjusted in isolation from
>others.

Carroll gives no such examples, and I know of none. Apparently you
do. Specify them.

>He admits that we can't conclude from that therefore
>*nothing* could be fine tuned.

Your paraphrase is unclear and misleading. No need to rely on a
paraphrase instead of directly quoting Carroll:
*****************************
@2:47 I can't say that all parameters fit into that paradigm, but
until we know the answer we can't claim that they are definitely
finely tuned.
******************************

Carroll refutes the fine tuning argument as expressed. He does not
make a positive claim of his own here.

>4) "multiverse" This is woo debunked with woo.

Multiverse is not woo, at least not as I define woo. Woo is jumping to
preferred conclusions with no basis other than said preference.
Carroll explains multiverse is a necessary prediction from inflation
and string theory, both of which are useful and plausible
presumptions.

It would be helpful if you specified your definition of "woo".

>4.1) "Theism is not well defined." True, but does not discuss fine
>tuning but issues of theism.

Fine tuning as argued is a theistic claim.

>5) Universe what we see is unexpected from viewpoint of any
>theism but expected from viewpoint of naturalism. That is
>strongest argument ... but it can also be just issue with theism
>not fine tuning.

You don't say, but imply you think fine tuning is not a theistic
claim. I acknowledge "fine tuning" can be considered to mean the
values of physical constant are derived from other perhaps unknown
principles. But that meaning does not apply to the context of the
topic raised here. Instead the context here is, fine tuning is
evidence of a purposeful Intelligent Agent, and said Agent's purpose
is to create us. This is theistic claim.

>Half of the speech was some naturalism versus theism
>propaganda ... so it made it all to smell as political lecture.

Apparently you don't recognize the inspiration of Carroll's riposte.
He is refuting prior claims by William Lane Craig, who has made a
career out of spouting theistic propaganda.

>"Universe is kind of random and a mess." Huh?

Does your "Huh" mean that you don't understand Carroll's comment? Or
that you disagree with it? If the latter, specify your disagreement.
If the former, the meaning of his comment is clear enough in context.
Specify your misunderstanding.

>"In naturalism you expect life to be insignificant." Strong argument
>for not to be that kind of naturalist.

It's alleged strength notwithstanding, do you disagree? If so,
specify your disagreement.

>"Flattering stores we like to tell about ourselves." Strong argument
>for not to be that kind of theist.

It's alleged strength notwithstanding, do you disagree? If so,
specify your disagreement.


>Political pot and kettle.


Once again, the context here is the Carroll pot is refuting the Craig
kettle. Your objection above isn't valid in context.

>> The video is short enough so that dishonest trolls have no excuse not
>> to listen to it *before* they start trolling with their willfully
>> stupid spam.
>
>Thanks, but note that discussions of behavior of posters are
>still boring.

So noted, as is its irrelevance to the topic, as is your failure to
note said behavior's prior manifestation from other posters.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/26/21 2:43 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Saturday, 26 June 2021 at 01:06:05 UTC+3, jillery wrote:
>> My previous topic on fine-tuning has become a spam magnet for
>> willfully dishonest arguments, where one poster unapologetically
>> admits to criticizing the video without even listening to it first.
>
> Links good. Talks of behavior of posters bad.
>
>> To reboot, here is a very short 8-minute monologue by Sean Carroll,
>> another academically qualified and professional physicist, about
>> what's wrong with fine-tuning arguments:
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR79HDEf9k8>
>>
>> To be explicitly clear, I stipulate that I understand and agree with
>> everything Carroll says in the above video.
>
> Why?
>
> 1) "It is true that changing properties of universe could change it
> by a lot." Yes that is tautology.
> 1.1) "it does not grant that therefore life could not exist." Also true,
> but debunks nothing.

It obviously debunks the claim of "Fine tuning; therefore with any
change life could not exist."

> 2) "God does not need to fine tune anything." Odd argument from
> ignorance. Intelligent beings we know of have desire to have
> whatever they make elegant and efficient.

Carroll has no interest in discussing intelligent beings we know (as the
tuners); his argument is against the theistic position, so he addresses
the god which theists commonly propose.

> 3) "Fine tuning may only be apparent." There are examples
> where some parameters can't be adjusted in isolation from
> others. He admits that we can't conclude from that therefore
> *nothing* could be fine tuned.
>
> 4) "multiverse" This is woo debunked with woo.
> 4.1) "Theism is not well defined." True, but does not discuss fine
> tuning but issues of theism.

Multiverse is speculative, but not woo. And theism is a fine-tuning issue.

> 5) Universe what we see is unexpected from viewpoint of any
> theism but expected from viewpoint of naturalism. That is
> strongest argument ... but it can also be just issue with theism
> not fine tuning.

But that would itself be an argument against fine-tuning. When your
argument depends on an entity which is defined as being whatever you
need it to be for your argument, you have lost the argument.

> Half of the speech was some naturalism versus theism
> propaganda ... so it made it all to smell as political lecture.
> "Universe is kind of random and a mess." Huh?
> "In naturalism you expect life to be insignificant." Strong argument
> for not to be that kind of naturalist.
> "Flattering stores we like to tell about ourselves." Strong argument
> for not to be that kind of theist.
> Political pot and kettle.

Another important point which Carroll does not raise is that the tuning
part of fine tuning, at least, is expected, in fact inevitable. A
universe tuned well enough to support life is a given. After all, we're
living in it. The issue, then, is the fineness of the tuning. And I
don't see that theism makes any different predictions than naturalism
does about that.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred
to the presence of those who think they've found it." - Terry Pratchett

[jillery]

What you wrote above inspired me to think of another important point
about tuning that has not yet been mentioned in this thread, that
Darwinian evolution inevitably tunes life to the environment.

[Öö Tiib]

On Saturday, 26 June 2021 at 15:56:05 UTC+3, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 02:43:55 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
> wrote:
> >On Saturday, 26 June 2021 at 01:06:05 UTC+3, jillery wrote:
> >> My previous topic on fine-tuning has become a spam magnet for
> >> willfully dishonest arguments, where one poster unapologetically
> >> admits to criticizing the video without even listening to it first.
> >
> >Links good. Talks of behavior of posters bad.
>
> Fair point. In riposte, I say behavior of said posters badder. Said
> behavior obfuscates the actual topics into insignificance. Hence this
> reboot.

Clear.

> >> To reboot, here is a very short 8-minute monologue by Sean Carroll,
> >> another academically qualified and professional physicist, about
> >> what's wrong with fine-tuning arguments:
> >>
> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR79HDEf9k8>
> >>
> >> To be explicitly clear, I stipulate that I understand and agree with
> >> everything Carroll says in the above video.
> >
> >Why?
>
> Why what? Why do I so stipulate? For the very thing to which you
> object above, that the *talk* of some posters include allusions to
> motives to which they can not possibly know are true, and are
> irrelevant to the topic whether or not they are true.

Yes. Thanks.

> >1) "It is true that changing properties of universe could change it
> > by a lot." Yes that is tautology.
>
> And so you agree with Carroll on this point? If so, what's your
> point? If not, specify your disagreement.

Yes. No disagreement, only remark that it is trivially true.

> >1.1) "it does not grant that therefore life could not exist." Also true,
> >but debunks nothing.
>
> That's Carroll's point. More comprehensively, variations of the
> properties don't inform the existence of life. The "properties that
> exist" support "life as we know it" in only a miniscule fraction of
> the entire universe, while "properties that don't exist" arguably
> could support "life as we don't know it" and in greater profusion.

Also clear. If it is designed then it allows life as we know it and
possibly allows life as we do not know yet. And apparently neither
was the only design goal of universe.

> >2) "God does not need to fine tune anything." Odd argument from
> >ignorance. Intelligent beings we know of have desire to have
> >whatever they make elegant and efficient.
>
> Carroll refers to a similar theological claim you make, that the
> nature of the universe reflects the nature of God. "Intelligent
> beings we know of" could not have fine tuned the universe, as they are
> too limited. Presumptions of God's intent don't inform the nature of
> the universe. As Carroll says "He can do what He wants".

Here is the issue. We assume that we know what God wants and
we assume that this is not elegant and efficient realization of
that desire. Or we assume that God does not care about elegance
and efficiency? Yet the only thing we know is that very same
Abrahamic God ordered different things from Jews, Christians
and Muslims (if to trust them what they say).

> >3) "Fine tuning may only be apparent."
> To be pedantically precise, Carroll says "fine tuning might only be
> apparent".

Thanks for correcting.

> >There are examples where some parameters can't be adjusted
> >in isolation from others.
> Carroll gives no such examples, and I know of none. Apparently you
> do. Specify them.

Purely mathematical like radius and circumference of circle are
forced to be related linearly. We know that but we may not yet know
other such limitations.

> >He admits that we can't conclude from that therefore
> >*nothing* could be fine tuned.
> Your paraphrase is unclear and misleading. No need to rely on a
> paraphrase instead of directly quoting Carroll:
> *****************************
> @2:47 I can't say that all parameters fit into that paradigm, but
> until we know the answer we can't claim that they are definitely
> finely tuned.
> ******************************
>
> Carroll refutes the fine tuning argument as expressed. He does not
> make a positive claim of his own here.

"I can't say that all parameters fit into that paradigm" is clearly
agreeing with my claim that he can't say that *nothing* could be
fine tuned in emerging universe by that paradigm.

> >4) "multiverse" This is woo debunked with woo.
>
> Multiverse is not woo, at least not as I define woo. Woo is jumping to
> preferred conclusions with no basis other than said preference.
> Carroll explains multiverse is a necessary prediction from inflation
> and string theory, both of which are useful and plausible
> presumptions.
>
> It would be helpful if you specified your definition of "woo".

Baseless and not testable speculation typically for trying to
persuade someone. All our models that we use in practice deviate
from our reality in one or other way. String theory just promises that
there might be such model that does not deviate from our reality.
But where is useful model that does not deviate from our reality?
It promises there can be multiverse that can counter fine tuning
argument. No evidences of it. So it is woo.

> >4.1) "Theism is not well defined." True, but does not discuss fine
> >tuning but issues of theism.
>
> Fine tuning as argued is a theistic claim.

It is still not discussing that claim but theism.

> >5) Universe what we see is unexpected from viewpoint of any
> >theism but expected from viewpoint of naturalism. That is
> >strongest argument ... but it can also be just issue with theism
> >not fine tuning.
>
> You don't say, but imply you think fine tuning is not a theistic
> claim. I acknowledge "fine tuning" can be considered to mean the
> values of physical constant are derived from other perhaps unknown
> principles. But that meaning does not apply to the context of the
> topic raised here. Instead the context here is, fine tuning is
> evidence of a purposeful Intelligent Agent, and said Agent's purpose
> is to create us. This is theistic claim.

Intelligent agents are possible also by naturalism. Sufficiently
advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Third
law of late Sir Arthur C. Clarke.

> >Half of the speech was some naturalism versus theism
> >propaganda ... so it made it all to smell as political lecture.
>
> Apparently you don't recognize the inspiration of Carroll's riposte.
> He is refuting prior claims by William Lane Craig, who has made a
> career out of spouting theistic propaganda.

One gets muddy who wrestles with pig.

> >"Universe is kind of random and a mess." Huh?
>
> Does your "Huh" mean that you don't understand Carroll's comment? Or
> that you disagree with it? If the latter, specify your disagreement.
> If the former, the meaning of his comment is clear enough in context.
> Specify your misunderstanding.

Yes, for me it is not random mess. Consider estimated distribution of
dark matter:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#/media/File:COSMOS_3D_dark_matter_map.png>
Why it is random mess? Looks very interesting, like lot of other things.

> >"In naturalism you expect life to be insignificant." Strong argument
> >for not to be that kind of naturalist.
>
> It's alleged strength notwithstanding, do you disagree? If so,
> specify your disagreement.

I'm patriot of life ... for me it is significant. Opposite political claims
do not accost me.

> >"Flattering stores we like to tell about ourselves." Strong argument
> >for not to be that kind of theist.
> It's alleged strength notwithstanding, do you disagree? If so,
> specify your disagreement.

The tendency of groundless self-flattering is not what I like regardless
of type of political party.

> >Political pot and kettle.

> Once again, the context here is the Carroll pot is refuting the Craig
> kettle. Your objection above isn't valid in context.

Sorry, I did not understand that it was political debate there.

> >> The video is short enough so that dishonest trolls have no excuse not
> >> to listen to it *before* they start trolling with their willfully
> >> stupid spam.
> >
> >Thanks, but note that discussions of behavior of posters are
> >still boring.
> So noted, as is its irrelevance to the topic, as is your failure to
> note said behavior's prior manifestation from other posters.

I prefer to ignore it as long they have anything non-boring to say.

[Öö Tiib]

On Saturday, 26 June 2021 at 17:51:05 UTC+3, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/26/21 2:43 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Saturday, 26 June 2021 at 01:06:05 UTC+3, jillery wrote:
> >> My previous topic on fine-tuning has become a spam magnet for
> >> willfully dishonest arguments, where one poster unapologetically
> >> admits to criticizing the video without even listening to it first.
> >
> > Links good. Talks of behavior of posters bad.
> >
> >> To reboot, here is a very short 8-minute monologue by Sean Carroll,
> >> another academically qualified and professional physicist, about
> >> what's wrong with fine-tuning arguments:
> >>
> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR79HDEf9k8>
> >>
> >> To be explicitly clear, I stipulate that I understand and agree with
> >> everything Carroll says in the above video.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > 1) "It is true that changing properties of universe could change it
> > by a lot." Yes that is tautology.
> > 1.1) "it does not grant that therefore life could not exist." Also true,
> > but debunks nothing.
>
> It obviously debunks the claim of "Fine tuning; therefore with any
> change life could not exist."

That it debunks. I guess people who believe that only purpose of
universe is life precisely like it is here must be very small minority.
Most agree that they do not know purpose of it ... yet it does not
alter their theism in any manner.

> > 2) "God does not need to fine tune anything." Odd argument from
> > ignorance. Intelligent beings we know of have desire to have
> > whatever they make elegant and efficient.
>
> Carroll has no interest in discussing intelligent beings we know (as the
> tuners); his argument is against the theistic position, so he addresses
> the god which theists commonly propose.

God is alleged to be source of aesthetic, moral and even dietological
values of the semi-intelligent beings we know of. Can't be He does not
share any of it?

> > 3) "Fine tuning may only be apparent." There are examples
> > where some parameters can't be adjusted in isolation from
> > others. He admits that we can't conclude from that therefore
> > *nothing* could be fine tuned.
> >
> > 4) "multiverse" This is woo debunked with woo.
> > 4.1) "Theism is not well defined." True, but does not discuss fine
> > tuning but issues of theism.
>
> Multiverse is speculative, but not woo. And theism is a fine-tuning issue.

Maybe I went too far with woo but it has always felt like a construct
that we know nothing of constructed against argument we also
know nothing of.

> > 5) Universe what we see is unexpected from viewpoint of any
> > theism but expected from viewpoint of naturalism. That is
> > strongest argument ... but it can also be just issue with theism
> > not fine tuning.
>
> But that would itself be an argument against fine-tuning. When your
> argument depends on an entity which is defined as being whatever you
> need it to be for your argument, you have lost the argument.

Yes. Theists are obliged to be pious. So they have to take seriously
bonfire-side stories of their ancestors collected and modified by
other ancestors. Lot of it was likely bullshit ... to scare kids to sleep,
but theists are in that trap. Perhaps it took lot of courage and faith
to become Jesus of Nazareth, Muhammad ibn Abdullah or even
Martin Luther.

> > Half of the speech was some naturalism versus theism
> > propaganda ... so it made it all to smell as political lecture.
> > "Universe is kind of random and a mess." Huh?
> > "In naturalism you expect life to be insignificant." Strong argument
> > for not to be that kind of naturalist.
> > "Flattering stores we like to tell about ourselves." Strong argument
> > for not to be that kind of theist.
> > Political pot and kettle.
>
> Another important point which Carroll does not raise is that the tuning
> part of fine tuning, at least, is expected, in fact inevitable. A
> universe tuned well enough to support life is a given. After all, we're
> living in it. The issue, then, is the fineness of the tuning. And I
> don't see that theism makes any different predictions than naturalism
> does about that.

This is the point #2 that God could perhaps enforce lot of things through
dualism or other ways to ensure that we live in it no matter what. But
as we can directly observe only 1/5 of matter around us
our universe can easily be not dualistic but ... even quintetlistic?

[jillery]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 09:35:47 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

Correct. Like ID, fine-tuning is based almost entirely on its
presumptions.

>> >3) "Fine tuning may only be apparent."
>> To be pedantically precise, Carroll says "fine tuning might only be
>> apparent".
>
>Thanks for correcting.
>
>> >There are examples where some parameters can't be adjusted
>> >in isolation from others.
>> Carroll gives no such examples, and I know of none. Apparently you
>> do. Specify them.
>
>Purely mathematical like radius and circumference of circle are
>forced to be related linearly. We know that but we may not yet know
>other such limitations.

Ok, now I understand what you mean. Discussions about fine tuning
don't generally include mathematical properties because they are
established by definition and/or because they are derived from
fundamental principles. In the specific case of Pi, it is based on
the curvature of spacetime, which depends on the gravitational
constant. I acknowledge it's possible for different universes to have
different topologies.

>> >He admits that we can't conclude from that therefore
>> >*nothing* could be fine tuned.
>> Your paraphrase is unclear and misleading. No need to rely on a
>> paraphrase instead of directly quoting Carroll:
>> *****************************
>> @2:47 I can't say that all parameters fit into that paradigm, but
>> until we know the answer we can't claim that they are definitely
>> finely tuned.
>> ******************************
>>
>> Carroll refutes the fine tuning argument as expressed. He does not
>> make a positive claim of his own here.
>
>"I can't say that all parameters fit into that paradigm" is clearly
>agreeing with my claim that he can't say that *nothing* could be
>fine tuned in emerging universe by that paradigm.

My impression is our disagreement here is a matter of emphasis. The
assertion "we can't conclude X from Y" is different from the assertion
"we can't say X". The former implies the veracity of X depends on Y,
while the latter implies the veracity of X stands alone.

In this specific case, Carroll is not saying nothing could be fine
tuned. That's a positive claim. Instead he is saying whether it can
be said something is fine tuned depends on knowing more about it than
is known.

By analogy, to say "God does not exist" is a positive claim, which is
different from "I can't say God exists".

>> >4) "multiverse" This is woo debunked with woo.
>>
>> Multiverse is not woo, at least not as I define woo. Woo is jumping to
>> preferred conclusions with no basis other than said preference.
>> Carroll explains multiverse is a necessary prediction from inflation
>> and string theory, both of which are useful and plausible
>> presumptions.
>>
>> It would be helpful if you specified your definition of "woo".
>
>Baseless and not testable speculation typically for trying to
>persuade someone. All our models that we use in practice deviate
>from our reality in one or other way. String theory just promises that
>there might be such model that does not deviate from our reality.
>But where is useful model that does not deviate from our reality?
>It promises there can be multiverse that can counter fine tuning
>argument. No evidences of it. So it is woo.

Your reply to Mark Isaak on this point is better than the one above.
All woo might lack evidence, but not all concepts that lack evidence
are woo.

>> >4.1) "Theism is not well defined." True, but does not discuss fine
>> >tuning but issues of theism.
>>
>> Fine tuning as argued is a theistic claim.
>
>It is still not discussing that claim but theism.

My understanding is it's impossible to discuss theistic claims without
discussing theism. Your mileage may vary.

>> >5) Universe what we see is unexpected from viewpoint of any
>> >theism but expected from viewpoint of naturalism. That is
>> >strongest argument ... but it can also be just issue with theism
>> >not fine tuning.
>>
>> You don't say, but imply you think fine tuning is not a theistic
>> claim. I acknowledge "fine tuning" can be considered to mean the
>> values of physical constant are derived from other perhaps unknown
>> principles. But that meaning does not apply to the context of the
>> topic raised here. Instead the context here is, fine tuning is
>> evidence of a purposeful Intelligent Agent, and said Agent's purpose
>> is to create us. This is theistic claim.
>
>Intelligent agents are possible also by naturalism. Sufficiently
>advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Third
>law of late Sir Arthur C. Clarke.

Correct. In fact, your point above is one I make regularly, to not
conflate naturalistic intelligent design and supernatural Intelligent
Design. In the specific case of fine tuning, the Agent is presumed to
exist before the creation of the universe. How does a naturalistic
agent exist before the universe exists? And there still remains the
theistic presumption of said Agent's intent.

>> >Half of the speech was some naturalism versus theism
>> >propaganda ... so it made it all to smell as political lecture.
>>
>> Apparently you don't recognize the inspiration of Carroll's riposte.
>> He is refuting prior claims by William Lane Craig, who has made a
>> career out of spouting theistic propaganda.
>
>One gets muddy who wrestles with pig.
>
>> >"Universe is kind of random and a mess." Huh?
>>
>> Does your "Huh" mean that you don't understand Carroll's comment? Or
>> that you disagree with it? If the latter, specify your disagreement.
>> If the former, the meaning of his comment is clear enough in context.
>> Specify your misunderstanding.
>
>Yes, for me it is not random mess. Consider estimated distribution of
>dark matter:
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#/media/File:COSMOS_3D_dark_matter_map.png>
>Why it is random mess? Looks very interesting, like lot of other things.

"random" can mean many things. Carroll is saying the universe is
random and messy with respect to creating life.

>> >"In naturalism you expect life to be insignificant." Strong argument
>> >for not to be that kind of naturalist.
>>
>> It's alleged strength notwithstanding, do you disagree? If so,
>> specify your disagreement.
>
>I'm patriot of life ... for me it is significant. Opposite political claims
>do not accost me.

Carroll is not saying life itself is insignificant in an absolute
sense. Instead, he is saying the veracity of naturalism does not
depend on the existence of life. If life suddenly disappeared, the
universe would continue almost exactly as it does now. By analogy,
life in the universe is less than a speck on a flea on a hair on a
frog on a bump on a branch on a log in a hole in the bottom of the
sea.

>> >"Flattering stores we like to tell about ourselves." Strong argument
>> >for not to be that kind of theist.
>>
>> It's alleged strength notwithstanding, do you disagree? If so,
>> specify your disagreement.
>
>The tendency of groundless self-flattering is not what I like regardless
>of type of political party.
>
>> >Political pot and kettle.
>
>> Once again, the context here is the Carroll pot is refuting the Craig
>> kettle. Your objection above isn't valid in context.
>
>Sorry, I did not understand that it was political debate there.

It is, to the degree that politics and theism are similar.

>> >> The video is short enough so that dishonest trolls have no excuse not
>> >> to listen to it *before* they start trolling with their willfully
>> >> stupid spam.
>> >
>> >Thanks, but note that discussions of behavior of posters are
>> >still boring.
>> So noted, as is its irrelevance to the topic, as is your failure to
>> note said behavior's prior manifestation from other posters.
>
>I prefer to ignore it as long they have anything non-boring to say.

Ok, what say we both ignore boring sayings.

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 07:47:42 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:

The first half of that video is excellent with Carroll doing his usual
superb job in dismantling fallacies that underlie the fine-tuning
argument. The second half of it, however, is truly dreadful.

In making his claims about the natural world not being as we would
expect from a theist God, he falls into the same thinking mode as ID
proponents who base their claims largely on what things *look like to
them*; Carroll becomes the mirror image of that by making claims based
on how a theistic world *should look to him*. Just like the ID
proponents who brush aside the painstaking work of professional
scientists over many years, he ignores the arguments put forward by
resepcetd theologians and philosophers for millennia.

Carroll, just like Dawkins and Coyne before him, is exceptionally
gifted in his ability to explain complex science in a rational and
concise manner that a layman can understand - all three of them are
among my favourite writers of science. Unfortunately, just like them,
he abandons his disciplined rationale when it comes to talking about
religion.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Or, in the words of Jim Watson (as in Crick and), avoid boring people.


--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years

[jillery]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 10:13:01 +0100, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 07:47:42 -0700, Mark Isaak
><eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>

Your criticism above is a strawman, to assert an equivalence where
none exists. Your "first half" distinction isn't precise, so I can
only guess to what you allude, based on your emphasis of *should look
to them*.

**********************
@3:54
Most importantly theism fails as an explanation. Even if you think
the universe is finely tuned and you don't think that naturalism can
solve it, theism certainly does not solve it. If you thought it did,
if you played the game honestly, what you would say is here is "the
universe that I expect to exist under theism I will compare it to the
data and see if it fits"
***********************

Carroll is not putting words in theists' mouths, or thoughts in their
heads. Instead he is establishing a logical argument; IF
(conditional) X, then (consequence) Y. Carrolll goes on to describe
things theists have said, that's the X, and shows how the Y of reality
doesn't support it.

Apparently you disagree theists say these things. I don't know this
for a fact, but my impression is Carroll describes what he does
because William Lane Craig, who is a very public theist, did say these
things just before Carroll did.

In any case, people can honestly disagree with many arguments Carroll
makes, but to handwave away his comments based on a false equivalence
is exactly the kind of dishonest objection I expect theists like you
to make.

>Carroll, just like Dawkins and Coyne before him, is exceptionally
>gifted in his ability to explain complex science in a rational and
>concise manner that a layman can understand - all three of them are
>among my favourite writers of science. Unfortunately, just like them,
>he abandons his disciplined rationale when it comes to talking about
>religion.

Carroll's public pronouncements about religion are closer in spirit to
those of Neil Tyson's. Both sharply contrast with those of Dawkins
and Coyne, who are far less accommodating and far more often identify
religion with negative and destructive behaviors.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 6:06:05 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

> My previous topic on fine-tuning has become a spam magnet for
> willfully dishonest arguments,

especially by yourself. See:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/CgjITcZq-AQ/m/_zWzjVrYFgAJ
Re: A conversation about Fine Tuning

and especially the post where you did something I've never seen anyone do before in
almost three decades on the internet: openly flaunting their incorrigibility with the
damning evidence in plain sight:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/CgjITcZq-AQ/m/a4gmLz_oFQAJ
Re: Chez Watt(was Re: A conversation about Fine Tuning”

Note the word: incorrigibility, not dishonesty or hypocrisy or cowardice, all three
of which I've seen flaunted innumerable times, and not just by you. The
advent of the flaunting of incorrigibility is a game-changer so drastic that
it calls for drastic remedies, which I will be posting in a few minutes.

> where one poster unapologetically
> admits to criticizing the video without even listening to it first.

You are lying through your teeth, as the posts I've linked show, especially the second.

Unfortunately for you, I DID watch that 75-minute video this morning.

OTOH you gave no sign of having seen anything besides minutes 8 to 18.
Perhaps that is because what your hero Sabine said in her half
of those 10 minutes summarized almost everything she said in the rest of the
video: she is not interested in arguments that aren't confined to hard scientific data that we already have,
and denies that the fine tuning "is anything that requires an explanation" -- be it scientific or metaphysical.
And that includes her bald statement that "The multiverse is not a scientific hypothesis."

Her opponent, Luke Barnes, ranged far and wide, about how the fine tuning question is related to many ways we
(and especially many leading cosmologists) think about the world around us. He took us deep into the
metaphysics that does not interest Sabine, rigorously avoiding any religious claims.

You probably tuned out what Luke was saying, if you actually watched the whole 75 minutes,
because you share Sabine's philistine attitude towards the awesome mysteries of the universe
and of its deep structure.

And since you lack the backbone to reference that debate, I'm giving the url here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OoYzcxzvvM

> To reboot, here is a very short 8-minute monologue by Sean Carroll,
> another academically qualified and professional physicist, about
> what's wrong with fine-tuning arguments:
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR79HDEf9k8>
>
> To be explicitly clear, I stipulate that I understand and agree with
> everything Carroll says in the above video.

Of course, you would recommend a monologue. Is it any better than the
fewer-than-8 minutes Sabine used for her spiel? The rest of her participation
on that 75-minute video was, with rare exceptions, a broken record routine.

> The video is short enough so that dishonest trolls have no excuse not
> to listen to it *before* they start trolling with their willfully
> stupid spam.

Do you think either you or Sabine are an inspiration to thinking atheists everywhere?

> You're entitled to your own opinions.
> You're not entitled to your own facts.

How convenient for you that this quote by the late Sen. Moynihan uses the second person.
You feel fully entitled to spew your own "facts", in an implicit
"Do as I say, not as I do -- yes, I, jillery, am talking to YOU."


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Ron Dean]

On 6/28/21 5:41 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 10:13:01 +0100, Martin Harran
> <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 07:47:42 -0700, Mark Isaak
>> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/26/21 2:43 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, 26 June 2021 at 01:06:05 UTC+3, jillery wrote:
>>>>> My previous topic on fine-tuning has become a spam magnet for
>>>>> willfully dishonest arguments, where one poster unapologetically
>>>>> admits to criticizing the video without even listening to it first.
>>>>
>>>> Links good. Talks of behavior of posters bad.
>>>>
>>>>> To reboot, here is a very short 8-minute monologue by Sean Carroll,
>>>>> another academically qualified and professional physicist, about
>>>>> what's wrong with fine-tuning arguments:
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR79HDEf9k8>
>>>>>
>>>>> To be explicitly clear, I stipulate that I understand and agree with
>>>>> everything Carroll says in the above video.
>

Sean Carroll is an atheist. In all these years, I never thought of you,
Jill as an atheist, an agnostic perhaps, but not an atheist. Was I wrong?

I see atheism and extreme religious fundamentalist as the same, just
opposite sides of the _same_ coin. I see the same mental and
psychological personalities as virtually the same. Neither position is
subject to empirical scientific evidence. So, no matter how determined
either is to see themselves as right, it comes down to belief and faith,
not fact! However, agnosticism in my opinion is by far the most logical
and rational position to hold. Of course, it's possible to lean in a
direction either towards atheism or towards the supernatural. I
personally believe that the evidence shows that the universe was
designed which infers a designer.
>
I watched the video Jill referenced twice. And I had problems with
Carroll's argument from the beginning.
His video entitled "Debunking the 'Fine Tuning' Argument", he states
"You have phenomena; you have parameters of particle physics and
cosmology." Then he says "I am by no means, convinced that there is
a fine tuning problem". And then he continues, "it is certainly true
that if you changed the parameters of nature, our local conditions that
we observe around us would change by a lot. "Sadly, we just don't know
whether if life could exist if conditions of the universe were different
see the universe that we see". But the fine tuning argument is not about
life, but rather life as we _know_ it.
So, in a very real sense, what he says here, about the parameter, of
particle physics and the universe _is_fine_tuning_. This is the part and
parcel of the standard fine tuning argument. This is the parameter and
values of the physical "values, coincidences and conditions of the laws
of physics and constants of the universe. But then he asserts there is
no fine tuning problem. This raises the question what is his "fine
tuning argument" that he is debunking? Either he does not understand the
real "fine tuning argument" or else he's deliberately erecting a
straw-man version which he can easily debunk.

It's obvious he has a "fine tuning argument" that is radically different
from the standard fine tuning argument. This becomes even more obvious
when he begins disguising his idea of god by saying that this god
doesn't need to fine tune anything .... god doesn't care what the mass
of the electron is, he can do what he wants.

This god Carroll depicts is not logical or rational whose designs would
not be orderly, consistent, systematic, directed or coherent or
understandable to intelligent beings. Instead Carroll's god is
capricious, illogical, unpredictable and fickle. Such a god as he
presents could have 2+2 = 4 today, but tomorrow 2+2 could = 9 then 6 the
day after. Understanding the laws of physics would be nightmare, you
could never be sure as to what tomorrow would bring. Intelligent beings
could never understand nor design anything based upon logic order or
consistency, because such would be non-existent. The god he offers is
_not_ the designer of the universe or life. If as the fine tuned
universe was designed through physical laws and constants were for the
purpose of bringing man into existence, then the designer would have to
establish the laws of physics, thermodynamics biology cosmos etc in a
orderly,logical, consistent and unchanging in order for the universe
and life to exist and be comprehensible after research and study by
intelligent beings.

Not that I believe any "critics" of the fine tuned universe will
actually go there. But this is an excellent video, explaining
the real "fine tuned universe argument".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOmdVVgtLLs

[jillery]

On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 18:02:05 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 6:06:05 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>
>> My previous topic on fine-tuning has become a spam magnet for
>> willfully dishonest arguments,
>
>especially by yourself. See:
>
>https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/CgjITcZq-AQ/m/_zWzjVrYFgAJ
>Re: A conversation about Fine Tuning

The link above is to *your* post, filled top to bottom with your
willfully dishonest arguments, and almost no content on the topic
itself.

>and especially the post where you did something I've never seen anyone do before in
>almost three decades on the internet: openly flaunting their incorrigibility with the
>damning evidence in plain sight:
>
>https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/CgjITcZq-AQ/m/a4gmLz_oFQAJ
>Re: Chez Watt(was Re: A conversation about Fine Tuning”

The link above is to *your* post, filled top to bottom with your
spamming Big Lies. You don't even try to say what you mean by
"flaunting" or "incorrigible.

>Note the word: incorrigibility, not dishonesty or hypocrisy or cowardice, all three
>of which I've seen flaunted innumerable times, and not just by you.

The above is yet more of your baseless allusions. Not once have you
ever demonstrated dishonesty or hypocrisy or cowardice by me. All you
ever do is baselessly *assert* it. Spamming your lies convinces only
those who don't want to know what they're talking about.

>The
>advent of the flaunting of incorrigibility is a game-changer so drastic that
>it calls for drastic remedies, which I will be posting in a few minutes.
>
>
> > where one poster unapologetically
>> admits to criticizing the video without even listening to it first.
>
>You are lying through your teeth, as the posts I've linked show, especially the second.

No, they don't. But the following link shows *you* lying through your
teeth:
******************************
Subject: Re: Chez Watt(was Re: A conversation about Fine Tuning”
Message-ID: <a6545cbf-7ea5-49e7...@googlegroups.com>
On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 10:01:18 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Of course, you didn't quote anything from her, so without looking at the video,
>we don't know whether both, or one, or none of the two sides are being accurately portrayed.
****************************
So once again, you accuse me of doing what you do.

>Unfortunately for you, I DID watch that 75-minute video this morning.

It's about time. Give yourself a gold star. And thank you for
proving my point. Not sure how that's unfortunate for me.

<snip your remaining spamming Big Lies>

--

[jillery]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 00:24:28 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 6/28/21 5:41 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 10:13:01 +0100, Martin Harran
>> <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 07:47:42 -0700, Mark Isaak
>>> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/26/21 2:43 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, 26 June 2021 at 01:06:05 UTC+3, jillery wrote:
>>>>>> My previous topic on fine-tuning has become a spam magnet for
>>>>>> willfully dishonest arguments, where one poster unapologetically
>>>>>> admits to criticizing the video without even listening to it first.
>>>>>
>>>>> Links good. Talks of behavior of posters bad.
>>>>>
>>>>>> To reboot, here is a very short 8-minute monologue by Sean Carroll,
>>>>>> another academically qualified and professional physicist, about
>>>>>> what's wrong with fine-tuning arguments:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR79HDEf9k8>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To be explicitly clear, I stipulate that I understand and agree with
>>>>>> everything Carroll says in the above video.
>>
>Sean Carroll is an atheist. In all these years, I never thought of you,
>Jill as an atheist, an agnostic perhaps, but not an atheist. Was I wrong?

Similar to ID, the fine-tuning argument baselessly asserts the values
of physical constants are highly improbable, and presumes a
fine-tuner. Like ID, it is bad theology and even worse science.

It is possible to consider fine-tuning scientifically, sans fine
tuner, to learn if these fundamental constants could have been any
different, and if so how.

Since it's easier for you to treat me as less than human by assuming I
am an atheist, there's nothing I can say that will convince you
otherwise. Your recent posts show you are far along on that path,
closely following the peter's behind.

[Ron Dean]

No, I never thought of you as an atheist, but then you sided with a Sean
Carroll, so that gave me pause. I glad to know you are not!

there's nothing I can say that will convince you
> otherwise. Your recent posts show you are far along on that path,
> closely following the peter's behind.
<

Because I agreed with him on on a point he made does not mean I always
agree.



Why did you ignore what I wrote below?

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/29/21 9:24 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> On 6/28/21 5:41 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 10:13:01 +0100, Martin Harran
>> <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 07:47:42 -0700, Mark Isaak
>>> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/26/21 2:43 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, 26 June 2021 at 01:06:05 UTC+3, jillery wrote:
>>>>>> My previous topic on fine-tuning has become a spam magnet for
>>>>>> willfully dishonest arguments, where one poster unapologetically
>>>>>> admits to criticizing the video without even listening to it first.
>>>>>
>>>>> Links good. Talks of behavior of posters bad.
>>>>>> To reboot, here is a very short 8-minute monologue by Sean Carroll,
>>>>>> another academically qualified and professional physicist, about
>>>>>> what's wrong with fine-tuning arguments:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR79HDEf9k8>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To be explicitly clear, I stipulate that I understand and agree with
>>>>>> everything Carroll says in the above video.
>>
> Sean Carroll is an atheist. In all these years, I never thought of you,
> Jill as an atheist, an agnostic perhaps, but not an atheist. Was I wrong?
>
> I see atheism and extreme religious fundamentalist as the same, just
> opposite sides of the _same_ coin. I see the same mental and
> psychological personalities as virtually the same.

Not all atheism is alike. Even within the same sort of atheism, not all
atheists are alike. What you are engaging in is the worst sort of
stereotyping.

> Neither position is
> subject to empirical scientific evidence. So, no matter how determined
> either is to see themselves as right, it comes down to belief and faith,
> not fact!

It is a fact that there is no rigorous evidence for active gods. It is
a fact that the gods people have recognized take myriad forms, often
contradictory.

> However, agnosticism in my opinion is by far the most logical
> and rational position to hold.

What you call agnosticism some others call atheism. So what you have
condemned as like "extreme religious fundamentalism" in one breath you
say in another breath is "by far the most logical and rational position."

> Of course, it's possible to lean in a
> direction either towards atheism or towards the supernatural. I
> personally believe that the evidence shows that the universe was
> designed which infers a designer.
>>
> I watched the video Jill referenced twice. And I had problems with
> Carroll's argument from the beginning.
> His video entitled "Debunking the 'Fine Tuning' Argument", he states
> "You have phenomena; you have parameters of particle physics and
> cosmology." Then he says "I am by no means, convinced that there is
> a fine tuning problem". And then he continues, "it is certainly true
> that if you changed the parameters of nature, our local conditions that
> we observe around us would change by a lot. "Sadly, we just don't know
> whether if life could exist if conditions of the universe were different
> see the universe that we see". But the fine tuning argument is not about
> life, but rather life as we _know_ it.
> So, in a very real sense, what he says here, about the parameter, of
> particle physics and the universe _is_fine_tuning_. This is the part and
> parcel of the standard fine tuning argument. This is the parameter and
> values of the physical "values, coincidences and conditions of the laws
> of physics and constants of the universe. But then he asserts there is
> no fine tuning problem. This raises the question what is his "fine
> tuning argument" that he is debunking? Either he does not understand the
> real "fine tuning argument" or else he's deliberately erecting a
> straw-man version which he can easily debunk.

Either that, or you do not understand the fine-tuning argument.

It is true that, if the early universe had been different, then the
present universe would have been different, i.e., not as we know it.
Nobody disputes that. Also, nobody finds it interesting, since it is so
obvious. The argument is NOT about life as we know it; it is about
whether small changes would have made *any* intelligent life impossible.

As an aside, there is another argument about whether restarting the
universe *with no changes at all* to its parameters would result in life
as we know it. Obviously, that is not a fine-tuning argument.

> It's obvious he has a "fine tuning argument" that is radically different
> from the standard fine tuning argument. This becomes even more obvious
> when he begins disguising his idea of god by saying that this god
> doesn't need to fine tune anything .... god doesn't care what the mass
> of the electron is, he can do what he wants.
>
> This god Carroll depicts is not logical or rational whose designs would
> not be orderly, consistent, systematic, directed or coherent or
> understandable to intelligent beings. Instead Carroll's  god is
> capricious, illogical, unpredictable and fickle. Such a god as he
> presents could have 2+2 = 4 today, but tomorrow 2+2 could = 9 then 6 the
> day after. Understanding the laws of physics would be nightmare, you
> could never be sure as to what tomorrow would bring. Intelligent beings
> could never understand nor design anything based upon logic order or
> consistency, because such would be non-existent. The god he offers is
> _not_ the designer of the universe or life. If as the fine tuned
> universe was designed through physical laws and constants were for the
> purpose of bringing man into existence, then the designer would have to
> establish the laws of physics, thermodynamics biology cosmos etc in a
> orderly,logical, consistent and unchanging in order for the universe
> and life to exist and be comprehensible after research and study by
> intelligent beings.

I did not get the sense that Carroll's god was so capricious. Quite the
opposite in fact. Regardless, the point you make is that no fine-tuning
argument exists at all until the god responsible is defined. Are you
willing to make such a definition?

[Ron Dean]

There may be some varying degrees, but generally what I wrote is valid.
Of course Stalin or Mao is the extreme form of atheism. So. in this
regard you are right.

>
>> Neither position is subject to empirical scientific evidence. So, no
>> matter how determined either is to see themselves as right, it comes
>> down to belief and faith, not fact!
>
> It is a fact that there is no rigorous evidence for active gods.  It is
> a fact that the gods people have recognized take myriad forms, often
> contradictory.
>

This An example is true Islam Vs Jews or Christian.

>
>> However, agnosticism in my opinion is by far the most logical and
>> rational position to hold.
>
> What you call agnosticism some others call atheism.  So what you have
> condemned as like "extreme religious fundamentalism" in one breath you
> say in another breath is "by far the most logical and rational position."
>

Nonsense! There is virtually nothing in common with agnosticism and
extreme religious fundamentalism. Indeed agnosticism is uncertain
whether there are or not god(s). Religious fundamentalism have
absolutely no such uncertainty.

Certain small changes would have made the universe impossible. With no
universe no life of any kind.

Carroll essentially describes just such a god. One who doesn't need to
fine tune anything or doesn't care about the mass of an electron.
The designer determined the mass of the electron, the strength of the
gravity and the rest of the fine tuned laws of physics, the constants
and the information it required for life, and reproduction of life.

Since it was the designers purpose to create a universe where logic,
rational and mathematics reign supreme, the designer had no choice, but
to follow rules of rationalism and logic. For example: It could not have
changed gravity by an increase or decrease except to an extremely small
percentage. Unless other changes had been made to offset the change no
universe and no life.

So, the entity described by Carroll is not the same entity that designed
the universe. However, this is in reality quite typical of the
impression and dogmatic views of the fine tuned argument held by many,
if not most, of the critics of the fine tuned argument. But it is a
caricature or a strawman version of the real fine tuned argument.

> Regardless, the point you make is that no fine-tuning
> argument exists at all until the god responsible is defined.
>

I tend to refrain from using the term god, because, I see design
wherever I look especially the evidence described, by certain scientist
as the fine tuned constants of the universe. So, where there is design
there is a designer.

> Are you willing to make such a definition?
>

I think designer of the universe and life is the definition. I think
there is indirect evidence, of a designer in the same sense as when
one observes tracks, in the snow, you may not know what made the tracks,
but these tracks are indirect evidence that something passed by. An
example: huge human like tracks seen photographed and cast made.
One can be certain the tracks didn't just appear, either they were
faked by humans (which I believe) or by some unknown ape, like the
extinct great ape gigantopthecus that is still alive in North America:
but the tracks are real, who or what made then I do not know.

[jillery]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 11:40:17 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>

Your comment above is a dishonest and evasive allusion. I neither
said nor implied that any agreement between you and the peter had
anything to do with anything. Instead, I have explicitly cited and
described your recent ill-mannered behavior, which includes your
mention of atheism.

>Why did you ignore what I wrote below?

What you wrote below is your first substantive and topical
contribution to the two topics on fine-tuning I started recently.
Almost all of your previous posts to these topics have been to
criticize me personally, to misrepresent at the very least what I
wrote, and to ignore my efforts to correct your misrepresentations.

You raised the issue of atheism. Yes, Carroll describes himself as an
atheist, as do most scientists. Carroll also describes himself as a
Harvard alumnus. The veracity of his arguments are independent of
both these things. Atheism is not relevant to fine-tuning any more
than it is to Evolution. For you to allude to atheism in this topic
is the final proof you have zero interest in discussing fine tuning
with me.

I won't pretend you didn't post what you posted. If you want me to
comment on your belated contribution below, then either back up your
criticisms and misrepresentations I identified in these topics, or
explicitly retract your misrepresentations. Doing neither leaves them
to poison the well.

[Ron Dean]

Then what does "closely following the peter's behind mean?
Are you being purposely vague and just argumentative?

Instead, I have explicitly cited and
> described your recent ill-mannered behavior, which includes your
> mention of atheism.
>

What I said is true, I seen nothing to dispute what I wrote.

>
>> Why did you ignore what I wrote below?
>
>
> What you wrote below is your first substantive and topical
> contribution to the two topics on fine-tuning I started recently.
> Almost all of your previous posts to these topics have been to
> criticize me personally, to misrepresent at the very least what I
> wrote, and to ignore my efforts to correct your misrepresentations.
>

As a general rule I do _not_ get involved the personal, I absolute hate
personal attacks, insults or character assassination. And I try
desperately to avoid becoming involved with such. I sincerely regret
becoming recently involved in this. But not again.

>
> You raised the issue of atheism. Yes, Carroll describes himself as an
> atheist, as do most scientists. Carroll also describes himself as a
> Harvard alumnus. The veracity of his arguments are independent of
> both these things. Atheism is not relevant to fine-tuning any more
> than it is to Evolution. For you to allude to atheism in this topic
> is the final proof you have zero interest in discussing fine tuning
> with me.
>

I know for a fact that all evolutionist are not atheist, probably most
are not. But I suspect that at least 75% of all atheist are evolutionist.

>
> I won't pretend you didn't post what you posted. If you want me to
> comment on your belated contribution below, then either back up your
> criticisms and misrepresentations I identified in these topics, or
> explicitly retract your misrepresentations. Doing neither leaves them
> to poison the well.
>

I do not know what I said that was a misrepresentation. I never
intentualy misrepresented anyone. I did criticism the name calling.
Which I actually saw. I did not accuse you of being dishonest
only of misunderstanding.

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 3:11:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
<snip for focus>

> Carroll essentially describes just such a god. One who doesn't need to
> fine tune anything or doesn't care about the mass of an electron.

...............................................................................

> The designer determined the mass of the electron, the strength of the
> gravity and the rest of the fine tuned laws of physics, the constants
> and the information it required for life, and reproduction of life.
>
> Since it was the designers purpose to create a universe where logic,
> rational and mathematics reign supreme, the designer had no choice, but
> to follow rules of rationalism and logic. For example: It could not have
> changed gravity by an increase or decrease except to an extremely small
> percentage. Unless other changes had been made to offset the change no
> universe and no life.

........................................................

Let's stipulate that if the fundamental constants had been different, life would not exist. But life is not the only thing that would not exist. A whole range of physical things would also not exist, including, just to pick one out of very, very many, .....quartz crystals. Had the fundamental constants been different, even a little different, there would be no quartz crystals. Why would you think that the designer was aiming for intelligent life, and, accidentally, had to pick physical constants that allowed for the existence of quartz crystals? On what grounds do you decide that the Designer wasn't aiming for quartz crystals and got a universe that allowed life as an unintended by-product?

Seriously. You claim to know nothing of the Designer, and you certainly (I hope) do not think the Designer is simply you, but with a better box of tools. So why do you think the Designer finds life as important and interesting as you do? You are projecting your own values and interests on a Designer, about which you claim to know nothing. That's not a consistent.

And once you eliminate the projection of your own values on the hypothetical Designer, all the fine tuning argument boils down to is "If things had been different, things would be different."


<snip>

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 6:26:06 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 18:02:05 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 6:06:05 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >
> >> My previous topic on fine-tuning

...revolved around the following 75-minute video featuring a
spirited but polite debate between between physicists Sabine Hossenfelder and Luke Barnes
on the implications of the very low tolerance of the basic physical constants
of our universe for hospitability to life, especially intelligent life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OoYzcxzvvM

It was ably and intelligently hosted by Justin Brierly, onThe Big Conversation Show.
I plan, before long, to start a thread on this fascinating debate, providing a detailed
outline of it -- something that has not appeared on talk.origins yet.



The sentence fragment from an earlier post by jillery at the beginning of this post
is the first application of a policy I announced yesterday evening:

"And so, for the rest of 2021, I will only address any content of follow-ups
that jillery makes to me after today if they contain scientific statements
having nothing to do personally with me. If such posts contain any
comments of a personal nature about anyone, they will be deleted
and only the purely scientific comments left in."

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/2FNuEeffkNQ/m/JAYDHakjFwAJ
Drastic policy on posts by jillery for the rest of 2021
Jun 29, 2021, 9:26:07 PM (yesterday)


As it so happens, jillery deleted everything having anything to do with
science from the reply she did to me, except for that five-word sentence fragment,
and added no such thing of her own, and so no further text from her post appears in this reply to it.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Ron Dean]

On 6/30/21 4:53 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 3:11:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
> <snip for focus>
>
>> Carroll essentially describes just such a god. One who doesn't need to
>> fine tune anything or doesn't care about the mass of an electron.
>
> ...............................................................................
>> The designer determined the mass of the electron, the strength of the
>> gravity and the rest of the fine tuned laws of physics, the constants
>> and the information it required for life, and reproduction of life.
>>
>> Since it was the designers purpose to create a universe where logic,
>> rational and mathematics reign supreme, the designer had no choice, but
>> to follow rules of rationalism and logic. For example: It could not have
>> changed gravity by an increase or decrease except to an extremely small
>> percentage. Unless other changes had been made to offset the change no
>> universe and no life.
> ........................................................
>
> Let's stipulate that if the fundamental constants had been different, life would not exist. But life is not the only thing that would not exist. A whole range of physical things would also not exist, including, just to pick one out of very, very many, .....quartz crystals. Had the fundamental constants been different, even a little different, there would be no quartz crystals. Why would you think that the designer was aiming for intelligent life, and, accidentally, had to pick physical constants that allowed for the existence of quartz crystals? On what grounds do you decide that the Designer wasn't aiming for quartz crystals and got a universe that allowed life as an unintended by-product?
<

This is true, but under different parameters it's possible the universe
itself would have failed. This is to say nothing of stars, galaxies or
crystals, animals.>

> Seriously. You claim to know nothing of the Designer, and you certainly (I hope) do not think the Designer is simply you, but with a better box of tools. So why do you think the Designer finds life as important and interesting as you do? You are projecting your own values and interests on a Designer, about which you claim to know nothing. That's not a consistent.
>
> And once you eliminate the projection of your own values on the hypothetical Designer, all the fine tuning argument boils down to is "If things had been different, things would be different."
>

And that raises the question; could things have been different? Where
there was no designer, what then gave values to the constants, the laws
of physics, the strength of gravity or the mass of the electron etc etc
etc values necessary to give rise to the universe, life and our crystals.

I try to maintain an open mind. I have not always held the position I do
at this time. In my university years I became a confirmed naturalist
accepting nothing contrary to naturalism could exist and no results of
scientific observation, research and testing could point to anything
unnatural. But then I began reading about the anthropic principle
expecting to find serious falsifying fallacies. But the more I read the
less convinced I became. Since naturalism is a philosophy, it sets
boundaries, confinements and limitations. The claim to follow the
evidence wherever it leads, when shackled by this philosophy is false
and deceptive. I think if the evidence leads to a fine tuned universe
then philosophy should be abolished and nullified. The following
reference give a good example of the fine tuning universe. But he
seeks refuge in the multiple universe.


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOmdVVgtLLs&t=881s
>
> <snip>
>

[jillery]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 14:36:04 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"

<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 6:26:06 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 18:02:05 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 6:06:05 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> >
>> >> My previous topic on fine-tuning
>
>...revolved around the following 75-minute video featuring a
>spirited but polite debate between between physicists Sabine Hossenfelder and Luke Barnes
>on the implications of the very low tolerance of the basic physical constants
>of our universe for hospitability to life, especially intelligent life.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OoYzcxzvvM
>
> It was ably and intelligently hosted by Justin Brierly, onThe Big Conversation Show.

AOTA was ably and intelligently described by me in the OP to that
previous topic. Your comments above add nothing to what I posted.

>I plan, before long, to start a thread on this fascinating debate, providing a detailed
>outline of it -- something that has not appeared on talk.origins yet.
>
>
>
>The sentence fragment from an earlier post by jillery at the beginning of this post
>is the first application of a policy I announced yesterday evening:

How you play with yourself isn't relevant to this topic, or to
anything anybody said in it.


<snip your irrelevant spam>

>As it so happens, jillery deleted everything having anything to do with
>science from the reply she did to me, except for that five-word sentence fragment,
>and added no such thing of her own, and so no further text from her post appears in this reply to it.

You are such a willfully stupid liar. Your reply to this topic's OP
was filled top to bottom with your mindless made-up crap and Big Lies,
and mentioned almost nothing about the topic or anything scientific.
Anybody who cares to wade through it can prove it for themselves:
****************************
Subject: Re: A riposte of fine-tuning
Message-ID: <be9cbd32-1454-4cb5...@googlegroups.com>

On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 18:02:05 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

****************************

You are like the pornographers of old, who included just enough
"redeeming social merit" inbetween the cheesecake to pass legal
muster. Your smidgen of science is your excuse to spam your obscene
made-up crap and Big Lies. Larry Flynt couldn't do it better than you
do.

[Öö Tiib]

On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 06:51:05 UTC+3, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 09:35:47 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, 26 June 2021 at 15:56:05 UTC+3, jillery wrote:
> >> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 02:43:55 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
> >> wrote:
> >> >2) "God does not need to fine tune anything." Odd argument from
> >> >ignorance. Intelligent beings we know of have desire to have
> >> >whatever they make elegant and efficient.
> >>
> >> Carroll refers to a similar theological claim you make, that the
> >> nature of the universe reflects the nature of God. "Intelligent
> >> beings we know of" could not have fine tuned the universe, as they are
> >> too limited. Presumptions of God's intent don't inform the nature of
> >> the universe. As Carroll says "He can do what He wants".
> >
> >Here is the issue. We assume that we know what God wants and
> >we assume that this is not elegant and efficient realization of
> >that desire. Or we assume that God does not care about elegance
> >and efficiency? Yet the only thing we know is that very same
> >Abrahamic God ordered different things from Jews, Christians
> >and Muslims (if to trust them what they say).
>
> Correct. Like ID, fine-tuning is based almost entirely on its
> presumptions.

I mean it is both ways. On one hand it is true that theistic
concept of creation of universe is missing. But Carroll
presumes that God has no value in efficiency or elegance.
I do not think that it is correct representation of theistic
positions.

> >> >There are examples where some parameters can't be adjusted
> >> >in isolation from others.
> >> Carroll gives no such examples, and I know of none. Apparently you
> >> do. Specify them.
> >
> >Purely mathematical like radius and circumference of circle are
> >forced to be related linearly. We know that but we may not yet know
> >other such limitations.
>
> Ok, now I understand what you mean. Discussions about fine tuning
> don't generally include mathematical properties because they are
> established by definition and/or because they are derived from
> fundamental principles. In the specific case of Pi, it is based on
> the curvature of spacetime, which depends on the gravitational
> constant. I acknowledge it's possible for different universes to have
> different topologies.

Yes and so we do not know if there can be different universes and
it such are possible to cause.

> >> >He admits that we can't conclude from that therefore
> >> >*nothing* could be fine tuned.
> >> Your paraphrase is unclear and misleading. No need to rely on a
> >> paraphrase instead of directly quoting Carroll:
> >> *****************************
> >> @2:47 I can't say that all parameters fit into that paradigm, but
> >> until we know the answer we can't claim that they are definitely
> >> finely tuned.
> >> ******************************
> >>
> >> Carroll refutes the fine tuning argument as expressed. He does not
> >> make a positive claim of his own here.
> >
> >"I can't say that all parameters fit into that paradigm" is clearly
> >agreeing with my claim that he can't say that *nothing* could be
> >fine tuned in emerging universe by that paradigm.
>
> My impression is our disagreement here is a matter of emphasis. The
> assertion "we can't conclude X from Y" is different from the assertion
> "we can't say X". The former implies the veracity of X depends on Y,
> while the latter implies the veracity of X stands alone.
>
> In this specific case, Carroll is not saying nothing could be fine
> tuned. That's a positive claim. Instead he is saying whether it can
> be said something is fine tuned depends on knowing more about it than
> is known.
>
> By analogy, to say "God does not exist" is a positive claim, which is
> different from "I can't say God exists".

Yes, I said that Carroll admits that he can not say that nothing could
be fine tuned. The whole point 3) is only that theists also can not
claim that all parameters were fine tuned.

> >> >4) "multiverse" This is woo debunked with woo.
> >>
> >> Multiverse is not woo, at least not as I define woo. Woo is jumping to
> >> preferred conclusions with no basis other than said preference.
> >> Carroll explains multiverse is a necessary prediction from inflation
> >> and string theory, both of which are useful and plausible
> >> presumptions.
> >>
> >> It would be helpful if you specified your definition of "woo".
> >
> >Baseless and not testable speculation typically for trying to
> >persuade someone. All our models that we use in practice deviate
> >from our reality in one or other way. String theory just promises that
> >there might be such model that does not deviate from our reality.
> >But where is useful model that does not deviate from our reality?
> >It promises there can be multiverse that can counter fine tuning
> >argument. No evidences of it. So it is woo.
>
> Your reply to Mark Isaak on this point is better than the one above.
> All woo might lack evidence, but not all concepts that lack evidence
> are woo.

Multiverse is not scientific as no one has any ways how to test and
to falsify it. But may be it was not constructed originally as woo.

> >> >4.1) "Theism is not well defined." True, but does not discuss fine
> >> >tuning but issues of theism.
> >>
> >> Fine tuning as argued is a theistic claim.
> >
> >It is still not discussing that claim but theism.
>
> My understanding is it's impossible to discuss theistic claims without
> discussing theism. Your mileage may vary.

I can not see logic in it. Theistic scriptures do not discuss creation of
universe more than in few dim sentences therefore multiverse is true.

> >> >5) Universe what we see is unexpected from viewpoint of any
> >> >theism but expected from viewpoint of naturalism. That is
> >> >strongest argument ... but it can also be just issue with theism
> >> >not fine tuning.
> >>
> >> You don't say, but imply you think fine tuning is not a theistic
> >> claim. I acknowledge "fine tuning" can be considered to mean the
> >> values of physical constant are derived from other perhaps unknown
> >> principles. But that meaning does not apply to the context of the
> >> topic raised here. Instead the context here is, fine tuning is
> >> evidence of a purposeful Intelligent Agent, and said Agent's purpose
> >> is to create us. This is theistic claim.
> >
> >Intelligent agents are possible also by naturalism. Sufficiently
> >advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Third
> >law of late Sir Arthur C. Clarke.
>
> Correct. In fact, your point above is one I make regularly, to not
> conflate naturalistic intelligent design and supernatural Intelligent
> Design. In the specific case of fine tuning, the Agent is presumed to
> exist before the creation of the universe. How does a naturalistic
> agent exist before the universe exists? And there still remains the
> theistic presumption of said Agent's intent.

We do not know it. Can be there was something before can be
there was nothing. Can be that only part of universe itself is
observable from universe or can be that it is not so limited.

> >> >Half of the speech was some naturalism versus theism
> >> >propaganda ... so it made it all to smell as political lecture.
> >>
> >> Apparently you don't recognize the inspiration of Carroll's riposte.
> >> He is refuting prior claims by William Lane Craig, who has made a
> >> career out of spouting theistic propaganda.
> >
> >One gets muddy who wrestles with pig.
> >
> >> >"Universe is kind of random and a mess." Huh?
> >>
> >> Does your "Huh" mean that you don't understand Carroll's comment? Or
> >> that you disagree with it? If the latter, specify your disagreement.
> >> If the former, the meaning of his comment is clear enough in context.
> >> Specify your misunderstanding.
> >
> >Yes, for me it is not random mess. Consider estimated distribution of
> >dark matter:
> ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#/media/File:COSMOS_3D_dark_matter_map.png>
> >Why it is random mess? Looks very interesting, like lot of other things.
>
> "random" can mean many things. Carroll is saying the universe is
> random and messy with respect to creating life.

So therefore "Huh". I have no ideas what kind of life this universe
supports besides of our own.

> >> >"In naturalism you expect life to be insignificant." Strong argument
> >> >for not to be that kind of naturalist.
> >>
> >> It's alleged strength notwithstanding, do you disagree? If so,
> >> specify your disagreement.
> >
> >I'm patriot of life ... for me it is significant. Opposite political claims
> >do not accost me.
>
> Carroll is not saying life itself is insignificant in an absolute
> sense. Instead, he is saying the veracity of naturalism does not
> depend on the existence of life. If life suddenly disappeared, the
> universe would continue almost exactly as it does now. By analogy,
> life in the universe is less than a speck on a flea on a hair on a
> frog on a bump on a branch on a log in a hole in the bottom of the
> sea.

'if we erase ourselves then it was insignificant form of life.
Until we haven't done it yet there is potential that it is fruitful.

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 6:11:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
> On 6/30/21 4:53 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 3:11:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
> > <snip for focus>
> >
> >> Carroll essentially describes just such a god. One who doesn't need to
> >> fine tune anything or doesn't care about the mass of an electron.
> >
> > ...............................................................................
> >> The designer determined the mass of the electron, the strength of the
> >> gravity and the rest of the fine tuned laws of physics, the constants
> >> and the information it required for life, and reproduction of life.
> >>
> >> Since it was the designers purpose to create a universe where logic,
> >> rational and mathematics reign supreme, the designer had no choice, but
> >> to follow rules of rationalism and logic. For example: It could not have
> >> changed gravity by an increase or decrease except to an extremely small
> >> percentage. Unless other changes had been made to offset the change no
> >> universe and no life.
> > ........................................................
> >
> > Let's stipulate that if the fundamental constants had been different, life would not exist. But life is not the only thing that would not exist. A whole range of physical things would also not exist, including, just to pick one out of very, very many, .....quartz crystals. Had the fundamental constants been different, even a little different, there would be no quartz crystals. Why would you think that the designer was aiming for intelligent life, and, accidentally, had to pick physical constants that allowed for the existence of quartz crystals? On what grounds do you decide that the Designer wasn't aiming for quartz crystals and got a universe that allowed life as an unintended by-product?

.....................

> This is true, but under different parameters it's possible the universe
> itself would have failed. This is to say nothing of stars, galaxies or
> crystals, animals.>

Sure, but so what? All that means is that if the Designer had something specific in mind to fine tune for, then it could be anything or everything in the universe.

> > Seriously. You claim to know nothing of the Designer, and you certainly (I hope) do not think the Designer is simply you, but with a better box of tools. So why do you think the Designer finds life as important and interesting as you do? You are projecting your own values and interests on a Designer, about which you claim to know nothing. That's not a consistent.
> >
> > And once you eliminate the projection of your own values on the hypothetical Designer, all the fine tuning argument boils down to is "If things had been different, things would be different."
> >
> And that raises the question; could things have been different? Where
> there was no designer, what then gave values to the constants, the laws
> of physics, the strength of gravity or the mass of the electron etc etc
> etc values necessary to give rise to the universe, life and our crystals.

Who knows if things could have been different? If you really, honestly hold to the position that you know nothing about the Designer, then the Designer simply becomes "whatever caused the physical constants to have the values they do" - and that is virtually content-free, as a claim. And there's no reason to think that life, or intelligent life, or human consciousness was a goal of the Designer, any more than to think that quartz crystals or waterfalls or oysters were the goal. All you know is "this is the way things are."

>
> I try to maintain an open mind. I have not always held the position I do
> at this time. In my university years I became a confirmed naturalist
> accepting nothing contrary to naturalism could exist and no results of
> scientific observation, research and testing could point to anything
> unnatural. But then I began reading about the anthropic principle
> expecting to find serious falsifying fallacies. But the more I read the
> less convinced I became. Since naturalism is a philosophy, it sets
> boundaries, confinements and limitations. The claim to follow the
> evidence wherever it leads, when shackled by this philosophy is false
> and deceptive. I think if the evidence leads to a fine tuned universe
> then philosophy should be abolished and nullified. The following
> reference give a good example of the fine tuning universe. But he
> seeks refuge in the multiple universe.

It's great to be open-minded, and what you thought before does not seem very relevant.

The problem with the fine tuning argument I'm focusing on is not that it's meaningless because you cannot know the a priori probability distribution for possible values of the physical constants (though I do think that that is a problem for the fine tuning argument). The problem with the argument that I'm stressing here is that fine tuning doesn't tell you much of anything, even if it's true. It tells you nothing about the Designer; it tells you nothing about which of the many things that would be impossible (people, stars, quartz, waterfalls, bacteria, gas giant planets) had the physical constants been different was the thing the Designer fine-tuned the constants for.

You may unwittingly project your values and interests onto the Designer and uncritically decide that it's obvious that the point of the fine tuning was intelligent life, or human consciousness, or whatever is most salient to you, but there's no basis for that conclusion. The fine tuning argument, at best, tells you nothing about the Designer except that it wanted the universe to be just exactly the way it is (setting aside the possibility of an incompetent Designer). All you can tell about the Designer, if there is one, is that it is just such a Designer as would produce the specific universe we observe. So the only way to learn anything about the Designer is to study the universe it designed.

This is not an argument about naturalism versus supernaturalism. As I said, I stipulated that the fine tuning argument is correct to the extent that small changes in some constants would have made the universe very different or extraordinarily short-lived or what have you. And I further stipulated that it's fine to call whatever it is that caused the universe to be the way it is the Designer. All I'm arguing is that the argument tells you nothing whatsoever about the Designer, not whether it is natural or supernatural, not whether or not it is, in any sense, a person, not whether life was a specific target of the design. Nothing at all.

>
>
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOmdVVgtLLs&t=881s
> >
> > <snip>
> >

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 5:46:05 AM UTC-4, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> On Saturday, 26 June 2021 at 01:06:05 UTC+3, jillery wrote:

> > To reboot, here is a very short 8-minute monologue by Sean Carroll,
> > another academically qualified and professional physicist,

These qualifications are nowhere in evidence. His performance is tendentious
popularization that a second-year physics major who grew up in an atheistic family
could easily have put together.

The arguments of the physicists in the 75-minute video, Sabine Hossenfelder and Luke Barnes,
were on a much higher plane and much more professional. Sean made me re-evaluate
what I wrote about Sabine and realize that I was being too one-sided. Though opinionated,
Sabine was quite fair-minded and authentic. Any 8 minutes of that 75 minute video
are to be preferred to the Sean's 8-minute travesty.

> > about what's wrong with fine-tuning arguments:

So he appears to believe.

> > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR79HDEf9k8>
> >
> > To be explicitly clear, I stipulate that I understand and agree with
> > everything Carroll says in the above video.

> Why?

Apparently, because it is on jillery's low intellectual level.

He gives his game away by twice claiming that "theism is not well-defined"
and then builds his own straw men on a theism that he does not try to explain.

> 1) "It is true that changing properties of universe could change it
> by a lot." Yes that is tautology.

Hence, useless without quantification or identification of the properties.

Fine-tuning arguments revolve around constants where a minuscule change makes life impossible.
Six excellent examples are summarized here:

https://alta3b.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/six-numbers.pd

> 1.1) "it does not grant that therefore life could not exist." Also true,

No, meaningless: without quantifying constants like the six in the linked pdf,
the statement is vacuous.

ca. 2:00, Sean does quantify one of the six numbers, and does make a claim about it.
But even if his claim is correct, the other five still place huge constraints on
what is compatible with life.


> but debunks nothing.

Yes, a claim of debunking would be false advertising.

> 2) "God does not need to fine tune anything." Odd argument from
> ignorance. Intelligent beings we know of have desire to have
> whatever they make elegant and efficient.

It's all thanks to Sean feeling free to play around with a concept that isn't well-defined.

>
> 3) "Fine tuning may only be apparent." There are examples
> where some parameters can't be adjusted in isolation from
> others. He admits that we can't conclude from that therefore
> *nothing* could be fine tuned.

> 4) "multiverse" This is woo debunked with woo.

On the contrary, it is a concept that is taken very seriously many leading cosmologists,
including the one from whose book the pdf I linked is taken: Martin Rees, author
of _Just_Six_Numbers_, and Paul Davies, author of many fine books that include talk about
fine tuning, especially _The_Goldilocks_Enigma.

> 4.1) "Theism is not well defined." True, but does not discuss fine
> tuning but issues of theism.

"discuss" is too kind a word for his mishmash of sound bites.

> 5) Universe what we see is unexpected from viewpoint of any
> theism but expected from viewpoint of naturalism.

Human expectations are worthless without a long careful look
at the structure of the universe. Sean Carroll makes no attempt to provide one.

> That is strongest argument ... but it can also be just issue with theism
> not fine tuning.

Absolutely, the latter. The medieval invention of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God
plays into the hands of atheists, and is not supported by the Bible, much less by what we see around us.
In the context of fine tuning, it is best to stick to the concept of a designer of our universe,
and not try to go beyond it.

Not even to "creator," with its connotations of poofing the early universe from nothing;
"designer" allows manipulation of the properties of existing matter, perhaps in a black hole
pinched off from another universe.

> Half of the speech was some naturalism versus theism
> propaganda ... so it made it all to smell as political lecture.

Of course.

> "Universe is kind of random and a mess." Huh?
> "In naturalism you expect life to be insignificant."

An insignificant fraction of the whole universe, but of infinite
significance for what we can discover about the universe.

> Strong argument for not to be that kind of naturalist.

Agreed.

> "Flattering stores we like to tell about ourselves." Strong argument
> for not to be that kind of theist.

Agreed.


> Political pot and kettle.

Between two strawmen concocted by Sean Carroll.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Bill]

Öö Tiib wrote:

...

>> >
>> >Here is the issue. We assume that we know what God wants and
>> >we assume that this is not elegant and efficient realization of
>> >that desire. Or we assume that God does not care about elegance
>> >and efficiency?

Elegance and efficiency? By whose measure? If we judge the structure of the
universe based on human sensibilities, isn't that the same as saying the
universe exists to please us and isn't that yet another instance of fine
tuning?

...

>> >
>> >Purely mathematical like radius and circumference of circle are
>> >forced to be related linearly. We know that but we may not yet know
>> >other such limitations.
>>
>> Ok, now I understand what you mean. Discussions about fine tuning
>> don't generally include mathematical properties because they are
>> established by definition and/or because they are derived from
>> fundamental principles. In the specific case of Pi, it is based on
>> the curvature of spacetime, which depends on the gravitational
>> constant. I acknowledge it's possible for different universes to have
>> different topologies.

pi may not be a good example. Being an irrational number, anything including
pi in its definition will be incomplete. No circle using pi can ever close
so its circumference describes a spiral. All other curves using pi will
likewise be distorted.

...

>> >>
>> >> It would be helpful if you specified your definition of "woo".
>> >
>> >Baseless and not testable speculation typically for trying to
>> >persuade someone. All our models that we use in practice deviate
>> >from our reality in one or other way. String theory just promises that
>> >there might be such model that does not deviate from our reality.
>> >But where is useful model that does not deviate from our reality?
>> >It promises there can be multiverse that can counter fine tuning
>> >argument. No evidences of it. So it is woo.
>>
>> Your reply to Mark Isaak on this point is better than the one above.
>> All woo might lack evidence, but not all concepts that lack evidence
>> are woo.
>
> Multiverse is not scientific as no one has any ways how to test and
> to falsify it. But may be it was not constructed originally as woo.
>
>> >> >4.1) "Theism is not well defined." True, but does not discuss fine
>> >> >tuning but issues of theism.
>> >>
>> >> Fine tuning as argued is a theistic claim.

It is often understood that way but that is a consequence of how we think
rather the thing thought about.

I shortened this thread because it's way too long.

Bill

[Mark Isaak]

For something to be valid, it must be both logical and true. I dispute
that your characterization of atheism is true.

>>> Neither position is subject to empirical scientific evidence. So, no
>>> matter how determined either is to see themselves as right, it comes
>>> down to belief and faith, not fact!
>>
>> It is a fact that there is no rigorous evidence for active gods.  It
>> is a fact that the gods people have recognized take myriad forms,
>> often contradictory.
>>
> This An example is true Islam Vs Jews or Christian.
>>
>>> However, agnosticism in my opinion is by far the most logical and
>>> rational position to hold.
>>
>> What you call agnosticism some others call atheism.  So what you have
>> condemned as like "extreme religious fundamentalism" in one breath you
>> say in another breath is "by far the most logical and rational position."
>>
> Nonsense! There is virtually nothing in common with agnosticism and
> extreme religious fundamentalism. Indeed agnosticism is uncertain
> whether there are or not god(s). Religious fundamentalism have
> absolutely no such uncertainty.

You misunderstand my point. I am not saying that agnosticism = atheism
= extreme fundamentalism. Quite the opposite. I'm saying that
agnosticism = atheism = a rational position. I grant that this is not
true for all atheists. Some of them *are* extreme fundamentalists,
probably in similar proportion as some theists are extreme
fundamentalists. But many others are not, and certainly some people who
identify as atheists hold a view which you would identify as agnostic
and rational.

For some unknown value of "small." But it hardly matters, since we
already know with utmost precision what are the odds of the universe
originating with the capability of supporting intelligent life.

That's omnipotence, not capriciousness. But I see that you do not
believe omnipotence is a quality of the designer. In that case, I can
see why you would dismiss Carroll's arguments which assume it is.

> The designer determined the mass of the electron, the strength of the
> gravity and the rest of the fine tuned laws of physics, the constants
> and the information it required for life, and reproduction of life.
>
> Since it was the designers purpose to create a universe where logic,
> rational and mathematics reign supreme, the designer had no choice, but
> to follow rules of rationalism and logic. For example: It could not have
> changed gravity by an increase or decrease except to an extremely small
> percentage. Unless other changes had been made to offset the change no
> universe and no life.
>
> So, the entity described by Carroll is not the same entity that designed
> the universe. However, this is in reality quite typical of the
> impression and dogmatic views of the fine tuned argument held by many,
> if not most, of the critics of the fine tuned argument. But it is a
> caricature or a strawman version of the real fine tuned argument.
>
>> Regardless, the point you make is that no fine-tuning
>> argument exists at all until the god responsible is defined.
>>
> I tend to refrain from using the term god, because, I see design
> wherever I look especially the evidence described, by certain scientist
> as the fine tuned constants of the universe. So, where there is design
> there is a designer.

Your last sentence is not true, especially if you attribute forethought
as a quality of "designer." Do you believe it is possible that your
design is not a conscious entity?

>> Are you willing to make such a definition?
>>
> I think designer of the universe and life is the definition.

Very circular.

[Ron Dean]

For a decade I resisted or refused to follow where the evidence seemed
to lead. But then I decided that the philosophy of naturalism should not
permit being hand-cuffed inside to a jail cell.

>
> The problem with the fine tuning argument I'm focusing on is not that it's meaningless because you cannot know the a priori probability distribution for possible values of the physical constants (though I do > think that that is a problem for the fine tuning argument).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If there was no intelligence determining or controlling the values of
the 2 dozen+ parameters, then exactly how did these values arise?
Something had to give rise to the values because they are real.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> The problem with the argument that I'm stressing here is that fine
tuning doesn't tell you much of anything, even if it's true. It tells
>you nothing about the Designer; it tells you nothing about which of
>the many things that would be impossible (people, stars, quartz,
waterfalls, bacteria, gas giant planets) had the physical constants
>been different was the thing the Designer fine-tuned the constants for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If the constants values had been different, there would be no universe,
hence no stars, planets waterfalls crystals etc etc.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> You may unwittingly project your values and interests onto the Designer and uncritically decide that it's obvious that the point of the fine tuning was intelligent life, or human consciousness, or whatever is most salient to you, but there's no basis for that conclusion. The fine tuning argument, at best, tells you nothing about the Designer except that it wanted the universe to be just exactly the way it is (setting aside the possibility of an incompetent Designer). All you can tell about the Designer, if there is one, is that it is just such a Designer as would produce the specific universe we observe. So the only way to learn anything about the Designer is to study the universe it designed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The device called Antikythera mechanism was under the sea for 2000
years, turns out it was a computer determining planet location seasons
etc. It was far advanced from anything known from that era. It was found
on a sunken Greek shop, so it's assumed a Greek designed and built it.
But no one knows. Nevertheless, no one doubts it was designed. It is
assumed it was designed by humans even though originally it was thought
to have been far in advanced of anyone living 2000 years ago. But
because there is no other alternative, scientist are left with humans as
the designers. But in spite of this, design is not denied.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> This is not an argument about naturalism versus supernaturalism. As I said, I stipulated that the fine tuning argument is correct to the extent that small changes in some constants would have made the universe very different or extraordinarily short-lived or what have you. And I further stipulated that it's fine to call whatever it is that caused the universe to be the way it is the Designer. All I'm arguing is that the argument tells you nothing whatsoever about the Designer, not whether it is natural or supernatural, not whether or not it is, in any sense, a person, not whether life was a specific target of the design. Nothing at all.
>

Check out the Antikythera mechanism. Even though the designer is unknown
the fact that it is a designed object is not denied. But it has to be a
human designer because no other possibility can be imagined.
>
>>
>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOmdVVgtLLs&t=881s
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>

[Ron Dean]

Ok, maybe I am wrong, it just seems that way to me. What is you
characterization? It could be better than mine.

Okay, I accept this!

Ok, I'm listening.

It seems obvious that the designer chose to be logical, orderly and
rational. Consequentlym 2+2 will always be 4. to be logical it has to be
true, therefore the designer was restricted by logic. reason etc.

>
>> The designer determined the mass of the electron, the strength of the
>> gravity and the rest of the fine tuned laws of physics, the constants
>> and the information it required for life, and reproduction of life.
>>
>> Since it was the designers purpose to create a universe where logic,
>> rational and mathematics reign supreme, the designer had no choice,
>> but to follow rules of rationalism and logic. For example: It could
>> not have changed gravity by an increase or decrease except to an
>> extremely small percentage. Unless other changes had been made to
>> offset the change no universe and no life.
>>
>> So, the entity described by Carroll is not the same entity that
>> designed the universe. However, this is in reality quite typical of
>> the impression and dogmatic views of the fine tuned argument held by
>> many, if not most, of the critics of the fine tuned argument. But it
>> is a caricature or a strawman version of the real fine tuned argument.
>>
>>> Regardless, the point you make is that no fine-tuning
>>> argument exists at all until the god responsible is defined.
>>>
>> I tend to refrain from using the term god, because, I see design
>> wherever I look especially the evidence described, by certain scientist
>> as the fine tuned constants of the universe. So, where there is design
>> there is a designer.
>
> Your last sentence is not true, especially if you attribute forethought
> as a quality of "designer."  Do you believe it is possible that your
> design is not a conscious entity?
>

No, I believe the designer was a conscious entity.

>
>>> Are you willing to make such a definition?
>>>
>> I think designer of the universe and life is the definition.
>
> Very circular.
>

But that, as far as I know, is about all we can determine. While there
is evidence of design there is no evidence pointing to the identity of
the designer. I cannot rule out natural selection among multiverses,
that I read about. However, I that is a distant alternative.

[jillery]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 15:50:49 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

What do you think is the "correct" representation of theistic
position? Do you really think there is only one theistic position?

>> >> >There are examples where some parameters can't be adjusted
>> >> >in isolation from others.
>> >> Carroll gives no such examples, and I know of none. Apparently you
>> >> do. Specify them.
>> >
>> >Purely mathematical like radius and circumference of circle are
>> >forced to be related linearly. We know that but we may not yet know
>> >other such limitations.
>>
>> Ok, now I understand what you mean. Discussions about fine tuning
>> don't generally include mathematical properties because they are
>> established by definition and/or because they are derived from
>> fundamental principles. In the specific case of Pi, it is based on
>> the curvature of spacetime, which depends on the gravitational
>> constant. I acknowledge it's possible for different universes to have
>> different topologies.
>
>Yes and so we do not know if there can be different universes and
>it such are possible to cause.

Which is exactly Carroll's point, in counterpoint to William Lane
Craig and other people who argue fine-tuning.

Since some theists do make that claim, that is a relevant point to
make.

>> >> >4) "multiverse" This is woo debunked with woo.
>> >>
>> >> Multiverse is not woo, at least not as I define woo. Woo is jumping to
>> >> preferred conclusions with no basis other than said preference.
>> >> Carroll explains multiverse is a necessary prediction from inflation
>> >> and string theory, both of which are useful and plausible
>> >> presumptions.
>> >>
>> >> It would be helpful if you specified your definition of "woo".
>> >
>> >Baseless and not testable speculation typically for trying to
>> >persuade someone. All our models that we use in practice deviate
>> >from our reality in one or other way. String theory just promises that
>> >there might be such model that does not deviate from our reality.
>> >But where is useful model that does not deviate from our reality?
>> >It promises there can be multiverse that can counter fine tuning
>> >argument. No evidences of it. So it is woo.
>>
>> Your reply to Mark Isaak on this point is better than the one above.
>> All woo might lack evidence, but not all concepts that lack evidence
>> are woo.
>
>Multiverse is not scientific as no one has any ways how to test and
>to falsify it. But may be it was not constructed originally as woo.

To test and to falsify is a matter of principle, not of current
practice. Once again, multiverse is not an hypothesis but a
prediction from other hypotheses. Cosmic Inflation and string theory
explain a lot. They can be tested and falsified in principle, even if
they can't be tested in practice at this time.

>> >> >4.1) "Theism is not well defined." True, but does not discuss fine
>> >> >tuning but issues of theism.
>> >>
>> >> Fine tuning as argued is a theistic claim.
>> >
>> >It is still not discussing that claim but theism.
>>
>> My understanding is it's impossible to discuss theistic claims without
>> discussing theism. Your mileage may vary.
>
>I can not see logic in it. Theistic scriptures do not discuss creation of
>universe more than in few dim sentences therefore multiverse is true.

That's not the claim Carroll makes.

>> >> >5) Universe what we see is unexpected from viewpoint of any
>> >> >theism but expected from viewpoint of naturalism. That is
>> >> >strongest argument ... but it can also be just issue with theism
>> >> >not fine tuning.
>> >>
>> >> You don't say, but imply you think fine tuning is not a theistic
>> >> claim. I acknowledge "fine tuning" can be considered to mean the
>> >> values of physical constant are derived from other perhaps unknown
>> >> principles. But that meaning does not apply to the context of the
>> >> topic raised here. Instead the context here is, fine tuning is
>> >> evidence of a purposeful Intelligent Agent, and said Agent's purpose
>> >> is to create us. This is theistic claim.
>> >
>> >Intelligent agents are possible also by naturalism. Sufficiently
>> >advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Third
>> >law of late Sir Arthur C. Clarke.
>>
>> Correct. In fact, your point above is one I make regularly, to not
>> conflate naturalistic intelligent design and supernatural Intelligent
>> Design. In the specific case of fine tuning, the Agent is presumed to
>> exist before the creation of the universe. How does a naturalistic
>> agent exist before the universe exists? And there still remains the
>> theistic presumption of said Agent's intent.
>
>We do not know it. Can be there was something before can be
>there was nothing. Can be that only part of universe itself is
>observable from universe or can be that it is not so limited.

Logically to presume the existence of naturalistic agent is also to
presume the prior existence of nature, and so said presumptive
naturalistic agent can't exist before said presumptive nature to fine
tune it. Theism gets around this chicken/egg dilemma by presuming a
theistic agent is supernatural and apart from nature.

>> >> >Half of the speech was some naturalism versus theism
>> >> >propaganda ... so it made it all to smell as political lecture.
>> >>
>> >> Apparently you don't recognize the inspiration of Carroll's riposte.
>> >> He is refuting prior claims by William Lane Craig, who has made a
>> >> career out of spouting theistic propaganda.
>> >
>> >One gets muddy who wrestles with pig.
>> >
>> >> >"Universe is kind of random and a mess." Huh?
>> >>
>> >> Does your "Huh" mean that you don't understand Carroll's comment? Or
>> >> that you disagree with it? If the latter, specify your disagreement.
>> >> If the former, the meaning of his comment is clear enough in context.
>> >> Specify your misunderstanding.
>> >
>> >Yes, for me it is not random mess. Consider estimated distribution of
>> >dark matter:
>> ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#/media/File:COSMOS_3D_dark_matter_map.png>
>> >Why it is random mess? Looks very interesting, like lot of other things.
>>
>> "random" can mean many things. Carroll is saying the universe is
>> random and messy with respect to creating life.
>
>So therefore "Huh". I have no ideas what kind of life this universe
>supports besides of our own.

That's not the claim Carroll makes.

>> >> >"In naturalism you expect life to be insignificant." Strong argument
>> >> >for not to be that kind of naturalist.
>> >>
>> >> It's alleged strength notwithstanding, do you disagree? If so,
>> >> specify your disagreement.
>> >
>> >I'm patriot of life ... for me it is significant. Opposite political claims
>> >do not accost me.
>>
>> Carroll is not saying life itself is insignificant in an absolute
>> sense. Instead, he is saying the veracity of naturalism does not
>> depend on the existence of life. If life suddenly disappeared, the
>> universe would continue almost exactly as it does now. By analogy,
>> life in the universe is less than a speck on a flea on a hair on a
>> frog on a bump on a branch on a log in a hole in the bottom of the
>> sea.
>
>'if we erase ourselves then it was insignificant form of life.
>Until we haven't done it yet there is potential that it is fruitful.

You're still arguing as if Carroll said life itself is insignificant
in an absolute sense. Why is that?

[jillery]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 17:29:21 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 5:46:05 AM UTC-4, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>> On Saturday, 26 June 2021 at 01:06:05 UTC+3, jillery wrote:
>
>> > To reboot, here is a very short 8-minute monologue by Sean Carroll,
>> > another academically qualified and professional physicist,
>
>These qualifications are nowhere in evidence. His performance is tendentious
>popularization that a second-year physics major who grew up in an atheistic family
>could easily have put together.

Really? GIYF

>The arguments of the physicists in the 75-minute video, Sabine Hossenfelder and Luke Barnes,
>were on a much higher plane and much more professional. Sean made me re-evaluate
>what I wrote about Sabine and realize that I was being too one-sided. Though opinionated,
>Sabine was quite fair-minded and authentic. Any 8 minutes of that 75 minute video
>are to be preferred to the Sean's 8-minute travesty.
>
>
>> > about what's wrong with fine-tuning arguments:
>
>So he appears to believe.
>
>
>> > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR79HDEf9k8>
>> >
>> > To be explicitly clear, I stipulate that I understand and agree with
>> > everything Carroll says in the above video.
>
>> Why?
>
>Apparently, because it is on jillery's low intellectual level.

And so you continue with your pointless personal attacks.

To be on Carroll's level is a compliment, however you intended it.

>He gives his game away by twice claiming that "theism is not well-defined"
>and then builds his own straw men on a theism that he does not try to explain.

If you had listened for comprehension to what Carroll said, you would
be aware that theism was defined by William Lane Craig prior to
Carroll's riposte.

>> 1) "It is true that changing properties of universe could change it
>> by a lot." Yes that is tautology.
>
>Hence, useless without quantification or identification of the properties.

It is Craig's tautology.

>Fine-tuning arguments revolve around constants where a minuscule change makes life impossible.

You don't define what constitutes life, or quantify what "miniscule"
means in context, or explain how you know these things. In short, you
show you have no idea what you're talking about.

>Six excellent examples are summarized here:
>
>https://alta3b.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/six-numbers.pd
>
>
>
>> 1.1) "it does not grant that therefore life could not exist." Also true,
>
>No, meaningless: without quantifying constants like the six in the linked pdf,
>the statement is vacuous.

It's your claim, so quantify them already.

>ca. 2:00, Sean does quantify one of the six numbers, and does make a claim about it.
>But even if his claim is correct, the other five still place huge constraints on
>what is compatible with life.

You don't know that. All you do here is parrot what one physicist
wrote.

>> but debunks nothing.
>
>Yes, a claim of debunking would be false advertising.
>
>
>> 2) "God does not need to fine tune anything." Odd argument from
>> ignorance. Intelligent beings we know of have desire to have
>> whatever they make elegant and efficient.
>
>It's all thanks to Sean feeling free to play around with a concept that isn't well-defined.

Once again, not Carroll's concept, but Craig's.

>> 3) "Fine tuning may only be apparent." There are examples
>> where some parameters can't be adjusted in isolation from
>> others. He admits that we can't conclude from that therefore
>> *nothing* could be fine tuned.
>
>> 4) "multiverse" This is woo debunked with woo.
>
>On the contrary, it is a concept that is taken very seriously many leading cosmologists,
>including the one from whose book the pdf I linked is taken: Martin Rees, author
>of _Just_Six_Numbers_, and Paul Davies, author of many fine books that include talk about
>fine tuning, especially _The_Goldilocks_Enigma.
>
>
>> 4.1) "Theism is not well defined." True, but does not discuss fine
>> tuning but issues of theism.
>
>"discuss" is too kind a word for his mishmash of sound bites.

"mishmash" is an appropriate word for you mindless and baseless
objections here.

>> 5) Universe what we see is unexpected from viewpoint of any
>> theism but expected from viewpoint of naturalism.
>
>Human expectations are worthless without a long careful look
>at the structure of the universe. Sean Carroll makes no attempt to provide one.

Don't be so stupid. The cited video is just 8 minutes of Carroll's
corpus on the topic. How much do you expect him to say in that short
time? He is already talking fast enough to run out of breath.

>> That is strongest argument ... but it can also be just issue with theism
>> not fine tuning.
>
>Absolutely, the latter. The medieval invention of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God
>plays into the hands of atheists, and is not supported by the Bible, much less by what we see around us.
>In the context of fine tuning, it is best to stick to the concept of a designer of our universe,
>and not try to go beyond it.

Take your objections to William Lane Craig.

>Not even to "creator," with its connotations of poofing the early universe from nothing;
>"designer" allows manipulation of the properties of existing matter, perhaps in a black hole
>pinched off from another universe.
>
>
>> Half of the speech was some naturalism versus theism
>> propaganda ... so it made it all to smell as political lecture.
>
>Of course.
>
>> "Universe is kind of random and a mess." Huh?
>> "In naturalism you expect life to be insignificant."
>
>An insignificant fraction of the whole universe, but of infinite
>significance for what we can discover about the universe.
>
>> Strong argument for not to be that kind of naturalist.
>
>Agreed.

Only because you have no idea what you're talking about.

>> "Flattering stores we like to tell about ourselves." Strong argument
>> for not to be that kind of theist.
>
>Agreed.

Only because you have no idea what you're talking about.

>> Political pot and kettle.
>
>Between two strawmen concocted by Sean Carroll.

Once again, the concoction is Craig's.

So is the above supposed to be representative of your "drastic
policy"? If so, not sure what's drastic or even different from your
past posts. In fact, given how often you spammed about it, I would
say your drastic policy is impotent, literally and metaphorically
anti-climactic.

[broger...@gmail.com]

That's great. But as I said, my argument is not about naturalism versus supernaturalism.

> >
> > The problem with the fine tuning argument I'm focusing on is not that it's meaningless because you cannot know the a priori probability distribution for possible values of the physical constants (though I do > think that that is a problem for the fine tuning argument).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> If there was no intelligence determining or controlling the values of
> the 2 dozen+ parameters, then exactly how did these values arise?
> Something had to give rise to the values because they are real.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes, that's fine. And I've already, twice, at least, stipulated that you can call whatever caused the physical constants to have the values they do "Designer."

>
> > The problem with the argument that I'm stressing here is that fine
> tuning doesn't tell you much of anything, even if it's true. It tells
> >you nothing about the Designer; it tells you nothing about which of
> >the many things that would be impossible (people, stars, quartz,
> waterfalls, bacteria, gas giant planets) had the physical constants
> >been different was the thing the Designer fine-tuned the constants for.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> If the constants values had been different, there would be no universe,
> hence no stars, planets waterfalls crystals etc etc.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes, I've already stipulated that if the constants were different, there would be either a very different universe or none at all.

> > You may unwittingly project your values and interests onto the Designer and uncritically decide that it's obvious that the point of the fine tuning was intelligent life, or human consciousness, or whatever is most salient to you, but there's no basis for that conclusion. The fine tuning argument, at best, tells you nothing about the Designer except that it wanted the universe to be just exactly the way it is (setting aside the possibility of an incompetent Designer). All you can tell about the Designer, if there is one, is that it is just such a Designer as would produce the specific universe we observe. So the only way to learn anything about the Designer is to study the universe it designed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> The device called Antikythera mechanism was under the sea for 2000
> years, turns out it was a computer determining planet location seasons
> etc. It was far advanced from anything known from that era. It was found
> on a sunken Greek shop, so it's assumed a Greek designed and built it.
> But no one knows. Nevertheless, no one doubts it was designed. It is
> assumed it was designed by humans even though originally it was thought
> to have been far in advanced of anyone living 2000 years ago. But
> because there is no other alternative, scientist are left with humans as
> the designers. But in spite of this, design is not denied.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > This is not an argument about naturalism versus supernaturalism. As I said, I stipulated that the fine tuning argument is correct to the extent that small changes in some constants would have made the universe very different or extraordinarily short-lived or what have you. And I further stipulated that it's fine to call whatever it is that caused the universe to be the way it is the Designer. All I'm arguing is that the argument tells you nothing whatsoever about the Designer, not whether it is natural or supernatural, not whether or not it is, in any sense, a person, not whether life was a specific target of the design. Nothing at all.
> >
> Check out the Antikythera mechanism. Even though the designer is unknown
> the fact that it is a designed object is not denied. But it has to be a
> human designer because no other possibility can be imagined.

You seem to be avoiding my argument entirely. Let's agree, at least for the purpose of argument, that any small changes to the fundamental constants would lead to a universe without heavy elements, stars, planets, life, intelligent life, human beings, squid, crystals, rivers, oysters, muons, and all the rest. Let's also agree that we'll call whatever caused the constants to have the values they do "Designer."

Now what? We know absolutely nothing about the Designer apart from the fact that, by definition, the Designer is whatever caused the universe to be the way it is. We have no way of knowing whether Designer is natural or supernatural, no way of knowing whether Designer designed the universe for life and got muons as a by-product or designed the universe for muons and got life as a by-product, no way of knowing whether Designer is singular or plural, no way of knowing whether Designer is some sort of person or an abstract principle.

In the case of the Antikythera mechanism, the thing is similar to other things people make, so it's easy to infer that it was made by people. If we found some alien technological artifact that was similar enough to our technology, we'd infer it was made by aliens, on the basis of our experience with technology, and we would conclude that the aliens shared some characteristics with ourselves. On the other hand, we've no experience with anybody designing universes and setting fundamental constants, and no basis to draw any conclusions about what a Designer of universes would be like.

The only thing we can know about "Designer" is that "Designer" is whatever caused the specific universe we observe to be the way it is. So the only information we can get about Designer is whatever we learn about the universe around us.

My personal view is that since you cannot know anything about Designer, even using the word Designer, with all its connotations, is not ideal. But as long as you are scrupulously clear that "Designer" just means "Whatever caused the fundamental constants to have the values they have," I don't see any great harm in using the word.

> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOmdVVgtLLs&t=881s
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2021-07-01 10:05:39 +0000, broger...@gmail.com said:


[ … ]

> On the other hand, we've no experience with anybody designing universes
> and setting fundamental constants, and no basis to draw any conclusions
> about what a Designer of universes would be like.
>
> The only thing we can know about "Designer" is that "Designer" is
> whatever caused the specific universe we observe to be the way it is.
> So the only information we can get about Designer is whatever we learn
> about the universe around us.
>
> My personal view is that since you cannot know anything about Designer,
> even using the word Designer, with all its connotations, is not ideal.
> But as long as you are scrupulously clear that "Designer" just means
> "Whatever caused the fundamental constants to have the values they
> have," I don't see any great harm in using the word.

It's the same with the directions taken by evolution. If you say that
the present biosphere was designed by God I would say that that is
nonsense, supported by no evidence. If you say it was designed by an
unnamed Designer I would say that you are not being honest with
yourself. If you say it's the result of a lot of neutral drift and a
certain amount of natural selection then I would say that that's what
the evidence suggests.

[jillery]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 22:07:40 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 6/30/21 8:07 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 6:11:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> On 6/30/21 4:53 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 3:11:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> <snip for focus>
>>>>
>>>>> Carroll essentially describes just such a god. One who doesn't need to
>>>>> fine tune anything or doesn't care about the mass of an electron.
>>>>

>>>> .................................................................................

Your "if" above is useless. The question of how the values of
physical constants arose is independent of the existence of a causal
intelligence. More to the point, presuming a causal intelligence does
not explain *how* that intelligence determined those values, and
raises the additional question of what caused that intelligence.

> > The problem with the argument that I'm stressing here is that fine
>tuning doesn't tell you much of anything, even if it's true. It tells
> >you nothing about the Designer; it tells you nothing about which of
> >the many things that would be impossible (people, stars, quartz,
>waterfalls, bacteria, gas giant planets) had the physical constants
> >been different was the thing the Designer fine-tuned the constants for.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>If the constants values had been different, there would be no universe,
>hence no stars, planets waterfalls crystals etc etc.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I acknowledge there are more combinations that would not work than
would work.

Will you acknowledge there are more than one combination that would
work?

Will you acknowledge we don't know if the constant values could have
been different?

>> You may unwittingly project your values and interests onto the Designer and uncritically decide that it's obvious that the point of the fine tuning was intelligent life, or human consciousness, or whatever is most salient to you, but there's no basis for that conclusion. The fine tuning argument, at best, tells you nothing about the Designer except that it wanted the universe to be just exactly the way it is (setting aside the possibility of an incompetent Designer). All you can tell about the Designer, if there is one, is that it is just such a Designer as would produce the specific universe we observe. So the only way to learn anything about the Designer is to study the universe it designed.



> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>The device called Antikythera mechanism was under the sea for 2000
>years, turns out it was a computer determining planet location seasons
>etc. It was far advanced from anything known from that era. It was found
>on a sunken Greek shop, so it's assumed a Greek designed and built it.
>But no one knows. Nevertheless, no one doubts it was designed. It is
>assumed it was designed by humans even though originally it was thought
>to have been far in advanced of anyone living 2000 years ago. But
>because there is no other alternative, scientist are left with humans as
>the designers. But in spite of this, design is not denied.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I acknowledge there are, and always will be, questions that can't be
answered for certain.

Will you acknowledge that just because we don't know everything, that
does not mean we don't know anything?

Will you acknowledge that nobody questions the existence of design?

>> This is not an argument about naturalism versus supernaturalism. As I said, I stipulated that the fine tuning argument is correct to the extent that small changes in some constants would have made the universe very different or extraordinarily short-lived or what have you. And I further stipulated that it's fine to call whatever it is that caused the universe to be the way it is the Designer. All I'm arguing is that the argument tells you nothing whatsoever about the Designer, not whether it is natural or supernatural, not whether or not it is, in any sense, a person, not whether life was a specific target of the design. Nothing at all.
> >
>Check out the Antikythera mechanism. Even though the designer is unknown
>the fact that it is a designed object is not denied. But it has to be a
>human designer because no other possibility can be imagined.

Apparently you imagine other possibilities. It's odd you give your
fellow humans so little credit.

Also, in the specific case of the Antikythera mechanism, the relevant
question is not what is possible, but what is most likely.



>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOmdVVgtLLs&t=881s
>>>>
>>>> <snip>

[jillery]

On Thu, 01 Jul 2021 08:03:22 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

A relevant addendum: Will you acknowledge that you, Ron Dean, refuse
to acknowledge the existence of design from unguided natural
processes?

[Ron Dean]

Ok, but maybe it comes down to which best fits the evidence- the
philosophy of naturalism or supernatural. It _should_ boil down to
wherever the evidence leads. This is always the case, except in science
where naturalism handcuffs and restricts the evidence.

>
>>>
>>> The problem with the fine tuning argument I'm focusing on is not that it's meaningless because you cannot know the a priori probability distribution for possible values of the physical constants (though I do > think that that is a problem for the fine tuning argument).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> If there was no intelligence determining or controlling the values of
>> the 2 dozen+ parameters, then exactly how did these values arise?
>> Something had to give rise to the values because they are real.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Yes, that's fine. And I've already, twice, at least, stipulated that you can call whatever caused the physical constants to have the values they do "Designer."
>

But I did not trust that you meant this the same as I.

>
>>> The problem with the argument that I'm stressing here is that fine
>> tuning doesn't tell you much of anything, even if it's true. It tells
>>> you nothing about the Designer; it tells you nothing about which of
>>> the many things that would be impossible (people, stars, quartz,
>> waterfalls, bacteria, gas giant planets) had the physical constants
>>> been different was the thing the Designer fine-tuned the constants for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> If the constants values had been different, there would be no universe,
>> hence no stars, planets waterfalls crystals etc etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Yes, I've already stipulated that if the constants were different, there would be either a very different universe or none at all.
>

Then where is the disagreement between you and me?

>
>>> You may unwittingly project your values and interests onto the Designer and uncritically decide that it's obvious that the point of the fine tuning was intelligent life, or human consciousness, or whatever is most salient to you, but there's no basis for that conclusion. The fine tuning argument, at best, tells you nothing about the Designer except that it wanted the universe to be just exactly the way it is (setting aside the possibility of an incompetent Designer). All you can tell about the Designer, if there is one, is that it is just such a Designer as would produce the specific universe we observe. So the only way to learn anything about the Designer is to study the universe it designed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> The device called Antikythera mechanism was under the sea for 2000
>> years, turns out it was a computer determining planet location seasons
>> etc. It was far advanced from anything known from that era. It was found
>> on a sunken Greek shop, so it's assumed a Greek designed and built it.
>> But no one knows. Nevertheless, no one doubts it was designed. It is
>> assumed it was designed by humans even though originally it was thought
>> to have been far in advanced of anyone living 2000 years ago. But
>> because there is no other alternative, scientist are left with humans as
>> the designers. But in spite of this, design is not denied.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> This is not an argument about naturalism versus supernaturalism. As I said, I stipulated that the fine tuning argument is correct to the extent that small changes in some constants would have made the universe very different or extraordinarily short-lived or what have you. And I further stipulated that it's fine to call whatever it is that caused the universe to be the way it is the Designer. All I'm arguing is that the argument tells you nothing whatsoever about the Designer, not whether it is natural or supernatural, not whether or not it is, in any sense, a person, not whether life was a specific target of the design. Nothing at all.
>

You missed the point I was trying to make. The fact that it was believed
the antithetical mechanism seemed beyond the capabilities of humans does
not mean it just happened. So, it is with designe in the universe and
life one should not deny the existence of design simply because the
identity of the designer is unknown.

>>>
>> Check out the Antikythera mechanism. Even though the designer is unknown
>> the fact that it is a designed object is not denied. But it has to be a
>> human designer because no other possibility can be imagined.
>
> You seem to be avoiding my argument entirely. Let's agree, at least for the purpose of argument, that any small changes to the fundamental constants would lead to a universe without heavy elements, stars, planets, life, intelligent life, human beings, squid, crystals, rivers, oysters, muons, and all the rest. Let's also agree that we'll call whatever caused the constants to have the values they do "Designer."
>

That is the nature and the consequences explained by the anthropic
principle.

>
> Now what? We know absolutely nothing about the Designer apart from the fact that, by definition, the Designer is whatever caused the universe to be the way it is. We have no way of knowing whether Designer is natural or supernatural, no way of knowing whether Designer designed the universe for life and got muons as a by-product or designed the universe for muons and got life as a by-product, no way of knowing whether Designer is singular or plural, no way of knowing whether Designer is some sort of person or an abstract principle.
>
> In the case of the Antikythera mechanism, the thing is similar to other things people make,
>

There is absolutely nothing like it from 2000 years ago, it's unique in
it's complexity. Humans must have made it because there is not other
alternative.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/30/21 7:26 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> On 6/30/21 9:57 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 6/30/21 12:08 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> On 6/30/21 12:22 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 6/29/21 9:24 PM, Ron Dean wrote:

>>>>> [...]

>>>>> I see atheism and extreme religious fundamentalist as the same,
>>>>> just opposite sides of the _same_ coin. I see the same mental and
>>>>> psychological personalities as virtually the same.
>>>>
>>>> Not all atheism is alike.  Even within the same sort of atheism, not
>>>> all atheists are alike.  What you are engaging in is the worst sort
>>>> of stereotyping.
>>>>
>>> There may be some varying degrees, but generally what I wrote is valid.
>>
>> For something to be valid, it must be both logical and true.  I
>> dispute that your characterization of atheism is true.
> >
> Ok, maybe I am wrong, it just seems that way to me. What is you
> characterization? It could be better than mine.

Atheists are human, and humans are complicated.

>>>> [...]

>>> Certain small changes would have made the universe impossible. With no
>>> universe no life of any kind.
>>
>> For some unknown value of "small."  But it hardly matters, since we
>> already know with utmost precision what are the odds of the universe
>> originating with the capability of supporting intelligent life.
> >
> Ok, I'm listening.

The probability of the universe turning out as it did is exactly one.
And that "1" is important to keep in mind in regards to fine-tuning
arguments. Often, the probabilities people think they have calculated
as being very small are actually as large as they can get.

If you want to calculate the odds of a new, previously unobserved
universe forming in such a way as to support life, then you can talk
about tiny odds. But those calculations do not apply where the end
result is already known.

>>> [...]

>>> So, the entity described by Carroll is not the same entity that
>>> designed the universe. However, this is in reality quite typical of
>>> the impression and dogmatic views of the fine tuned argument held by
>>> many, if not most, of the critics of the fine tuned argument. But it
>>> is a caricature or a strawman version of the real fine tuned argument.
>>>
>>>> Regardless, the point you make is that no fine-tuning
>>>> argument exists at all until the god responsible is defined.
>>>>
>>> I tend to refrain from using the term god, because, I see design
>>> wherever I look especially the evidence described, by certain scientist
>>> as the fine tuned constants of the universe. So, where there is
>>> design there is a designer.
>>
>> Your last sentence is not true, especially if you attribute
>> forethought as a quality of "designer."  Do you believe it is possible
>> that your design is not a conscious entity?
> >
> No, I believe the designer was a conscious entity.

You arbitrarily cut yourself off from viable (even probable) possibilities.

>>>> Are you willing to make such a definition?
>>>>
>>> I think designer of the universe and life is the definition.
>>
>> Very circular.
>>
> But that, as far as I know, is about all we can determine. While there
> is evidence of design there is no evidence pointing to the identity of
> the designer. I cannot rule out natural selection among multiverses,
> that I read about. However, I that is a distant alternative.

I.e., we can know nothing.

That's something I've come to realize about fine-tuning arguments. They
tell us nothing about how the universe came to be as it is. Instead,
they tell us a great deal about how people want to think about the
universe's origin.

[Öö Tiib]

On Thursday, 1 July 2021 at 04:41:06 UTC+3, Bill wrote:
> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> ...
> >> >
> >> >Here is the issue. We assume that we know what God wants and
> >> >we assume that this is not elegant and efficient realization of
> >> >that desire. Or we assume that God does not care about elegance
> >> >and efficiency?
> Elegance and efficiency? By whose measure? If we judge the structure of the
> universe based on human sensibilities, isn't that the same as saying the
> universe exists to please us and isn't that yet another instance of fine
> tuning?

That is up to theists to find out. There seems to be none types of
theists who know something about God. But lets say that universe
was made by God and that God did it well. How it was done
to please us? What use we have for 90 000 billions of light
years of it? So if it was made it was made for something else
than for some self-important apes.

> ...
> >> >
> >> >Purely mathematical like radius and circumference of circle are
> >> >forced to be related linearly. We know that but we may not yet know
> >> >other such limitations.
> >>
> >> Ok, now I understand what you mean. Discussions about fine tuning
> >> don't generally include mathematical properties because they are
> >> established by definition and/or because they are derived from
> >> fundamental principles. In the specific case of Pi, it is based on
> >> the curvature of spacetime, which depends on the gravitational
> >> constant. I acknowledge it's possible for different universes to have
> >> different topologies.
> pi may not be a good example. Being an irrational number, anything including
> pi in its definition will be incomplete. No circle using pi can ever close
> so its circumference describes a spiral. All other curves using pi will
> likewise be distorted.

That does not follow, your thoughts seem distorted. Is circle too
complex for your brain? Can you comprehend square? Length of diagonal
of square with length of side being 1 is also well-known irrational number.
We are not in difficulties to use neither curves nor that diagonal and
those are not distorted.

[broger...@gmail.com]

How hard is it to see what I mean? I am saying go ahead and call whatever caused the physical constants to have the values they do "Designer" if you like. That's the only information about Designer you get from the fine tuning argument. Perhaps you, personally think that Designer has additional properties that you know about some other way, but you cannot support those properties on the basis of the fine tuning argument.

> >
> >>> The problem with the argument that I'm stressing here is that fine
> >> tuning doesn't tell you much of anything, even if it's true. It tells
> >>> you nothing about the Designer; it tells you nothing about which of
> >>> the many things that would be impossible (people, stars, quartz,
> >> waterfalls, bacteria, gas giant planets) had the physical constants
> >>> been different was the thing the Designer fine-tuned the constants for.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> If the constants values had been different, there would be no universe,
> >> hence no stars, planets waterfalls crystals etc etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > Yes, I've already stipulated that if the constants were different, there would be either a very different universe or none at all.
> >
> Then where is the disagreement between you and me?

Not here, evidently. We disagree about whether you learn anything at all about the universe by calling the reason that the physical constants have the values they do "Designer." I think you don't. You think that you do.

> >
> >>> You may unwittingly project your values and interests onto the Designer and uncritically decide that it's obvious that the point of the fine tuning was intelligent life, or human consciousness, or whatever is most salient to you, but there's no basis for that conclusion. The fine tuning argument, at best, tells you nothing about the Designer except that it wanted the universe to be just exactly the way it is (setting aside the possibility of an incompetent Designer). All you can tell about the Designer, if there is one, is that it is just such a Designer as would produce the specific universe we observe. So the only way to learn anything about the Designer is to study the universe it designed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> The device called Antikythera mechanism was under the sea for 2000
> >> years, turns out it was a computer determining planet location seasons
> >> etc. It was far advanced from anything known from that era. It was found
> >> on a sunken Greek shop, so it's assumed a Greek designed and built it.
> >> But no one knows. Nevertheless, no one doubts it was designed. It is
> >> assumed it was designed by humans even though originally it was thought
> >> to have been far in advanced of anyone living 2000 years ago. But
> >> because there is no other alternative, scientist are left with humans as
> >> the designers. But in spite of this, design is not denied.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> This is not an argument about naturalism versus supernaturalism. As I said, I stipulated that the fine tuning argument is correct to the extent that small changes in some constants would have made the universe very different or extraordinarily short-lived or what have you. And I further stipulated that it's fine to call whatever it is that caused the universe to be the way it is the Designer. All I'm arguing is that the argument tells you nothing whatsoever about the Designer, not whether it is natural or supernatural, not whether or not it is, in any sense, a person, not whether life was a specific target of the design. Nothing at all.

....................................

> You missed the point I was trying to make. The fact that it was believed
> the antithetical mechanism seemed beyond the capabilities of humans does
> not mean it just happened. So, it is with designe in the universe and
> life one should not deny the existence of design simply because the
> identity of the designer is unknown.

You continue to argue against arguments I am not making. I am not denying the existence of design because the designer is unknown. I am saying that since "Designer" simply means "Whatever caused the fundamental constants to have the values they do," that you learn nothing at all by calling it "Designer." That's a consequence of knowing nothing about Designer in the first place. You are simply giving a name to an unknown cause. And since your claim is, therefore, pretty much free of content, I don't really disagree with it. I suspect part of the communication problem between us is that when you say you know nothing about the Designer I take you fully at your word- ie that really and truly the only known characteristic of Designer is that it is exactly such a Designer as causes the universe to be the way it actually is. In other words, the only information you have about Designer is whatever you know about the characteristics of the universe.

> >>>
> >> Check out the Antikythera mechanism. Even though the designer is unknown
> >> the fact that it is a designed object is not denied. But it has to be a
> >> human designer because no other possibility can be imagined.
> >
> > You seem to be avoiding my argument entirely. Let's agree, at least for the purpose of argument, that any small changes to the fundamental constants would lead to a universe without heavy elements, stars, planets, life, intelligent life, human beings, squid, crystals, rivers, oysters, muons, and all the rest. Let's also agree that we'll call whatever caused the constants to have the values they do "Designer."
> >
> That is the nature and the consequences explained by the anthropic
> principle.

I'm not sure what you mean by that sentence. The anthropic principle trivially tells us that we can only observe universes in which we can exist - it does not tell us that such universes were desigend in order that we might exist.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

R.Dean used the term "seeks refuge in" for Rees, which doesn't seem very open-minded, especially from your POV.

> The problem with the fine tuning argument I'm focusing on is not that it's meaningless because you cannot know the a priori probability distribution for possible values of the physical constants (though I do think that that is a problem for the fine tuning argument).

The probability distributions I have seen from Steven Carlip here showed that it was NOT meaningless.

You were present on thread, where he showed them, Bill, and you saw how Carlip thought a probability distribution
demolished the fine tuning of the cosmological constant "lambda," but the one he chose did NOT do that.
He had overlooked what happens as the lograrithm he carefully chose approaches zero. It is also hostile
to life there. He ignored post after post where I explained this to him using advanced undergraduate
level mathematics. However, in his last post to talk.origins, he effectively said "Nevermind" to the physical
theory that he had been using to base his distribution on.

His failure to return to talk.origins in all this time has been a blow to those who, like yourself, were
looking for guidance on how to eliminate fine tuning arguments.

> The problem with the argument that I'm stressing here is that fine tuning doesn't tell you much of anything, even if it's true.

WRONG! what you say below says nothing about fine tuning, but only what some theists have said about it.
And you don't even try to identify the theists to whom you attribute the talk of "the Designer".

> It tells you nothing about the Designer; it tells you nothing about which of the many things that would be impossible (people, stars, quartz, waterfalls, bacteria, gas giant planets) had the physical constants been different was the thing the Designer fine-tuned the constants for.

Had you read even the disorganized excerpts from Rees's _Just_Six_Numbers_ in the following webpage,
you would have a very good handle on many of these things would be impossible, given one or more minuscule
differences.

https://alta3b.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/six-numbers.pdf

>
> You may unwittingly project your values and interests onto the Designer and uncritically decide that it's obvious that the point of the fine tuning was intelligent life, or human consciousness, or whatever is most salient to you, but there's no basis for that conclusion. The fine tuning argument, at best, tells you nothing about the Designer except that it wanted the universe to be just exactly the way it is (setting aside the possibility of an incompetent Designer). All you can tell about the Designer, if there is one, is that it is just such a Designer as would produce the specific universe we observe. So the only way to learn anything about the Designer is to study the universe it designed.
>
> This is not an argument about naturalism versus supernaturalism. As I said, I stipulated that the fine tuning argument is correct to the extent that small changes in some constants would have made the universe very different or extraordinarily short-lived or what have you.

Why did you bring in that red herring of an unidentified theist's take on it up there, then?

> And I further stipulated that it's fine to call whatever it is that caused the universe to be the way it is the Designer. All I'm arguing is that the argument tells you nothing whatsoever about the Designer, not whether it is natural or supernatural, not whether or not it is, in any sense, a person, not whether life was a specific target of the design. Nothing at all.

Your argument, FWIW, is noted, and I'd like for you to provide some reasoning to justify your last "not whether...".

I hope you aren't so antagonistic towards Christianity that you don't think of "three divine Persons" as
"not being, in any sense, a person."


> >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOmdVVgtLLs&t=881s

It's a long video, but it looks good from the little that I saw of it so far.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Jillery wrote a number of comments about physical science relevant to
talk.origins, so I am following my policy of leaving only those things in of her added text.

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 11:41:06 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 17:29:21 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 5:46:05 AM UTC-4, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> >> On Saturday, 26 June 2021 at 01:06:05 UTC+3, jillery wrote:
> >
> >> > To reboot, here is a very short 8-minute monologue by Sean Carroll,
> >> > another academically qualified and professional physicist,
> >
> >These qualifications are nowhere in evidence. His performance is tendentious
> >popularization that a second-year physics major who grew up in an atheistic family
> >could easily have put together.

> >The arguments of the physicists in the 75-minute video, Sabine Hossenfelder and Luke Barnes,
> >were on a much higher plane and much more professional. Sean made me re-evaluate
> >what I wrote about Sabine and realize that I was being too one-sided. Though opinionated,
> >Sabine was quite fair-minded and authentic. Any 8 minutes of that 75 minute video
> >are to be preferred to the Sean's 8-minute travesty.

For instance, Sabine surprised me by mentioning various physical attempts to reduce fine tuning constants to fewer assumptions,
such as the theory of supersymmetry but "These have turned out to be wrong, and wrong, and wrong, and wrong, and wrong."
Yup, five "wrongs" despite this route towards an attack on fine tuning arguments being a favorite of anti-theists.

> >> > about what's wrong with fine-tuning arguments:
> >
> >So he appears to believe.
> >
> >
> >> > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR79HDEf9k8>
> >> >
> >> > To be explicitly clear, I stipulate that I understand and agree with
> >> > everything Carroll says in the above video.
> >
> >> Why?
> >
> >Apparently, because it is on jillery's low intellectual level.

> >He gives his game away by twice claiming that "theism is not well-defined"
> >and then builds his own straw men on a theism that he does not try to explain.

> If you had listened for comprehension to what Carroll said, you would
> be aware that theism was defined by William Lane Craig prior to
> Carroll's riposte.

At approximately what time in the 8 minutes did he make this clear?

I didn't know how to find Craig's video at the time I wrote the above.
It is only now that I clicked on "SHOW MORE" and now I can at least
find what both of them said, in context, here:

"The full Craig/Carrol debate can be seen here:"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKDCZHimElQ&t=1440s

> >> 1) "It is true that changing properties of universe could change it
> >> by a lot." Yes that is tautology.
> >
> >Hence, useless without quantification or identification of the properties.
> It is Craig's tautology.

If he said "It is true that", then he was talking as though he were admitting it grudgingly.

Do you have an url where this can be found quickly? The link I gave above is
the only relevant one I saw in the SHOW MORE dropdown, and the video it links is over 2 hours and 40 minutes long!

> >Fine-tuning arguments revolve around constants where a minuscule change makes life impossible.

> You don't define what constitutes life, or quantify what "miniscule"
> means in context,

I didn't want to make my post ridiculously long. But as to life, the only life of which we know
has as its simplest members the bacteria and archae. So the only science-based way to define "life"
is to list, in general terms, all the features of bacteria and archae that enable them to reproduce
at such fast rates.

Even with those fast rates, it took over a billion years for eukaryotes to appear after these life forms did, and about 2 billion
additional years for the explosion of multicellular life in the Ediacaran period, and undisputed animals
to appear in the Cambrian explosion.

As to "minuscule," the following resource gives it for the constant Ԑ, and goes into a lot of
detail about it: the tolerance is some subset of the range between .006 and .008, as far as
production of helium at the time of the Big Bang goes:

> >Six excellent examples are summarized here:
> >
> >https://alta3b.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/six-numbers.pd
> >
> >
> >
> >> 1.1) "it does not grant that therefore life could not exist." Also true,
> >
> >No, meaningless: without quantifying constants like the six in the linked pdf,
> >the statement is vacuous.

> quantify them already.

Their approximate values are given in the above url. As to their tolerances, only Ԑ, and the
number of spatial dimensions of our universe (3, to all intents and purposes) are fully quantified that way.
[In the case of dimensions, there is no tolerance at all.]

I've mislaid my copy of Rees's book, so I do not know whether he fully quantifies the tolerances for
any of the other four.


[Öö Tiib wrote:]

> >> but debunks nothing.
> >
> >Yes, a claim of debunking would be false advertising.
> >
> >
> >> 2) "God does not need to fine tune anything." Odd argument from
> >> ignorance. Intelligent beings we know of have desire to have
> >> whatever they make elegant and efficient.
> >
> >It's all thanks to Sean feeling free to play around with a concept that isn't well-defined.
> Once again, not Carroll's concept, but Craig's.

If so, Craig was a poor choice for the other side.

> >> 3) "Fine tuning may only be apparent." There are examples
> >> where some parameters can't be adjusted in isolation from
> >> others. He admits that we can't conclude from that therefore
> >> *nothing* could be fine tuned.
> >
> >> 4) "multiverse" This is woo debunked with woo.
> >
> >On the contrary, it is a concept that is taken very seriously many leading cosmologists,
> >including the one from whose book the pdf I linked is taken: Martin Rees, author
> >of _Just_Six_Numbers_, and Paul Davies, author of many fine books that include talk about
> >fine tuning, especially _The_Goldilocks_Enigma.
> >
> >
> >> 4.1) "Theism is not well defined." True, but does not discuss fine
> >> tuning but issues of theism.
> >
> >"discuss" is too kind a word for his mishmash of sound bites.

> >> 5) Universe what we see is unexpected from viewpoint of any
> >> theism but expected from viewpoint of naturalism.
> >
> >Human expectations are worthless without a long careful look
> >at the structure of the universe. Sean Carroll makes no attempt to provide one.

> The cited video is just 8 minutes of Carroll's
> corpus on the topic.

Yes, and I identified the whole corpus for both Carroll and Craig for the first time ever, in this very post.
I even gave an url for it. It's a shame neither had been done earlier.

> >> That is strongest argument ... but it can also be just issue with theism
> >> not fine tuning.
> >
> >Absolutely, the latter. The medieval invention of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God
> >plays into the hands of atheists, and is not supported by the Bible, much less by what we see around us.
> >In the context of fine tuning, it is best to stick to the concept of a designer of our universe,
> >and not try to go beyond it.

> Take your objections to William Lane Craig.

I most certainly will, once I have contacted about half a dozen world-class specialists
on a variety of topics where it is important for me to learn something. Advising
people on proper strategies is of secondary importance. And if Craig is a Thomist,
my advice may well fall on deaf ears.

> >Not even to "creator," with its connotations of poofing the early universe from nothing;
> >"designer" allows manipulation of the properties of existing matter, perhaps in a black hole
> >pinched off from another universe.
> >
> >
> >> Half of the speech was some naturalism versus theism
> >> propaganda ... so it made it all to smell as political lecture.
> >
> >Of course.
> >
> >> "Universe is kind of random and a mess." Huh?
> >> "In naturalism you expect life to be insignificant."
> >
> >An insignificant fraction of the whole universe, but of infinite
> >significance for what we can discover about the universe.
> >
> >> Strong argument for not to be that kind of naturalist.
> >
> >Agreed.

> >> "Flattering stores we like to tell about ourselves." Strong argument
> >> for not to be that kind of theist.
> >
> >Agreed.

> >> Political pot and kettle.
> >
> >Between two strawmen concocted by Sean Carroll.

> Once again, the concoction is Craig's.

For both? have you watched the 2 hour 40+ minute video long enough to be sure?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Ron Dean]

I think the problem is resolved by the fact that the values are real,
yet, where there is no intelligence involved, there is _no_ explanation
for these values. so, they need to be explained.

It was human that designed and built this device, evidence lies in the
fact that at the time it was thought the earth was the center of the
universe, and that particular characteristic is designed into the device.

>
> Also, in the specific case of the Antikythera mechanism, the relevant
> question is not what is possible, but what is most likely.
>

That's exactly my argument regarding the design of the universe and life.
>
>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOmdVVgtLLs&t=881s
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>
>

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 11:36:06 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/30/21 7:26 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> > On 6/30/21 9:57 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 6/30/21 12:08 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> >>> On 6/30/21 12:22 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >>>> On 6/29/21 9:24 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> I see atheism and extreme religious fundamentalist as the same,
> >>>>> just opposite sides of the _same_ coin. I see the same mental and
> >>>>> psychological personalities as virtually the same.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not all atheism is alike.

I suspect you include "soft atheism", a term invented by atheists which means the same thing
that "agnosticism" means to most people. Given Ron's wording above,
he's referring to "hard atheism," the actual denial that there is any God or gods.

> >>>> Even within the same sort of atheism, not
> >>>> all atheists are alike. What you are engaging in is the worst sort
> >>>> of stereotyping.

...pot...kettle...

> >>> There may be some varying degrees, but generally what I wrote is valid.
> >>
> >> For something to be valid, it must be both logical and true. I
> >> dispute that your characterization of atheism is true.

If you are an atheist, it is true of you, as will be seen below.

You most certainly ARE at least a soft atheist.

> > Ok, maybe I am wrong, it just seems that way to me. What is you
> > characterization? It could be better than mine.
> Atheists are human, and humans are complicated.

You are ducking the question, and in effect forfeiting your objections to
Ron's point. After all, the most extreme fundies are human, and so they too are complicated.

>
> >>>> [...]
> >>> Certain small changes would have made the universe impossible. With no
> >>> universe no life of any kind.
> >>
> >> For some unknown value of "small." But it hardly matters, since we
> >> already know with utmost precision what are the odds of the universe
> >> originating with the capability of supporting intelligent life.
> > >
> > Ok, I'm listening.
> The probability of the universe turning out as it did is exactly one.

You are committing the fallacy of begging the question by saying "the universe"
instead of "our observable universe." There may be a staggering number, perhaps an infinity
of universes besides ours. And while we are ignorant, at present, about the probability
of our universe turning out the way it did if this is true, there is no way you
can justify your philistine, ignorant comment.

> And that "1" is important to keep in mind in regards to fine-tuning
> arguments.

Your self-importance would be amusing were it not for the way you have
sabotaged numerous discussions with your philistine, ignorant comment.

>Often, the probabilities people think they have calculated
> as being very small are actually as large as they can get.

This second half of a GIGO can safely be ignored.

>
> If you want to calculate the odds of a new, previously unobserved
> universe forming in such a way as to support life, then you can talk
> about tiny odds. But those calculations do not apply where the end
> result is already known.

Your confidence about knowing The Truth is something you have in common with the fundies
Ron talked about. Even a halfway knowledgeable ID proponent isn't as cocksure as you are.


Concluded in next reply, which will pick up where this one left off.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of So. Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 11:36:06 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/30/21 7:26 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> > On 6/30/21 9:57 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 6/30/21 12:08 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> >>> On 6/30/21 12:22 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >>>> On 6/29/21 9:24 PM, Ron Dean wrote:

<snip of the part that was dealt with in my first reply>

> >>>>> This god Carroll depicts is not logical or rational whose designs
> >>>>> would not be orderly, consistent, systematic, directed or coherent
> >>>>> or understandable to intelligent beings. Instead Carroll's god is
> >>>>> capricious, illogical, unpredictable and fickle. Such a god as he
> >>>>> presents could have 2+2 = 4 today, but tomorrow 2+2 could = 9 then
> >>>>> 6 the day after.

Funny, you never told Ron that this concept of God is due to Craig, not Carroll.
Hasn't jillery made this clear to you yet, Mark?

> >>>>> Understanding the laws of physics would be
> >>>>> nightmare, you could never be sure as to what tomorrow would bring.
> >>>>> Intelligent beings
> >>>>> could never understand nor design anything based upon logic order or
> >>>>> consistency, because such would be non-existent. The god he offers
> >>>>> is _not_ the designer of the universe or life. If as the fine tuned
> >>>>> universe was designed through physical laws and constants were for
> >>>>> the purpose of bringing man into existence, then the designer would
> >>>>> have to
> >>>>> establish the laws of physics, thermodynamics biology cosmos etc in
> >>>>> a orderly,logical, consistent and unchanging in order for the universe
> >>>>> and life to exist and be comprehensible after research and study by
> >>>>> intelligent beings.
> >>>>
> >>>> I did not get the sense that Carroll's god was so capricious. Quite
> >>>> the opposite in fact.
> >>> Carroll essentially describes just such a god. One who doesn't need
> >>> to fine tune anything or doesn't care about the mass of an electron.
> >>
> >> That's omnipotence, not capriciousness.

It would be capricious use of omnipotence, producing a universe
that is unintelligible to humans, who are supposed to
be "made to the image and likeness of God," according to the Bible.

> >> But I see that you do not
> >> believe omnipotence is a quality of the designer.

If you are concluding it from Ron's statement immediately
before yours, you are being illogical.

> >> In that case, I can
> >> see why you would dismiss Carroll's arguments which assume it is.
> > >
> > It seems obvious that the designer chose to be logical, orderly and

> > rational. Consequently, 2+2 will always be 4. to be logical it has to be

> > true, therefore the designer was restricted by logic. reason etc.

You made no reply to this, and I'm skipping to here:

> > But that, as far as I know, is about all we can determine. While there
> > is evidence of design there is no evidence pointing to the identity of
> > the designer. I cannot rule out natural selection among multiverses,
> > that I read about. However, I that is a distant alternative.

> I.e., we can know nothing.

Stupid non sequitur.

> That's something I've come to realize about fine-tuning arguments. They
> tell us nothing about how the universe came to be as it is.

You are incorrigible. You've been exposed innumerable times to them
tending towards two alternatives: an immensely intelligent and powerful designer,
or a colossal multiverse as described above.

And there are several multiverse theories that describe the origin of our universe.

> Instead, they tell us a great deal about how people want to think about the
> universe's origin.

Your choice of arguments is a dead giveaway to the way you want to think
about the universe's origin, but you are afraid to spell it out.

How sad is that?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

University of So. Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/1/21 1:27 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 11:36:06 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 6/30/21 7:26 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> On 6/30/21 9:57 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 6/30/21 12:08 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>> On 6/30/21 12:22 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/29/21 9:24 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> I see atheism and extreme religious fundamentalist as the same,
>>>>>>> just opposite sides of the _same_ coin. I see the same mental and
>>>>>>> psychological personalities as virtually the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not all atheism is alike.
>
> I suspect you include "soft atheism", a term invented by atheists which means the same thing
> that "agnosticism" means to most people. Given Ron's wording above,
> he's referring to "hard atheism," the actual denial that there is any God or gods.

I took Ron to be talking about what he said. You should try it sometime.

>
>>>>>> Even within the same sort of atheism, not
>>>>>> all atheists are alike. What you are engaging in is the worst sort
>>>>>> of stereotyping.
>
> ...pot...kettle...
>
>
>>>>> There may be some varying degrees, but generally what I wrote is valid.
>>>>
>>>> For something to be valid, it must be both logical and true. I
>>>> dispute that your characterization of atheism is true.
>
> If you are an atheist, it is true of you, as will be seen below.
>
> You most certainly ARE at least a soft atheist.

And your record continues of being wrong whenever you say something
about me.

>>> Ok, maybe I am wrong, it just seems that way to me. What is you
>>> characterization? It could be better than mine.

>> Atheists are human, and humans are complicated.
>
> You are ducking the question, and in effect forfeiting your objections to
> Ron's point. After all, the most extreme fundies are human, and so they too are complicated.

I am making a point. It is a very important point. If Ron does not
understand the point, I hope he will ask for clarification. That you
have decided to be too dense to understand it surprises me not at all,
and I will not even try to explain it to you.

>
>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Certain small changes would have made the universe impossible. With no
>>>>> universe no life of any kind.
>>>>
>>>> For some unknown value of "small." But it hardly matters, since we
>>>> already know with utmost precision what are the odds of the universe
>>>> originating with the capability of supporting intelligent life.
>>>>
>>> Ok, I'm listening.
>> The probability of the universe turning out as it did is exactly one.
>
> You are committing the fallacy of begging the question by saying "the universe"
> instead of "our observable universe."

Chez Watt.

> There may be a staggering number, perhaps an infinity
> of universes besides ours. And while we are ignorant, at present, about the probability
> of our universe turning out the way it did if this is true, there is no way you
> can justify your philistine, ignorant comment.
>
>> And that "1" is important to keep in mind in regards to fine-tuning
>> arguments.
>
> Your self-importance would be amusing were it not for the way you have
> sabotaged numerous discussions with your philistine, ignorant comment.
>
>> Often, the probabilities people think they have calculated
>> as being very small are actually as large as they can get.
>
> This second half of a GIGO can safely be ignored.

I am only mildly surprised that your dedicated ignorance extends to
mathematics. (Truth be told, I am not surprised at all, but I was
mildly surprised the first time I saw that you knew so little about
statistics.)

>> If you want to calculate the odds of a new, previously unobserved
>> universe forming in such a way as to support life, then you can talk
>> about tiny odds. But those calculations do not apply where the end
>> result is already known.
>
> Your confidence about knowing The Truth is something you have in common with the fundies
> Ron talked about. Even a halfway knowledgeable ID proponent isn't as cocksure as you are.

Is that how you treat the students who pay attention to your lectures?
Because all I am claiming is that I listened during the statistics
courses I took.

[Bill]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> On Thursday, 1 July 2021 at 04:41:06 UTC+3, Bill wrote:
>> Öö Tiib wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> >> >
>> >> >Here is the issue. We assume that we know what God wants and
>> >> >we assume that this is not elegant and efficient realization of
>> >> >that desire. Or we assume that God does not care about elegance
>> >> >and efficiency?
>> Elegance and efficiency? By whose measure? If we judge the structure of
>> the universe based on human sensibilities, isn't that the same as saying
>> the universe exists to please us and isn't that yet another instance of
>> fine tuning?
>
> That is up to theists to find out. There seems to be none types of
> theists who know something about God. But lets say that universe
> was made by God and that God did it well. How it was done
> to please us? What use we have for 90 000 billions of light
> years of it? So if it was made it was made for something else
> than for some self-important apes.

Well there you go. The universe is way too big. What a waste. Little wonder
you disapprove ...

Bill

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 5:56:06 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 7/1/21 1:27 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 11:36:06 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 6/30/21 7:26 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> >>> On 6/30/21 9:57 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >>>> On 6/30/21 12:08 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> >>>>> On 6/30/21 12:22 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/29/21 9:24 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> >>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>> I see atheism and extreme religious fundamentalist as the same,
> >>>>>>> just opposite sides of the _same_ coin. I see the same mental and
> >>>>>>> psychological personalities as virtually the same.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not all atheism is alike.
> >
> > I suspect you include "soft atheism", a term invented by atheists which means the same thing
> > that "agnosticism" means to most people. Given Ron's wording above,
> > he's referring to "hard atheism," the actual denial that there is any God or gods.

> I took Ron to be talking about what he said. You should try it sometime.

Given the context of my second sentence, I take you to mean that you reply to ambiguous statements
in whichever way you think will advance your agenda. With your second sentence, you are
complimenting me (from my POV) by the recognition that I never intentionally behave that way,
which is quite true.

> >>>>>> Even within the same sort of atheism, not
> >>>>>> all atheists are alike. What you are engaging in is the worst sort
> >>>>>> of stereotyping.
> >
> > ...pot...kettle...
> >
> >
> >>>>> There may be some varying degrees, but generally what I wrote is valid.
> >>>>
> >>>> For something to be valid, it must be both logical and true. I
> >>>> dispute that your characterization of atheism is true.
> >
> > If you are an atheist, it is true of you, as will be seen below.
> >
> > You most certainly ARE at least a soft atheist.

> And your record continues of being wrong whenever you say something
> about me.

If you actually believe in the literal existence of supernatural gods or God [1],
you have been incredibly secretive about it. If you don't, then you are lying here.

[1] The definition of an atheist that is preferred in alt.atheism is a person who lacks such a belief.
But I only attach it to the soft atheists, since it is a misleading understatement when applied to hard atheists.

> >>> Ok, maybe I am wrong, it just seems that way to me. What is you
> >>> characterization? It could be better than mine.
>
> >> Atheists are human, and humans are complicated.
> >
> > You are ducking the question, and in effect forfeiting your objections to
> > Ron's point. After all, the most extreme fundies are human, and so they too are complicated.

> I am making a point. It is a very important point. If Ron does not
> understand the point, I hope he will ask for clarification.

I do too. I would love to see your efforts to extricate yourself from the logical corner into
which you have painted yourself.

> That you have decided to be too dense to understand it surprises me not at all,
> and I will not even try to explain it to you.

"The Emperor's New Clothes" comes to mind, with you playing the role of the tailors.
You are falsely accusing me of deciding to be too obtuse to understand your point, whereas I am too acute
to be fooled into reading something into your words that isn't there.

> >>
> >>>>>> [...]
> >>>>> Certain small changes would have made the universe impossible. With no
> >>>>> universe no life of any kind.
> >>>>
> >>>> For some unknown value of "small." But it hardly matters, since we
> >>>> already know with utmost precision what are the odds of the universe
> >>>> originating with the capability of supporting intelligent life.
> >>>>
> >>> Ok, I'm listening.
> >> The probability of the universe turning out as it did is exactly one.
> >
> > You are committing the fallacy of begging the question by saying "the universe"
> > instead of "our observable universe."

> Chez Watt.

Either this is a mindless riposte, or you are amazingly ignorant of astronomy and cosmology.

The latter possibility reminds me of an old [by a century or more] saying. Its first four (of eight)
lines go:

He who knows not and knows not that he knows not,
He is a fool, shun him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not,
He is simple, teach him.

After someone accumulates a track record of unteachability and cocksure self-confidence over half a decade or more,
like you have for over ten, the first two lines apply. I wish I could afford to shun you, but that would allow
you to wreak damage in talk.origins, as you are doing in reply to Ron Dean and as you did to George Kaplan
and probably others before him.

Ron Dean, Glenn, MarkE and even Nando, have not been seen by me to be unteachable for such a long
time, and I still have hopes that I can teach them something of value. Hence my quoting of the latter two lines.

> > There may be a staggering number, perhaps an infinity
> > of universes besides ours. And while we are ignorant, at present, about the probability
> > of our universe turning out the way it did if this is true, there is no way you
> > can justify your philistine, ignorant comment.
> >
> >> And that "1" is important to keep in mind in regards to fine-tuning
> >> arguments.
> >
> > Your self-importance would be amusing were it not for the way you have
> > sabotaged numerous discussions with your philistine, ignorant comment.
> >
> >> Often, the probabilities people think they have calculated
> >> as being very small are actually as large as they can get.
> >
> > This second half of a GIGO can safely be ignored.

The expression GIGO refers to the huge ambiguities in the latter two lines
having only the garbage that preceded them for clarification.

> I am only mildly surprised that your dedicated ignorance extends to
> mathematics.

This new piece of garbage is unexplained. If you are banking on the explanation I suspect you
are banking on, you are deluding yourself.

> (Truth be told, I am not surprised at all, but I was
> mildly surprised the first time I saw that you knew so little about
> statistics.)

Statistics is not, repeat, NOT a part of mathematics. That said, I challenge you to
identify the incident to which you are referring, assuming it exists at all.

> >> If you want to calculate the odds of a new, previously unobserved
> >> universe forming in such a way as to support life, then you can talk
> >> about tiny odds. But those calculations do not apply where the end
> >> result is already known.

If that last sentence referred to your ignorant claim of a probability of 1,
then the following riposte of mine was fully justified:

> > Your confidence about knowing The Truth is something you have in common with the fundies
> > Ron talked about. Even a halfway knowledgeable ID proponent isn't as cocksure as you are.

> Is that how you treat the students who pay attention to your lectures?

Nothing remotely like the cocksure garbage you have been spewing above ever
got said in any of my classes over my 45 years of teaching.

Your asinine question re-confirms my assessment of you as the most self-righteously dishonest
regular in talk.origins. Recently it seemed as though John Harshman might edge you
out of that superlative, but you seem to be securely in the role now.

On the other hand, you are behind half a dozen regulars who are closer than you to his superlative,
"The most cunningly dishonest regular in talk.origins."
In fact, the only one who comes close is jillery.

> Because all I am claiming is that I listened during the statistics
> courses I took.

Like hell you are. You didn't dare try to justify this closing statement of yours
when you spewed that garbage about my "ignorance extend[ing] to mathematics."

And, until you try to justify it, you are under suspicion of trolling for a hefty part of this post.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> On Thursday, 1 July 2021 at 04:41:06 UTC+3, Bill wrote:
> > Öö Tiib wrote:

Bill snipped some attribution lines here.

[Öö Tiib wrote:]

> > >> >Here is the issue. We assume that we know what God wants and
> > >> >we assume that this is not elegant and efficient realization of
> > >> >that desire. Or we assume that God does not care about elegance
> > >> >and efficiency?

> > Elegance and efficiency? By whose measure? If we judge the structure of the
> > universe based on human sensibilities, isn't that the same as saying the
> > universe exists to please us and isn't that yet another instance of fine
> > tuning?

> That is up to theists to find out. There seems to be none types of
> theists who know something about God. But lets say that universe
> was made by God and that God did it well. How it was done
> to please us? What use we have for 90 000 billions of light
> years of it?

You are putting a very narrow meaning to the word "us". For all we know, there may be that
many billions of planets in our universe with creatures on the level of the first amniotes, or even higher,
maybe even higher than ourselves.

Perhaps you will object that this still doesn't explain what the vast distances between
stars are doing -- surely they could be greatly decreased and thus a lot more life could
exist. I have lots of weighty answers for that, but perhaps this isn't the way you want to argue anyway,
so I will instead focus narrowly on the word "us" below.

> So if it was made it was made for something else
> than for some self-important apes.

Yes, see above. And that reminds me to retract something I said about the title of the 75-word video
that jillery never referenced on this thread -- but I did.

On the other thread, on seeing the title of the program, I said its use of "us" was stupid:

"The fine tuning of the Universe: Was the cosmos made for us?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OoYzcxzvvM

I was afraid that the word "us" did get interpreted in the program the way you interpret it here.
I could just imagine some atheists thinking,

"Oh, goody! If `us' means what I think it does, the guest who's supposed to answer Yes is gonna get CLOBBERED!"

But after seeing how "us" meant *my* interpretation, and how Sabine Hossenfelder, representing the atheistic side,
was badly upstaged by Luke Barnes, representing the fine-tuning side, I realized that it was a brilliant come-on
to atheists, who might have shunned the program if it had a more accurate title.

You also wrote:

> > >> >Purely mathematical like radius and circumference of circle are
> > >> >forced to be related linearly. We know that but we may not yet know
> > >> >other such limitations.

Do you remember who wrote the following? [1]

> > >> Ok, now I understand what you mean. Discussions about fine tuning
> > >> don't generally include mathematical properties because they are
> > >> established by definition and/or because they are derived from
> > >> fundamental principles. In the specific case of Pi, it is based on
> > >> the curvature of spacetime, which depends on the gravitational
> > >> constant. I acknowledge it's possible for different universes to have
> > >> different topologies.

Pi is NOT based on the curvature of space-time, which is still unknown.
It is based on Euclidean geometry, which postulates a plane that is the geometric
equivalent of the Cartesian coordinate plane.

[1] It was irresponsible of Bill to snip so many attribution lines.

> > pi may not be a good example. Being an irrational number, anything including
> > pi in its definition will be incomplete. No circle using pi can ever close
> > so its circumference describes a spiral. All other curves using pi will
> > likewise be distorted.

Bill is totally confused here, reminding me of Jonathan at his mathematical worst.

> That does not follow, your thoughts seem distorted. Is circle too
> complex for your brain? Can you comprehend square? Length of diagonal
> of square with length of side being 1 is also well-known irrational number.
> We are not in difficulties to use neither curves nor that diagonal and
> those are not distorted.

Well said, Öö. You reminded me of Socrates's classic demonstration of
geometric reasoning in Plato's dialogue "Meno," which includes diagonals
of squares. Are you familiar with it?


Peter Nyikos

Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS It's too late in the evening for me to go on with my next reply to the post
of yours where we ended yesterday with me talking about possible ways of
falsifying or supporting Directed Panspermia, but at least I did get to reply to a post of yours today.

[Bill]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>> On Thursday, 1 July 2021 at 04:41:06 UTC+3, Bill wrote:
>> > Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> Bill snipped some attribution lines here.
>
> [Öö Tiib wrote:]
>> > >> >Here is the issue. We assume that we know what God wants and
>> > >> >we assume that this is not elegant and efficient realization of
>> > >> >that desire. Or we assume that God does not care about elegance
>> > >> >and efficiency?
>
>> > Elegance and efficiency? By whose measure? If we judge the structure of
>> > the universe based on human sensibilities, isn't that the same as
>> > saying the universe exists to please us and isn't that yet another
>> > instance of fine tuning?
>
>> That is up to theists to find out. There seems to be none types of
>> theists who know something about God. But lets say that universe
>> was made by God and that God did it well. How it was done
>> to please us? What use we have for 90 000 billions of light
>> years of it?
>
> You are putting a very narrow meaning to the word "us". For all we know,
> there may be that many billions of planets in our universe with creatures
> on the level of the first amniotes, or even higher, maybe even higher than
> ourselves.

Us, in this conversation should apply to humans only, determined solely by
human intelligence. Within the actual context of this conversation we can
ignore the possibility of other, alleged, intelligent entities and limit
ourselves to what is known.

> Perhaps you will object that this still doesn't explain what the vast
> distances between stars are doing -- surely they could be greatly
> decreased and thus a lot more life could exist. I have lots of weighty
> answers for that, but perhaps this isn't the way you want to argue anyway,
> so I will instead focus narrowly on the word "us" below.
>

There is also no warrant for speculating on such nebulous concepts as the
size of the universe or the number of things it contains or why is should be
some other way. This kind thing only has value for those hoping to establish
some opinion.

Bill

[jillery]

On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 15:39:04 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 7/1/21 8:03 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 22:07:40 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/30/21 8:07 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 6:11:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>> On 6/30/21 4:53 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 3:11:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>> <snip for focus>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Carroll essentially describes just such a god. One who doesn't need to
>>>>>>> fine tune anything or doesn't care about the mass of an electron.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> ...................................................................................

More precisely, there is no other explanation you accept. Your
comments above contradict your claim below, that you argue for what is
most likely.

Apparently not. How convenient.

>> Will you acknowledge that nobody questions the existence of design?

Apparently not. How convenient.

>>>> This is not an argument about naturalism versus supernaturalism. As I said, I stipulated that the fine tuning argument is correct to the extent that small changes in some constants would have made the universe very different or extraordinarily short-lived or what have you. And I further stipulated that it's fine to call whatever it is that caused the universe to be the way it is the Designer. All I'm arguing is that the argument tells you nothing whatsoever about the Designer, not whether it is natural or supernatural, not whether or not it is, in any sense, a person, not whether life was a specific target of the design. Nothing at all.
>>>>
>>> Check out the Antikythera mechanism. Even though the designer is unknown
>>> the fact that it is a designed object is not denied. But it has to be a
>>> human designer because no other possibility can be imagined.
>>
>>
>> Apparently you imagine other possibilities. It's odd you give your
>> fellow humans so little credit.
> >
>It was human that designed and built this device, evidence lies in the
>fact that at the time it was thought the earth was the center of the
>universe, and that particular characteristic is designed into the device.

Reconcile your comment above, that humans designed and built
Antikythera mechanism, with your prior comment, that its designer is
unknown.

>> Also, in the specific case of the Antikythera mechanism, the relevant
>> question is not what is possible, but what is most likely.
>>
>That's exactly my argument regarding the design of the universe and life.

Your comment above contradicts your prior comment, that the arguments
you accept for design must include intelligence.

[jillery]

On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 12:25:49 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> spammed mostly made-up crap:

>Jillery wrote a number of comments about physical science relevant to
>talk.origins, so I am following my policy of leaving only those things in of her added text.

Your comment above is not scientific. In response, I continue my
policy of deleting all the things not relevant to my comments you
left.

Also, most of your comments below are not scientific. So I am allowed
non-scientific comments in response to your non-scientific comments.
You can't reasonably delete my responses without also deleting your
comments to which they respond.


>> >He [Carroll] gives his game away by twice claiming that "theism is not well-defined"

>> >and then builds his own straw men on a theism that he does not try to explain.
>
>> If you had listened for comprehension to what Carroll said, you would
>> be aware that theism was defined by William Lane Craig prior to
>> Carroll's riposte.
>
>At approximately what time in the 8 minutes did he make this clear?

Since you asked:
********************************
@00:28 I will give you five quick reasons why theism does not offer a
solution to the purported fine-tuning problem. First I am by no
means convinced that there is a fine-tuning problem and again Dr.
Craig offered no evidence for it.

[...]

@08:19 We can paraphrase Dr. Craig's message as saying there will
never be an Isaac Newton for the cosmos. But everything we know about
the history of science and the current state of physics says we should
be much more optimistic than that.
********************************

So at the beginning and at the end, Carroll makes clear his comments
are a response to "Dr. Craig's" prior comments.

You're welcome.

>> >> 1) "It is true that changing properties of universe could change it
>> >> by a lot." Yes that is tautology.
>> >
>> >Hence, useless without quantification or identification of the properties.
>> It is Craig's tautology.
>
>If he said "It is true that", then he was talking as though he were admitting it grudgingly.

Your comment above is not scientific. Carroll did say that. There is
no "if" here. You would know this if you listened to the cited video.
And your characterization of Carroll's alleged state of mind isn't
even relevant to the topic, the thread, or anything anybody said in
it.

>Do you have an url where this can be found quickly?

< https://youtu.be/GKDCZHimElQ?t=24m>

>The link I gave above is
>the only relevant one I saw in the SHOW MORE dropdown, and the video it links is over 2 hours and 40 minutes long!

Your comment above is not scientific. Yes, you admitted in a previous
post your predisposition to TL;DR. The url you copied is a link to a
video which is the substance of the debate between them, perhaps
edited. Dr. Craig's specific comments are relevant here only because
you expressed non-scientific skepticism of Carroll's comments.

>> >Fine-tuning arguments revolve around constants where a minuscule change makes life impossible.
>
>> You don't define what constitutes life, or quantify what "miniscule"
>> means in context,
>
>I didn't want to make my post ridiculously long.

Your comment above is not scientific. How ironic that you regularly
criticize others for not defining every jot and tittle you might later
obsess over, but you conveniently excuse yourself when you don't back
up your own claims, by saying you don't want to make your posts
"ridiculously long".

How ironic that you have no problem making your posts ridiculously
long by spamming reams of your irrelevant opinions about things having
nothing to do with the topic, the thread, or anything anybody said in
it.

>But as to life, the only life of which we know
>has as its simplest members the bacteria and archae. So the only science-based way to define "life"
>is to list, in general terms, all the features of bacteria and archae that enable them to reproduce
>at such fast rates.
>
>Even with those fast rates, it took over a billion years for eukaryotes to appear after these life forms did, and about 2 billion
>additional years for the explosion of multicellular life in the Ediacaran period, and undisputed animals
>to appear in the Cambrian explosion.

Thanks to NASA's projects to search for non-terrestrial life, they
provide a better first approximation at what life means:

<https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/research/life-detection/about/>
*********************************
“Life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian
evolution” and considered the specific features of the one life we
know —Terran life.
*********************************
The cited article goes on to describe some of those features their
space probes examine.


>As to "minuscule," the following resource gives it for the constant ?, and goes into a lot of

>detail about it: the tolerance is some subset of the range between .006 and .008, as far as
>production of helium at the time of the Big Bang goes:

Rees' "Just Six Numbers", of which his Epsilon is one, is one
physicist's opinions about fine-tuning. I have cited videos where
Carroll and Hossenfelder express contrasting opinions. My
understanding is the consensus opinion among physicists is closer to
their opinions than to Rees'.

>> >Six excellent examples are summarized here:
>> >
>> >https://alta3b.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/six-numbers.pd
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> 1.1) "it does not grant that therefore life could not exist." Also true,
>> >
>> >No, meaningless: without quantifying constants like the six in the linked pdf,
>> >the statement is vacuous.
>
>> quantify them already.
>
>Their approximate values are given in the above url.

You're mixing oranges and orangutans. Rees' values are of the
physical constants that exist in this universe. Even Rees admits
these are not the only values which could support functional
universes. The values by themselves do not support presumptions that
an intelligence fine-tuned them, or that they were fine-tuned to
support life, or our existence.


>As to their tolerances, only ?, and the

>number of spatial dimensions of our universe (3, to all intents and purposes) are fully quantified that way.
>[In the case of dimensions, there is no tolerance at all.]
>
> I've mislaid my copy of Rees's book, so I do not know whether he fully quantifies the tolerances for
>any of the other four.

From the preface:
***************************
Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the
providence of a benign Creator? I take the view that it is neither.
An infinity of universes may well exist where the numbers are
different. Most would be stillborn or sterile. We could only have
emerged (and therefore we naturally now find ourselves) in a universe
with the 'right' combination. This realization offers a radically new
perspective on our universe, on our place in it, and on the nature of
physical laws.
***************************

Rees explicitly declares above a contrasting POV to that of the
fine-tuning argument. He explicitly acknowledges that we necessarily
exist in a universe compatible with our existence.

So you fail to show that Rees actually supports a theistic fine-tuning
argument, that the universe was tuned by an intelligence for the
purpose of supporting life.

>> >> 2) "God does not need to fine tune anything." Odd argument from
>> >> ignorance. Intelligent beings we know of have desire to have
>> >> whatever they make elegant and efficient.
>> >
>> >It's all thanks to Sean feeling free to play around with a concept that isn't well-defined.
>> Once again, not Carroll's concept, but Craig's.
>
>If so, Craig was a poor choice for the other side.

You're entitled to your non-scientific opinion.

>> >> 5) Universe what we see is unexpected from viewpoint of any
>> >> theism but expected from viewpoint of naturalism.
>> >
>> >Human expectations are worthless without a long careful look
>> >at the structure of the universe. Sean Carroll makes no attempt to provide one.
>
>> The cited video is just 8 minutes of Carroll's
>> corpus on the topic.
>
>Yes, and I identified the whole corpus for both Carroll and Craig for the first time ever, in this very post.
>I even gave an url for it. It's a shame neither had been done earlier.

Your comments above are non-scientific. You give yourself way too
much credit. First, the cite I provided identified the longer video.
Second, the longer video is not the entirety of either Craig's or
Carroll's corpus on the subject. Third, the longer video became
relevant only after you expressed non-scientific skepticism of
Carroll's comments.

[jillery]

On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 19:00:46 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"

<peter2...@gmail.com> spammed mostly made-up crap:

Using your expressed policy as precedent, I follow my policy of
focusing on your comments which are relevant to my comments.

>> > >> Ok, now I understand what you mean. Discussions about fine tuning
>> > >> don't generally include mathematical properties because they are
>> > >> established by definition and/or because they are derived from
>> > >> fundamental principles. In the specific case of Pi, it is based on
>> > >> the curvature of spacetime, which depends on the gravitational
>> > >> constant. I acknowledge it's possible for different universes to have
>> > >> different topologies.
>
>Pi is NOT based on the curvature of space-time, which is still unknown.
>It is based on Euclidean geometry, which postulates a plane that is the geometric
>equivalent of the Cartesian coordinate plane.

Your comment above presumes our universe is Euclidian everywhere. GR
shows that it is not. Put a Cartesian coordinate plane near a strong
gravitational source or accelerating frame, and Euclid goes out the
door.

<https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/pi.html>
*************************************
In general relativity, space and spacetime are non-Euclidean
geometries. The ratio of the circumference to diameter of a circle in
non-Euclidean geometry can be more or less than Pi. For the types of
non-Euclidean geometry used in physics, the ratio is very nearly Pi
over small distances so we do not notice the difference in ordinary
measurements. This does not mean that Pi changes, because our
definition of Pi specified a Euclidean geometry, not physical
geometry. No new theory or experiment in physics can change the value
of mathematically defined constants.
**************************************

The context of fine-tuning necessarily refers to the universe as it
is, and not arbitrarily limited it to Euclidian axioms.

[jillery]

On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 13:27:19 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"

<peter2...@gmail.com> spammed mostly made-up crap:

Using your expressed policy as precedent, I follow my policy of
focusing on your comments which are relevant to my comments.

I am allowed non-scientific comments in response to your
non-scientific comments. You can't reasonably delete my responses
without also deleting your comments to which they respond.

>> The probability of the universe turning out as it did is exactly one.
>
>You are committing the fallacy of begging the question by saying "the universe"
>instead of "our observable universe." There may be a staggering number, perhaps an infinity
>of universes besides ours. And while we are ignorant, at present, about the probability
>of our universe turning out the way it did if this is true, there is no way you
>can justify your philistine, ignorant comment.

Your comment above is not scientific. It is a pedantic semantic nit.
"universe" is commonly used to refer to all that is. For clarity, I
use "cosmos" instead, and "universe" to refer to some subset of the
entire cosmos.

Mark Isaak's comment is factually correct and topical. Multiverse is
not necessary to refute fine-tuning. Your comment that his comment is
philistine and ignorant is not scientific. Instead your comment is an
opinion, which is itself philistine and ignorant.

Also, your comment above is misleading, as it conflates "multiverse"
and "observable universe". As I have pointed out multiple times, some
in direct reply to you, they are entirely different concepts.

Our observable universe is a causal horizon, its distance from us
describes a sphere, established by the age of the universe, cosmic
expansion and the speed of light. It is by definition a small part of
a much larger unobservable cosmos.

Multiverse usually refers to those spawned during Cosmic Inflation,
where the presumption is quantum effects establish different physical
constants.

Both of these concepts are entirely different from parallel universes
spawned from the collapse of Quantum superpositions. These are
presumed to have the same physical constants but different outcomes of
random events.

Perhaps you should learn more about these concepts before you post
more philistine and ignorant comments about them.

[Mark Isaak]

[snipping to parts that matter]

On 7/1/21 4:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 5:56:06 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 7/1/21 1:27 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 11:36:06 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 6/30/21 7:26 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>> On 6/30/21 9:57 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/30/21 12:08 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/30/21 12:22 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/29/21 9:24 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [...]

>>>> The probability of the universe turning out as it did is exactly one.
>>>
>>> You are committing the fallacy of begging the question by saying "the universe"
>>> instead of "our observable universe."
>
>> Chez Watt.
>
> Either this is a mindless riposte, or you are amazingly ignorant of astronomy and cosmology.
>
> The latter possibility reminds me of an old [by a century or more] saying. Its first four (of eight)
> lines go:
>
> He who knows not and knows not that he knows not,
> He is a fool, shun him.
> He who knows not and knows that he knows not,
> He is simple, teach him.
>
> After someone accumulates a track record of unteachability and cocksure self-confidence over half a decade or more,
> like you have for over ten, the first two lines apply. I wish I could afford to shun you, but that would allow
> you to wreak damage in talk.origins, as you are doing in reply to Ron Dean and as you did to George Kaplan
> and probably others before him.
>
> Ron Dean, Glenn, MarkE and even Nando, have not been seen by me to be unteachable for such a long
> time, and I still have hopes that I can teach them something of value. Hence my quoting of the latter two lines.

After I had posted, I gave some more thought to your initial response
above, and I concluded that it could better be characterized not as
"chez watt", but as the ravings of a madman.

"The universe" is not, except in rare contexts, ambiguous. Multiverse
is hypothetical, and even if we take it as given, "the universe" would
be taken, by anyone except the very confused and those who delight in
misreading, as the only universe we know about. If I had been writing
about a science-fiction story which involves travel between different
universes, then I would need to clarify "the universe", but I wasn't, so
I don't.

And as a pedantic quibble, "our observable universe" would be wrong,
because the laws governing the observable universe presumably also apply
to those parts of the universe (guess which one) which have expanded out
beyond our ability to observe.

>
>>> There may be a staggering number, perhaps an infinity
>>> of universes besides ours. And while we are ignorant, at present, about the probability
>>> of our universe turning out the way it did if this is true, there is no way you
>>> can justify your philistine, ignorant comment.
>>>
>>>> And that "1" is important to keep in mind in regards to fine-tuning
>>>> arguments.
>>>
>>> Your self-importance would be amusing were it not for the way you have
>>> sabotaged numerous discussions with your philistine, ignorant comment.
>>>
>>>> Often, the probabilities people think they have calculated
>>>> as being very small are actually as large as they can get.
>>>
>>> This second half of a GIGO can safely be ignored.
>
> The expression GIGO refers to the huge ambiguities in the latter two lines
> having only the garbage that preceded them for clarification.
>
>
>> I am only mildly surprised that your dedicated ignorance extends to
>> mathematics.
>
> This new piece of garbage is unexplained. If you are banking on the explanation I suspect you
> are banking on, you are deluding yourself.
>
>
>> (Truth be told, I am not surprised at all, but I was
>> mildly surprised the first time I saw that you knew so little about
>> statistics.)
>
> Statistics is not, repeat, NOT a part of mathematics.

Thank you. I was not aware that some mathematicians felt that way.

>>>> If you want to calculate the odds of a new, previously unobserved
>>>> universe forming in such a way as to support life, then you can talk
>>>> about tiny odds. But those calculations do not apply where the end
>>>> result is already known.
>
> If that last sentence referred to your ignorant claim of a probability of 1,
> then the following riposte of mine was fully justified:
>
>>> Your confidence about knowing The Truth is something you have in common with the fundies
>>> Ron talked about. Even a halfway knowledgeable ID proponent isn't as cocksure as you are.

The probability of a quantity which is already known, is one. Your
ravings will not change that.

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/1/21 2:49 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 11:36:06 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:

> [...]

>> That's something I've come to realize about fine-tuning arguments. They
>> tell us nothing about how the universe came to be as it is.
>
> You are incorrigible. You've been exposed innumerable times to them
> tending towards two alternatives: an immensely intelligent and powerful designer,
> or a colossal multiverse as described above.
>
> And there are several multiverse theories that describe the origin of our universe.

Those are not the only options. And fine-tuning says nothing to help
choose from them. And they don't solve the fundamental philosophical
problem anyway -- How did the Designer or the multiverse originate? Why
is there something instead of nothing?

>> Instead, they tell us a great deal about how people want to think about the
>> universe's origin.
>
> Your choice of arguments is a dead giveaway to the way you want to think
> about the universe's origin, but you are afraid to spell it out.

Yes, we all know that you already know everything there is to know about
me. And all of it is wrong.

For the record, it takes just five letters for me to spell out my ideas
about the universe's origin:

Dunno.

[jillery]

On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 16:45:17 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"

<peter2...@gmail.com> spammed mostly made-up crap:

Using your expressed policy as precedent, I follow my policy of
focusing on your comments which are relevant to my comments.
I am allowed non-scientific comments in response to your
non-scientific comments. You can't reasonably delete my responses
without also deleting your comments to which they respond.

>> > On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 5:56:06 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> >> The probability of the universe turning out as it did is exactly one.
>> >
>> > You are committing the fallacy of begging the question by saying "the universe"
>> > instead of "our observable universe."
>
>> Chez Watt.
>
>Either this is a mindless riposte, or you are amazingly ignorant of astronomy and cosmology.

Your comment above is not scientific. Instead your comment is a
factually baseless opinion, which is itself a mindless riposte, as you
demonstrated your ignorance of cosmology and astronomy and
probability.

>The latter possibility reminds me of an old [by a century or more] saying. Its first four (of eight)
>lines go:
>
>He who knows not and knows not that he knows not,
>He is a fool, shun him.
>He who knows not and knows that he knows not,
>He is simple, teach him.

A more likely inspiration is the recent death of Donald Rumsfeld, who
famously also quoted parts of that proverb to rationalize his support
of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The proverb to which you refer is variously identified as Arabic or
Persian. I suppose any translation of either to English can't be
completely accuate, but the version to which I'm familiar goes like
this:

**************************
“He who knows not,

and knows not that he knows not,

is a fool; shun him.

He who knows not,

and knows that he knows not,

is a student [child]; Teach him.

He who knows,
and knows not that he knows,
is asleep; Wake him.

He who knows,
and knows that he knows,
is Wise; Follow him.”
************************

The first two stanzas are misleading at best. WRT the first stanza,
those fitting its description may be mentally incompetent or simply
ignorant, in the sense of naive or innocent, the natal human
condition. WRT the second stanza, it is also factually incorrect.
Students/children rarely know they don't know. That's the basis of
another old saying; "Ignorance is bliss". Ignorance is also
dangerous, which is a basis for another old saying; "It’s not what you
know that hurts you; it’s what you think you know that ain’t so."

The final stanza is problematic. Those who know and know that they
know, often sound identical to those who don't know and don't know
they don't know. This creates challenge for those trying to follow
the proverb's advice, whether to shun them or follow them.

A classic example of this is Lord Kelvin, who infamously concluded
geology and evolution were wrong because the Earth and the Sun could
not be more than a few millions of years old.

And then there's this Isaac Asimov quote which occasionally gets your
knappies in a twist:

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...' " The latter
phrase explicitly acknowledges one's current ignorance.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 09:29:00 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>:

>[snipping to parts that matter]
>

<ditto>

>
>On 7/1/21 4:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Statistics is not, repeat, NOT a part of mathematics.
>
>Thank you. I was not aware that some mathematicians felt that way.
>

I can only assume from that rather remarkable assertion that
neither calculus nor even simple arithmetic is "part of
mathematics", leaving one to wonder just what mathematics
comprises in PeterWorld, especially since the definition
says mathematics is "The abstract science of number,
quantity, and space. Mathematics may be studied in its own
right (pure mathematics), or as it is applied to other
disciplines such as physics and engineering (applied
mathematics)". (from Lexico, the online version of the OED,
which Peter doesn't like very much due to its
characterization of "moralize").

Apparently in PeterWorld only "pure" math qualifies as
"mathematics".
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Ron Dean]

This is not fair! I have noted four (4) explanations for the values the
cosmological constants have, 1) Coincidence 2) necessity 3) providence
4) Infinite numbers of universes (multiverses)
>
1) Considering there are 24 - 30 cosmological constants with very
critical values where 1% or 2% deviation from the set value would mean
no universe, no galaxies, stars or no life or no life as we know it.
This to me is incredulous, unfathomable.
2) It was necessary for the laws of physics, the constants to have
the values they do, otherwise we would nt be here discussing this.
THis to me explains nothing.
3) providence This requires a designer, creator God
4) Infinate number of universes,(multiverse) each with its own set of
set of constants laws of physics etc.values many
are sterile universes, but a few will have the values required for life
and intelligent. In infinite universes anything that can happen will
happen there are an infinite number of earths infinite numbers of me and
you discussing this subject. The problem with this to me is we can never
demonstrate their existence some theories predict this theory of
multiverses, but light from any of these universes can never reach us,
so empirical evidence is absent.

Don't understad this.
>
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOmdVVgtLLs&t=881s
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>

[Ron Dean]

In his book _Just_Six_Numbers_, Rees writes (quote): "If one doesn't
accept the providence argument there is another prospective,
which-though still conjecture - I find compelling attractive. It is that
our big bang may not have been the only one. Separate universes may have
cooled down differently, ending up governed by different laws and
defined by different numbers" (unquote). (Page 166)

Although, he did not say he accepted the multiverse as real, "I find
compelling attractive", are his words.

I greatly admire this scientist and I have read this book a couple oftimes.

The multiverse it seem to be, is what I consider an escape, by some
intellectuals who acknowledge the reality of the numbers and values of
the cosmological constants, but for personal reasons are unable to
follow the evidence, to wherever it leads.

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 6:51:07 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
<snip>

> This is not fair! I have noted four (4) explanations for the values the
> cosmological constants have, 1) Coincidence 2) necessity 3) providence
> 4) Infinite numbers of universes (multiverses)
> >
> 1) Considering there are 24 - 30 cosmological constants with very
> critical values where 1% or 2% deviation from the set value would mean
> no universe, no galaxies, stars or no life or no life as we know it.
> This to me is incredulous, unfathomable.
> 2) It was necessary for the laws of physics, the constants to have
> the values they do, otherwise we would nt be here discussing this.
> THis to me explains nothing.
> 3) providence This requires a designer, creator God
> 4) Infinate number of universes,(multiverse) each with its own set of
> set of constants laws of physics etc.values many
> are sterile universes, but a few will have the values required for life
> and intelligent. In infinite universes anything that can happen will
> happen there are an infinite number of earths infinite numbers of me and
> you discussing this subject. The problem with this to me is we can never
> demonstrate their existence some theories predict this theory of
> multiverses, but light from any of these universes can never reach us,
> so empirical evidence is absent.

<snip>

It seems to me that there are a certain number of arguments in favor of fine tuning which you like to use. And that there are a certain number of arguments against the fine tuning argument which you expect to meet. And when you meet them, you argue against those counter arguments.

But....somehow arguments against the fine tuning argument which you aren't expecting, just bounce off you as though you never saw them.

Here's what I mean. I have repeatedly stipulated that small changes in fundamental constants would drastically change the nature of the universe, making it incompatible wit life, and with most everything else, too. I have also said that we have no idea what caused the fundamental constant to have the values that they do. So far, so good. But when I go on to argue that the fine tuning argument essentially gets you nowhere, you don't seem to know what to make of the argument, so you repeat arguments in favor of points that I've already conceded. I'll try one last time.

You think that hypothesizing something you call Designer, something about which you say you know nothing, somehow teaches you something about the world. I say, "no, all you are doing is making the decision to call whatever unknown cause it was that gave the fundamental constants their values "Designer." And that tells you nothing. All you are doing is switching from talking about a cause about which you know nothing to talking about a Designer about which you know nothing. You are just giving a proper name to your (our) ignorance. It teaches you nothing.

But what I think is going on is that, although you profess to know nothing of the Designer, beyond the fact that Designer caused the fundamental constants to have the values that they actually have, you really think Designer has other attributes - an interest in life or human life or human consciousness, rather than merely, say, and affection for Magnesium atoms. You seem to think Designer is conscious, perhaps singular, perhaps even in some sense a person. But you can draw none of those conclusions from the fine tuning argument.

For example, had the constants been different life would be impossible. But so would an infinite variety of other physical phenomena; so there's no warrant for claiming that Designer chose the constants specifically to allow for life, no reason to think life was not merely a by-product in Designer's quest for beautiful leptons.

If this argument bounces off you yet again, I guess I'll just give up and figure that your preconceptions about the sort of arguments atheists are likely to make prevents you from understanding arguments that (some of us anyway) actually do make. I'm not making an argument against "fine tuned Design," instead I'm arguing that it tells you nothing whatsoever. All you are doing is renaming whatever unknown cause gave the constants their values (whether the cause was natural, supernatural, or something else) "Designer."

Before you said the word "Designer" you didn't know how the physical constants got their values. Since you know nothing at all about Designer, even after you say the word "Designer" you *still* don't know how the physical constants got their values. It's not that the fine tuning argument is wrong, it's that it doesn't tell you anything at all.

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/2/21 12:11 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 09:29:00 -0700, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>:
>
>> [snipping to parts that matter]
>>
> <ditto>
>>
>> On 7/1/21 4:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Statistics is not, repeat, NOT a part of mathematics.
>>
>> Thank you. I was not aware that some mathematicians felt that way.
>>
> I can only assume from that rather remarkable assertion that
> neither calculus nor even simple arithmetic is "part of
> mathematics", leaving one to wonder just what mathematics
> comprises in PeterWorld, especially since the definition
> says mathematics is "The abstract science of number,
> quantity, and space. Mathematics may be studied in its own
> right (pure mathematics), or as it is applied to other
> disciplines such as physics and engineering (applied
> mathematics)". (from Lexico, the online version of the OED,
> which Peter doesn't like very much due to its
> characterization of "moralize").
>
> Apparently in PeterWorld only "pure" math qualifies as
> "mathematics".

I did a little googling on the subject, and apparently Peter is not the
only mathematician who thinks statistics is not part of the field of
mathematics, but there are also many who say it is. My googling did not
give me a good feeling for which was the majority, but I think it safe
to say that there is no consensus on the matter.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 18:17:20 -0700, the following appeared in

Interesting. Since statistics *is* applied math, I'd be
interested to know the rationale behind the denials; it
sounds to me as if only "pure" math is math to the
denialists.

[jillery]

On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 18:48:52 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 7/2/21 8:40 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 15:39:04 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/1/21 8:03 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 22:07:40 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/30/21 8:07 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 6:11:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/30/21 4:53 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 3:11:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>> <snip for focus>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Carroll essentially describes just such a god. One who doesn't need to
>>>>>>>>> fine tune anything or doesn't care about the mass of an electron.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> .....................................................................................

I acknowledge you have noted the above explanations.

Will you acknowledge that when you write:

"where there is no intelligence involved, there is _no_ explanation
for these values"

you are explicitly *not* accepting all but providence?

>1) Considering there are 24 - 30 cosmological constants with very
>critical values where 1% or 2% deviation from the set value would mean
>no universe, no galaxies, stars or no life or no life as we know it.
>This to me is incredulous, unfathomable.

Once again, that our universe has certain values of physical
constants, does not show these are the only values possible which
could provide a universe where intelligent life exists.

Once again, your 1) above makes assertions which have not and can not
be demonstrated, in practice or in principle. No one knows if other
combinations of values could not also work. Repetition does not an
argument of coincidence make.

>2) It was necessary for the laws of physics, the constants to have
>the values they do, otherwise we would nt be here discussing this.
>THis to me explains nothing.

Once again, your 2) is a logical truism. That makes it a necessary
condition but not a sufficient condition. It doesn't explain anything
to anybody.

>3) providence This requires a designer, creator God

Once again, presuming a designer, creator God doesn't explain
anything. It does not explain how God set those values. It does not
explain why intelligent life is God's purpose. It does not explain
God's existence. Your personal credulity on 3) is merely the flip
side of your personal incredulity on 1), 2) and 4).

>4) Infinate number of universes,(multiverse) each with its own set of
>set of constants laws of physics etc.values many
>are sterile universes, but a few will have the values required for life
>and intelligent. In infinite universes anything that can happen will
>happen there are an infinite number of earths infinite numbers of me and
>you discussing this subject. The problem with this to me is we can never
>demonstrate their existence some theories predict this theory of
>multiverses, but light from any of these universes can never reach us,
>so empirical evidence is absent.

Once again, multiverse is not an hypothesis but a conclusion from
other hypotheses. These hypotheses are testable in principle but not
in practice at this time. Your claim they can never be demonstrated
is an assertion without basis.

Once again, when you entertain the possibility that the physical
constants could have been different, logically you necessarily also
entertain the possibility of other working combinations. To allow the
one and handwave away the other is logically incoherent.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> If there was no intelligence determining or controlling the values of
>>>>> the 2 dozen+ parameters, then exactly how did these values arise?
>>>>> Something had to give rise to the values because they are real.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your "if" above is useless. The question of how the values of
>>>> physical constants arose is independent of the existence of a causal
>>>> intelligence. More to the point, presuming a causal intelligence does
>>>> not explain *how* that intelligence determined those values, and
>>>> raises the additional question of what caused that intelligence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with the argument that I'm stressing here is that fine
>>>>> tuning doesn't tell you much of anything, even if it's true. It tells
>>>>>> you nothing about the Designer; it tells you nothing about which of
>>>>>> the many things that would be impossible (people, stars, quartz,
>>>>> waterfalls, bacteria, gas giant planets) had the physical constants
>>>>>> been different was the thing the Designer fine-tuned the constants for.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> If the constants values had been different, there would be no universe,
>>>>> hence no stars, planets waterfalls crystals etc etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I acknowledge there are more combinations that would not work than
>>>> would work.
>>>>
>>>> Will you acknowledge there are more than one combination that would
>>>> work?

Apparently not.

>>>> Will you acknowledge we don't know if the constant values could have
>>>> been different?

Apparently not.

And you conveniently ignored this one, too.

>>>> Also, in the specific case of the Antikythera mechanism, the relevant
>>>> question is not what is possible, but what is most likely.
>>>>
>>> That's exactly my argument regarding the design of the universe and life.
>>
>>
>> Your comment above contradicts your prior comment, that the arguments
>> you accept for design must include intelligence.
>>
>Don't understad this.

Remind yourself of your expressed purpose for mentioning the
Antikythera device: that it was intelligently designed.

Remind yourself of your personal incredulity of your 1),2) and 4), and
your personal credulity of 3).

Remind yourself of your expressed presumptions that design implies a
designer, and fine-tuning implies a tuner.

Remind yourself of your failure to acknowledge that design is also a
consequence of unguided natural aka non-intelligent processes.

[Ron Dean]

[Ron Dean]

On 7/2/21 8:50 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:

*********
You admitted the 24+ cosmological constants have the necessary but exact
values which enables the universe and life to come about.

Where it get you, _assumes_ no intelligent entity exist. So without an
intelligent agent setting the essential and precise numbers how did
these values come to be?
**********

so you repeat arguments in favor of points that I've already conceded.
I'll try one last time.
>
> You think that hypothesizing something you call Designer, something about which you say you know nothing, somehow teaches you something about the world. I say, "no, all you are doing is making the decision to call whatever unknown cause it was that gave the fundamental constants their values "Designer." And that tells you nothing. All you are doing is switching from talking about a cause about which you know nothing to talking about a Designer about which you know nothing. You are just giving a proper name to your (our) ignorance. It teaches you nothing.

***********
I'm convince there is solid evidence of real design, since this is real,
it requires an answer as to who or what designed what we observe. Design
infers a designer. Most religious people will believe the designer is
God: and maybe it is God.
***********

>
> But what I think is going on is that, although you profess to know nothing of the Designer, beyond the fact that Designer caused the fundamental constants to have the values that they actually have, you really think Designer has other attributes - an interest in life or human life or human consciousness, rather than merely, say, and affection for Magnesium atoms. You seem to think Designer is conscious, perhaps singular, perhaps even in some sense a person. But you can draw none of those conclusions from the fine tuning argument.
>

It's possible the designer created the universe, set the laws of
physics, which set thing in motion then stepped aside and let things
play out. It does not micro manage anything.

>
> For example, had the constants been different life would be impossible. But so would an infinite variety of other physical phenomena; so there's no warrant for claiming that Designer chose the constants specifically to allow for life, no reason to think life was not merely a by-product in Designer's quest for beautiful leptons.
>
> If this argument bounces off you yet again, I guess I'll just give up and figure that your preconceptions about the sort of arguments atheists are likely to make prevents you from understanding arguments that (some of us anyway) actually do make. I'm not making an argument against "fine tuned Design," instead I'm arguing that it tells you nothing whatsoever. All you are doing is renaming whatever unknown cause gave the constants their values (whether the cause was natural, supernatural, or something else) "Designer."
>

I answered this above.

>
> Before you said the word "Designer" you didn't know how the physical constants got their values. Since you know nothing at all about Designer, even after you say the word "Designer" you *still* don't know how the physical constants got their values. It's not that the fine tuning argument is wrong, it's that it doesn't tell you anything at all.
>

****************************
Again, you are assuming no intelligent entity exist. If this is true,
then it leave unanswered how the laws of physics the constants got their
numbers. People who acknowledge the highly unlikely odds of these values
occurring by coincidence turn to the hypothesize infinite numbers of
other parallel universes, each with it's own set of laws, constants and
conditions.

[Ron Dean]

snip<.....>

>>>
>> This is not fair! I have noted four (4) explanations for the values the
>> cosmological constants have, 1) Coincidence 2) necessity 3) providence
>> 4) Infinite numbers of universes (multiverses)
>
>
> I acknowledge you have noted the above explanations.
>
> Will you acknowledge that when you write:
>
> "where there is no intelligence involved, there is _no_ explanation
> for these values"
>
> you are explicitly *not* accepting all but providence?
>

I accept only providence (supernatural?)

>
>
>> 1) Considering there are 24 - 30 cosmological constants with very
>> critical values where 1% or 2% deviation from the set value would mean
>> no universe, no galaxies, stars or no life or no life as we know it.
>> This to me is incredulous, unfathomable.
>
>
> Once again, that our universe has certain values of physical
> constants, does not show these are the only values possible which
> could provide a universe where intelligent life exists.
>

Life as we know it. IE carbon based life is the only life we know. If
you introduce other intelligent life, then it's upon you to define the
kind of life you are talking about and the constant values and
conditions required.

>
> Once again, your 1) above makes assertions which have not and can not
> be demonstrated, in practice or in principle. No one knows if other
> combinations of values could not also work. Repetition does not an
> argument of coincidence make.
>

What we are faced with is the only reality we know anything about, and
it is this reality we are attempting to explain. You are introducing
unreal imaginary worlds, universes, Alice in wonder land, fairy tale
scenarios. That need no explanation.

>
>
>> 2) It was necessary for the laws of physics, the constants to have

>> the values they do, otherwise we would not be here discussing this.

>> THis to me explains nothing.
>
>
> Once again, your 2) is a logical truism. That makes it a necessary
> condition but not a sufficient condition. It doesn't explain anything
> to anybody.
>
>
>> 3) providence This requires a designer, creator God
>
>
> Once again, presuming a designer, creator God doesn't explain
> anything.
>

I disagree it is an explanation.

>
It does not explain how God set those values.
>

There were no witnesses, yet the values do exist, the fact that
we cannot explain how the values were set means nothing. We really
don't know how the megalith stones weighing an estimated 800 tons in
the foundation of the Baalbek temple of Jupiter in Lebanon were cut,
moved and lifted. But we observe the results. It's the same with the
fine tuned Constants.

It does not
> explain why intelligent life is God's purpose. It does not explain
> God's existence. Your personal credulity on 3) is merely the flip
> side of your personal incredulity on 1), 2) and 4).
>
>
>> 4) Infinate number of universes,(multiverse) each with its own set of
>> set of constants laws of physics etc.values many
>> are sterile universes, but a few will have the values required for life
>> and intelligent. In infinite universes anything that can happen will
>> happen there are an infinite number of earths infinite numbers of me and
>> you discussing this subject. The problem with this to me is we can never
>> demonstrate their existence some theories predict this theory of
>> multiverses, but light from any of these universes can never reach us,
>> so empirical evidence is absent.
>
>
> Once again, multiverse is not an hypothesis but a conclusion from
> other hypotheses. These hypotheses are testable in principle but not
> in practice at this time. Your claim they can never be demonstrated
> is an assertion without basis.
>

They are a hypothesis built upon another hypotheis which stands on yet
another hypothesis. They serve as a refuge.

>
> Once again, when you entertain the possibility that the physical
> constants could have been different, logically you necessarily also
> entertain the possibility of other working combinations. To allow the
> one and handwave away the other is logically incoherent.
>

This is reality Vs fairy tales.

>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there was no intelligence determining or controlling the values of
>>>>>> the 2 dozen+ parameters, then exactly how did these values arise?
>>>>>> Something had to give rise to the values because they are real.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your "if" above is useless. The question of how the values of
>>>>> physical constants arose is independent of the existence of a causal
>>>>> intelligence. More to the point, presuming a causal intelligence does
>>>>> not explain *how* that intelligence determined those values, and
>>>>> raises the additional question of what caused that intelligence.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem with the argument that I'm stressing here is that fine
>>>>>> tuning doesn't tell you much of anything, even if it's true. It tells
>>>>>>> you nothing about the Designer; it tells you nothing about which of
>>>>>>> the many things that would be impossible (people, stars, quartz,
>>>>>> waterfalls, bacteria, gas giant planets) had the physical constants
>>>>>>> been different was the thing the Designer fine-tuned the constants for.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the constants values had been different, there would be no universe,
>>>>>> hence no stars, planets waterfalls crystals etc etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I acknowledge there are more combinations that would not work than
>>>>> would work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Will you acknowledge there are more than one combination that would
>>>>> work?
> > Apparently not.
>

MAYBE IN THIS ALICE IN WONDERLAND.

>
We know o

>
>>>>> Will you acknowledge we don't know if the constant values could have
>>>>> been different?
>
>
> Apparently not.
>

Not if there was to be intelligent life as we know it.

II

[broger...@gmail.com]

You cannot get any of this from the fine tuning argument. You yourself say the fine tuning argument tells you nothing about Designer.

> ***********
> >
> > But what I think is going on is that, although you profess to know nothing of the Designer, beyond the fact that Designer caused the fundamental constants to have the values that they actually have, you really think Designer has other attributes - an interest in life or human life or human consciousness, rather than merely, say, and affection for Magnesium atoms. You seem to think Designer is conscious, perhaps singular, perhaps even in some sense a person. But you can draw none of those conclusions from the fine tuning argument.
> >
> It's possible the designer created the universe, set the laws of
> physics, which set thing in motion then stepped aside and let things
> play out. It does not micro manage anything.
> >
> > For example, had the constants been different life would be impossible. But so would an infinite variety of other physical phenomena; so there's no warrant for claiming that Designer chose the constants specifically to allow for life, no reason to think life was not merely a by-product in Designer's quest for beautiful leptons.
> >
> > If this argument bounces off you yet again, I guess I'll just give up and figure that your preconceptions about the sort of arguments atheists are likely to make prevents you from understanding arguments that (some of us anyway) actually do make. I'm not making an argument against "fine tuned Design," instead I'm arguing that it tells you nothing whatsoever. All you are doing is renaming whatever unknown cause gave the constants their values (whether the cause was natural, supernatural, or something else) "Designer."
> >
> I answered this above.

Really? All you said is that religious people will think that God is the otherwise unknown cause for the physical constants to have the values that they do. Of course religious people will think that. They'd think that without the need for a fine tuning argument, too. Even for a religious person, saying "The physical constants have the values they do because God wanted them that way," doesn't explain the physical constants any better than saying "Galaxies are spiral shaped because God wanted them that way" explains spiral galaxies.

> >
> > Before you said the word "Designer" you didn't know how the physical constants got their values. Since you know nothing at all about Designer, even after you say the word "Designer" you *still* don't know how the physical constants got their values. It's not that the fine tuning argument is wrong, it's that it doesn't tell you anything at all.
> >
> ****************************
> Again, you are assuming no intelligent entity exist. If this is true,
> then it leave unanswered how the laws of physics the constants got their
> numbers. >People who acknowledge the highly unlikely odds of these values
> occurring by coincidence turn to the hypothesize infinite numbers of
> other parallel universes, each with it's own set of laws, constants and
> conditions.

I think you still are not getting my argument. Let me tell what my argument is NOT

1. I am not arguing against the existence of God (perhaps you think that everything that an atheist writes must, obviously, be an argument against the existence of God, but that's not true). And I'm certainly not assuming, in this argument, that God does not exist.
2. I am not arguing that the existence of the universe as we know it does not depend on the physical constants having the values they do.
3. I am certainly not arguing that we already know (or ever will know) why the physical constants have the values that they do.

My argument is that the fine tuning argument itself does not tell you anything. Its certainly not a good argument for God. Nor would a naturalistic explanation for why the physical constants have the values that they do be a good argument against God.

All you are doing in the fine tuning argument is saying "If the physical constants had been different, the universe as we know it would not exist. We don't know why the constants have the values that they do, but there must have been a reason. Let's call this reason Designer."

What's missing from your argument is a clear explanation for why you attribute characteristics to Designer which do not follow from the fine tuning argument. Why do you think Designer is singular rather than plural? Why do you think that "intelligent" in the context of Designer means anything like what we normally mean when we talk about intelligence? Why do you think that Designer had intentions? There's a huge gap in the fine tuning argument.

Step 1. The universe as we know it would not exist if the physical constants were different. Sure, no problem here.
Step 2. We don't know why the physical constants have the values they do. No problem here, either.
Step 3. An intelligent agent with specific preferences for how the universe should turn out set the physical constants to the values they have. There's a big, unexplained gap between Step 2 and Step 3.

Just to repeat. I am not arguing against the existence of God. I am arguing that the fine tuning argument is not a good argument for the existence of God (or for anything else for that matter). The fine tuning argument simply gives a name to our ignorance about why the physical constants have the values they do.

And anecdotally, based on my years spent as an evangelical Christian, people come to faith in Jesus because of personal religious experience or because of a feeling of being welcomed into a church rather than because they'd always wondered why the fine constant had the value it did.

[jillery]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 02:38:15 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>snip<.....>
>>>>
>>> This is not fair! I have noted four (4) explanations for the values the
>>> cosmological constants have, 1) Coincidence 2) necessity 3) providence
>>> 4) Infinite numbers of universes (multiverses)
>>
>>
>> I acknowledge you have noted the above explanations.
>>
>> Will you acknowledge that when you write:
>>
>> "where there is no intelligence involved, there is _no_ explanation
>> for these values"
>>
>> you are explicitly *not* accepting all but providence?
> >
>I accept only providence (supernatural?)

Your last line above contradicts your previous "not fair!".

>>> 1) Considering there are 24 - 30 cosmological constants with very
>>> critical values where 1% or 2% deviation from the set value would mean
>>> no universe, no galaxies, stars or no life or no life as we know it.
>>> This to me is incredulous, unfathomable.
>>
>>
>> Once again, that our universe has certain values of physical
>> constants, does not show these are the only values possible which
>> could provide a universe where intelligent life exists.
> >
>Life as we know it. IE carbon based life is the only life we know.

That "life as we know it" is the only life we know, is a logical
truism and so uninteresting. More to the point, "carbon based" is
insufficient to describe "life as we know it". That means not just
carbon-based life, but life that depends on DNA and a particular
genetic code (with minor variations). "Life as we don't know it"
doesn't depend on different physical constants. You're conflating
oranges and orangutans.

> If
>you introduce other intelligent life, then it's upon you to define the
>kind of life you are talking about and the constant values and
>conditions required.

By that same reasoning, if you introduce the possibility of other
values of physical constants, then it's upon you to define how those
physical constants could have changed. Once again, you make demands
on me that you don't demand of yourself.

>> Once again, your 1) above makes assertions which have not and can not
>> be demonstrated, in practice or in principle. No one knows if other
>> combinations of values could not also work. Repetition does not an
>> argument of coincidence make.
> >
>What we are faced with is the only reality we know anything about, and
>it is this reality we are attempting to explain. You are introducing
>unreal imaginary worlds, universes, Alice in wonder land, fairy tale
>scenarios. That need no explanation.

Once again, if you presume this is the only reality possible, then
there is no need of a purposeful intelligent tuner. If you presume a
purposeful intelligent tuner is necessary for this universe to exist,
then you necessarily also presume that other realities are possible.
These are logical truisms which make mutually exclusive presumptions.

A problem with your expressed arguments is you ping-pong between these
two presumptions without considering their logical consequences. And
then you criticize those consequences without applying those
criticisms to your arguments. "universes" is no more fairy tale than
your imaginary fine-tuner.

>>> 2) It was necessary for the laws of physics, the constants to have
>>> the values they do, otherwise we would not be here discussing this.
>>> THis to me explains nothing.
>>
>>
>> Once again, your 2) is a logical truism. That makes it a necessary
>> condition but not a sufficient condition. It doesn't explain anything
>> to anybody.
>>
>>
>>> 3) providence This requires a designer, creator God
>>
>>
>> Once again, presuming a designer, creator God doesn't explain
>> anything.
> >
>I disagree it is an explanation.

I presume you meant to say you think "God" is a good explanation. Yet
you make no effort to explain how God set those values, or why
intelligent life is God's purpose. Your failure to do either of these
things suggest you know "God" provides zero explanation for these
things.

> It does not explain how God set those values.
> >
>There were no witnesses, yet the values do exist, the fact that
>we cannot explain how the values were set means nothing. We really
>don't know how the megalith stones weighing an estimated 800 tons in
>the foundation of the Baalbek temple of Jupiter in Lebanon were cut,
>moved and lifted. But we observe the results. It's the same with the
>fine tuned Constants.

Really? How is the above any different from "I exist, therefore God"?
The above is most blatant question-begging I have ever witnessed.

Once again, that we don't know exactly how ancient humans moved
massive stones, does not mean God or even aliens did it. Your
comments above is classic God of the Gaps, that if we don't know X,
therefore Goddidit.

> It does not
>> explain why intelligent life is God's purpose. It does not explain
>> God's existence. Your personal credulity on 3) is merely the flip
>> side of your personal incredulity on 1), 2) and 4).
>>
>>
>>> 4) Infinate number of universes,(multiverse) each with its own set of
>>> set of constants laws of physics etc.values many
>>> are sterile universes, but a few will have the values required for life
>>> and intelligent. In infinite universes anything that can happen will
>>> happen there are an infinite number of earths infinite numbers of me and
>>> you discussing this subject. The problem with this to me is we can never
>>> demonstrate their existence some theories predict this theory of
>>> multiverses, but light from any of these universes can never reach us,
>>> so empirical evidence is absent.
>>
>>
>> Once again, multiverse is not an hypothesis but a conclusion from
>> other hypotheses. These hypotheses are testable in principle but not
>> in practice at this time. Your claim they can never be demonstrated
>> is an assertion without basis.
> >
>They are a hypothesis built upon another hypotheis which stands on yet
>another hypothesis. They serve as a refuge.

Yes, you have spammed that baseless opinion many times. You're
entitled to do so, but that doesn't make it so.

>> Once again, when you entertain the possibility that the physical
>> constants could have been different, logically you necessarily also
>> entertain the possibility of other working combinations. To allow the
>> one and handwave away the other is logically incoherent.
> >
>This is reality Vs fairy tales.

The above is a knee-jerk reply. I don't argue here what is real.
Instead I point out the logical incoherence of your expressed
argument. The fine-tuning argument presumes the possibility of other
working combinations, else a fine-tuner would be unnecessary. Not
sure how you *still* don't understand this.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there was no intelligence determining or controlling the values of
>>>>>>> the 2 dozen+ parameters, then exactly how did these values arise?
>>>>>>> Something had to give rise to the values because they are real.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your "if" above is useless. The question of how the values of
>>>>>> physical constants arose is independent of the existence of a causal
>>>>>> intelligence. More to the point, presuming a causal intelligence does
>>>>>> not explain *how* that intelligence determined those values, and
>>>>>> raises the additional question of what caused that intelligence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem with the argument that I'm stressing here is that fine
>>>>>>> tuning doesn't tell you much of anything, even if it's true. It tells
>>>>>>>> you nothing about the Designer; it tells you nothing about which of
>>>>>>>> the many things that would be impossible (people, stars, quartz,
>>>>>>> waterfalls, bacteria, gas giant planets) had the physical constants
>>>>>>>> been different was the thing the Designer fine-tuned the constants for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the constants values had been different, there would be no universe,
>>>>>>> hence no stars, planets waterfalls crystals etc etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I acknowledge there are more combinations that would not work than
>>>>>> would work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Will you acknowledge there are more than one combination that would
>>>>>> work?
>> > Apparently not.
>>
>MAYBE IN THIS ALICE IN WONDERLAND.

Maybe your God is Alice in Wonderland.

>>>>>> Will you acknowledge we don't know if the constant values could have
>>>>>> been different?
>>
>>
>> Apparently not.
>>
>Not if there was to be intelligent life as we know it.

Just once, apply your prideful skepticism to your own presumptions, if
only for the novelty of the experience. How do you know some other
combinations of physical constants could not allow intelligent life?
You said yourself, this is the only reality we know about. How can
you be so skeptical of plausible explanations and at the same time
assert as fact things which nobody knows or can know?

Apparently you don't understand your own words, and are proud of it.


>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOmdVVgtLLs&t=881s
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>II

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 2:41:07 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
> snip<.....>

Ron, you and "freon" Bill have an unfortunate tendency to snip attributions and
leave people wondering who said what. In your case, it may be because you are a "comet"
who only drops by talk.origins infrequently, and so you may not realize that talk.origins
has an amazing amount of continuity -- vastly better than all but one non-Usenet forum I've encountered,
but there the number of regulars seems to be smaller than here, and it has only a few threads
going on at the same time.


Was this by you?

> >> This is not fair! I have noted four (4) explanations for the values the
> >> cosmological constants have, 1) Coincidence 2) necessity 3) providence
> >> 4) Infinite numbers of universes (multiverses)

If you mean "infinite" in the loose sense of "so staggeringly large that we
have no way of expressing it, but perhaps still finite," then I agree.


I believe this was by jillery:

> > I acknowledge you have noted the above explanations.
> >
> > Will you acknowledge that when you write:
> >
> > "where there is no intelligence involved, there is _no_ explanation
> > for these values"
> >
> > you are explicitly *not* accepting all but providence?
> >
> I accept only providence (supernatural?)

So you reject 4), which I still think is the best explanation.

Fair enough, if all you are saying is that you prefer 3) on personal grounds.

> >
> >> 1) Considering there are 24 - 30 cosmological constants with very
> >> critical values where 1% or 2% deviation from the set value would mean
> >> no universe, no galaxies, stars or no life or no life as we know it.
> >> This to me is incredulous, unfathomable.

"incredulous" is the wrong word here; "absolutely astounding" would work.

> >
> > Once again, that our universe has certain values of physical
> > constants, does not show these are the only values possible which
> > could provide a universe where intelligent life exists.

That "Once again" narrows it down to jillery, Casanova, and Mark Isaak.
The paragraph contains the crass straw man "the only values possible"
and the way it is used in defiance of the preceding paragraph by you, I would
guess jillery, flaunting her incorrigibility again.

> Life as we know it. IE carbon based life is the only life we know. If
> you introduce other intelligent life, then it's upon you to define the
> kind of life you are talking about and the constant values and
> conditions required.

Brilliant!

> > Once again,

Thar she blows again!

> > your 1) above makes assertions which have not and can not
> > be demonstrated, in practice or in principle.

Dead wrong.

> > No one knows if other
> > combinations of values could not also work.

Many of the factors are dimensionless constants. IOW, ratios between two
values, e.g. the ratio between the gravitational force between two protons
and their electromagnetic repulsion.

Martin Rees and other eminent physicists focus on these individual constants
*in* *isolation*. NONE of your opponents has ever realized that
they are shooting themselves in the foot by harping on the idea of considering
them together.

When we put together the low tolerances of two or more constants, we have a MULTIPLICATION
of the tolerances: 1% tolerance of one constant times 1% tolerance of another
constant equates to 0.01% tolerance of the pair for life as we know it.

Here is something Dr. Dr. Kleinman could really sink his teeth into, had the biggest
crybaby in talk.origins not gotten DIG to ban him. "the law of multiplication of probabilities"
was practically a trademark of his, even more than "Once again" is a trademark
of the close-knit trio I named above.

> >Repetition does not an
> > argument of coincidence make.

> What we are faced with is the only reality we know anything about, and
> it is this reality we are attempting to explain. You are introducing
> unreal imaginary worlds, universes, Alice in wonder land, fairy tale
> scenarios. That need no explanation.

Exactly! Whether the anti-fine-tuning crowd realize it or not,
they are abandoning the idea of a universe where all the constants of ours
have meaning. The leading physicists and cosmologists, on the other hand,
stay within the phyisical stuff of our universe, because even their great minds are
unequal to the task of analyzing universes which lack some of the eessentials of our universe.

My next reply to this post of yours, hopefully today, will pick up where this one has left off.


Peter Nyikos

Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS I suggest you hold off on replying to the replies jillery and Bill Rogers made to this
same post of yours until you've seen replies by me to one or both of them today.

[jillery]

On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 10:23:17 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote no scientific comments:


Is anybody surprised.

>On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 2:41:07 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
>> snip<.....>
>
>Ron, you and "freon" Bill have an unfortunate tendency to snip attributions and
>leave people wondering who said what. In your case, it may be because you are a "comet"
>who only drops by talk.origins infrequently, and so you may not realize that talk.origins
>has an amazing amount of continuity -- vastly better than all but one non-Usenet forum I've encountered,
>but there the number of regulars seems to be smaller than here, and it has only a few threads
>going on at the same time.

For someone who compulsively mangles posts beyond comprehension, you
have no basis to complain about others.

>Was this by you?
>> >> This is not fair! I have noted four (4) explanations for the values the
>> >> cosmological constants have, 1) Coincidence 2) necessity 3) providence
>> >> 4) Infinite numbers of universes (multiverses)
>
>If you mean "infinite" in the loose sense of "so staggeringly large that we
>have no way of expressing it, but perhaps still finite," then I agree.
>
>
>I believe this was by jillery:
>> > I acknowledge you have noted the above explanations.
>> >
>> > Will you acknowledge that when you write:
>> >
>> > "where there is no intelligence involved, there is _no_ explanation
>> > for these values"
>> >
>> > you are explicitly *not* accepting all but providence?
>> >
>> I accept only providence (supernatural?)
>
>So you reject 4), which I still think is the best explanation.

All that you wrote below argues against 4). So if you think 4) is the
best explanation, then your entire post is mindless noise spammed for
the sake of it. So once again, you open mouth, insert foot, shoot it
off.

>Fair enough, if all you are saying is that you prefer 3) on personal grounds.

And if Ron Dean prefers 3 on personal grounds, then his preference is
utterly irrelevant to the fine-tuning argument, which is the context
of this thread.

<snip your remaining mindless unscientific spam>

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 2:56:07 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 10:23:17 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote

> >On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 2:41:07 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
> >> snip<.....>
> >
> >Ron, you and "freon" Bill have an unfortunate tendency to snip attributions and
> >leave people wondering who said what. In your case, it may be because you are a "comet"
> >who only drops by talk.origins infrequently, and so you may not realize that talk.origins
> >has an amazing amount of continuity -- vastly better than all but one non-Usenet forum I've encountered,
> >but there the number of regulars seems to be smaller than here, and it has only a few threads
> >going on at the same time.

> >Was this by you?

After reading jillery's reply to Ron's post, I've realized that it was, indeed, Ron Dean who wrote:

> >> >> This is not fair! I have noted four (4) explanations for the values the
> >> >> cosmological constants have, 1) Coincidence 2) necessity 3) providence
> >> >> 4) Infinite numbers of universes (multiverses)
> >
> >If you mean "infinite" in the loose sense of "so staggeringly large that we
> >have no way of expressing it, but perhaps still finite," then I agree.
> >
> >
> >I believe this was by jillery:

Now that I've read all of jillery's reply to Ron, it is clear that it was jillery.

> >> > I acknowledge you have noted the above explanations.
> >> >
> >> > Will you acknowledge that when you write:
> >> >
> >> > "where there is no intelligence involved, there is _no_ explanation
> >> > for these values"
> >> >
> >> > you are explicitly *not* accepting all but providence?
> >> >
> >> I accept only providence (supernatural?)
> >
> >So you reject 4), which I still think is the best explanation.

[jillery:]

> All that you wrote below argues against 4).

My "Dead wrong" (see repost below) was misplaced, and should have come after the following two lines.
I apologize for my carelessness.

Everything I wrote after that "Dead wrong" supports 4) by making 1) and 2) less likely
than many here, including John Harshman and Mark Isaak, think. Here is how I argued:

___________________________ repost of a portion of text snipped by jillery_____________________

> > your 1) above makes assertions which have not and can not
> > be demonstrated, in practice or in principle.

Dead wrong.

> > No one knows if other
> > combinations of values could not also work.

Many of the factors are dimensionless constants. IOW, ratios between two
values, e.g. the ratio between the gravitational force between two protons
and their electromagnetic repulsion.

Martin Rees and other eminent physicists focus on these individual constants
*in* *isolation*. NONE of your opponents has ever realized that
they are shooting themselves in the foot by harping on the idea of considering
them together.

When we put together the low tolerances of two or more constants, we have a MULTIPLICATION
of the tolerances: 1% tolerance of one constant times 1% tolerance of another
constant equates to 0.01% tolerance of the pair for life as we know it.

===================end of repost ==========================

There are well-established arguments for the low tolerance of individual constants, expounded on
by Rees and other eminent physicists. A striking example is the constant epsilon, (Ԑ) and can be found here,
in an excerpt from a fine book by Reece:

http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/ARTICLES/rees.asp#:~:text=Our%20whole%20Universe%20is%20governed%20by%20just%20six,not%20just%20atoms%2C%20but%20galaxies%2C%20stars%20and%20people.

[Excerpt:]
Another number, epsilon, defines how firmly atomic nuclei bind together and how all the atoms on Earth were made. The value of epsilon controls the power from the Sun and, more sensitively, how stars transmute hydrogen into all the atoms of the periodic table. Carbon and oxygen are common, and gold and uranium are rare, because of what happens in the stars. If epsilon were 0.006 or 0.008, we could not exist.
[end of excerpt]

More about epsilon (Ԑ), also written by Royal Astronomer Martin Rees, including the definition
of Ԑ, can be found here, and it goes into some detail on how those constraints were estimated:

https://alta3b.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/six-numbers.pdf

> >Fair enough, if all you are saying is that you prefer 3) on personal grounds.

> And if Ron Dean prefers 3 on personal grounds, then his preference is
> utterly irrelevant to the fine-tuning argument, which is the context
> of this thread.

This is talk.origins, not a science newsgroup. People here keep giving personal preferences,
day in and day out, and I do appreciate knowing Ron's stand on this all-important issue.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

University of So. Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

If you believe that, then you are in no position to answer Öö Tiib's question,

"What use we have for 90 000 billions of light years of it?"

[I'm not sure what Öö had in mind here: our observable universe is no more than 13 billion light years in radius.
He may have read something about the degree of "flatness" of our universe, which may make the distances
in it that vast.]

> determined solely by
> human intelligence. Within the actual context of this conversation we can
> ignore the possibility of other, alleged, intelligent entities and limit
> ourselves to what is known.

Which is why nobody takes your idea of this conversation seriously,
except maybe you and Glenn. I keep telling Glenn that he is betting on
the wrong horse in agreeing with you on polemic-based claims like yours here,
and maybe he won't go along with this one. If he does, he'll be betting on the wrong horse again.

> > Perhaps you will object that this still doesn't explain what the vast
> > distances between stars are doing -- surely they could be greatly
> > decreased and thus a lot more life could exist. I have lots of weighty
> > answers for that, but perhaps this isn't the way you want to argue anyway,
> > so I will instead focus narrowly on the word "us" below.
> >
> There is also no warrant for speculating on such nebulous concepts as the
> size of the universe or the number of things it contains or why is should be
> some other way.

Look up the word "philistine." I think it applies perfectly to this last paragraph of yours.

> This kind thing only has value for those hoping to establish
> some opinion.

This comment about "opinion" makes me wonder whether I was mistaken
in something I told Nando late yesterday evening:

_______________________________ excerpts, beginning with a spiel by Nando ________________________________

> If lots of people would start cussing the evolutionary biologists out, then that would create very serious problems for them. Sure they would ridicule that, sure they would, but there is power in personal opinions, personal opinions that evolutionary biologists are bad. The concept of personal opinion is an inherently creationist concept, it is only right for creationists to use personal opinions as a weapon, because the whole concept of it, is ours.

<snip for focus>

I don't think "creationism" means the same thing to you that it means to anyone else here. Until
you explain exactly what you mean by it, you've completely lost me. And maybe even "Freon Bill"
and Jonathan will be completely confused if they see you talking like this.

===========================================end of excerpts
from
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/2FNuEeffkNQ/m/KFkldm4iAgAJ
Re: Drastic policy on posts by jillery for the rest of 2021
Jul 5, 2021, 11:16:07 PM

Is't possible that you share Nando's opinion about personal opinions?

> Bill

Speechless in the wake of what I wrote about the use of "us" below?
Glenn may be very disappointed with you if he reads what I write below this time around.

> >> So if it was made it was made for something else
> >> than for some self-important apes.
> >
> > Yes, see above. And that reminds me to retract something I said about the
> > title of the 75-word video that jillery never referenced on this thread --
> > but I did.
> >
> > On the other thread, on seeing the title of the program, I said its use of
> > "us" was stupid:
> >
> > "The fine tuning of the Universe: Was the cosmos made for us?"
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OoYzcxzvvM
> >
> > I was afraid that the word "us" did get interpreted in the program the way
> > you interpret it here. I could just imagine some atheists thinking,
> >
> > "Oh, goody! If `us' means what I think it does, the guest who's supposed
> > to answer Yes is gonna get CLOBBERED!"

I wonder if you are so opposed to fundie creationists that you like the idea
of one of them being "clobbered" in debate with an atheist on the issue, "Was the cosmos made for us?"

IOW, I wonder what Glenn's reaction would be to your behavior in this post.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS You left a question I asked you below unanswered, as to who wrote the stuff
about Pi. If it was you, and you are too embarrassed by your mistake to claim authorship,
there may be hope for you yet.

[jillery]

On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 13:31:40 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote


<snip spam for focus>

>> >Fair enough, if all you are saying is that you prefer 3) on personal grounds.
>
>> And if Ron Dean prefers 3 on personal grounds, then his preference is
>> utterly irrelevant to the fine-tuning argument, which is the context
>> of this thread.
>
>This is talk.origins, not a science newsgroup. People here keep giving personal preferences,
>day in and day out, and I do appreciate knowing Ron's stand on this all-important issue.

This can be the King's Debating Society for all it matters. The
veracity of fine-tuning is not a matter of personal preference, no
matter how much you and Dean like to pretend that it is.

And you do Dean no favors by flattering him.

[Öö Tiib]

Mea culpa, that says 93 billion light years:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe>
I don't know how I misremembered those 3 orders of magnitude. But it still is not 13 either?
Anyway I have indeed no idea what is the use of territories measured in billions of light years.

[jillery]

On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 15:45:22 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

Yo are correct. The meaning of "observable universe" is yet another
cosmological term the peter doesn't understand.

>Anyway I have indeed no idea what is the use of territories measured in billions of light years.

If I was one of (Pi * (47 billion)^3)^100 humans, I might consider
our observable universe somewhat crowded and short of resources.

[Ron Dean]

On 7/5/21 10:13 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 02:38:15 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> <snip.....>
>>>>>
>>>> This is not fair! I have noted four (4) explanations for the values the
>>>> cosmological constants have, 1) Coincidence 2) necessity 3) providence
>>>> 4) Infinite numbers of universes (multiverses)
>>>
>>>
>>> I acknowledge you have noted the above explanations.
>>>
>>> Will you acknowledge that when you write:
>>>
>>> "where there is no intelligence involved, there is _no_ explanation
>>> for these values"
>>>
>>> you are explicitly *not* accepting all but providence?
>>>
>> I accept only providence (supernatural?)
>
>
> Your last line above contradicts your previous "not fair!".
>

Y
I'm sure you know what providence means. I over the years, I have
defended the finely tuned (designed) universe and the designer implied
by design. This, I believe falls under the category of providence.

>
>>>> 1) Considering there are 24 - 30 cosmological constants with very
>>>> critical values where 1% or 2% deviation from the set value would mean
>>>> no universe, no galaxies, stars or no life or no life as we know it.
>>>> This to me is incredulous, unfathomable.
>>>
>>>
>>> Once again, that our universe has certain values of physical
>>> constants, does not show these are the only values possible which
>>> could provide a universe where intelligent life exists.
>>>
>> Life as we know it. IE carbon based life is the only life we know.
>
>
> That "life as we know it" is the only life we know, is a logical
> truism and so uninteresting. More to the point, "carbon based" is
> insufficient to describe "life as we know it". That means not just
> carbon-based life, but life that depends on DNA and a particular
> genetic code (with minor variations). "Life as we don't know it"
> doesn't depend on different physical constants. You're conflating
> oranges and orangutans.
>

Again, we know of no life other than carbon based life. And all life we
know about is carbon based. So, this is sufficient. But to you point it
is essential to life as we know it.

>
>
>> If
>> you introduce other intelligent life, then it's upon you to define the
>> kind of life you are talking about and the constant values and
>> conditions required.
>
>
> By that same reasoning, if you introduce the possibility of other
> values of physical constants, then it's upon you to define how those
> physical constants could have changed. Once again, you make demands
> on me that you don't demand of yourself.
>

Other physical constants would drastically change the universe, or even
cause a collapse or expansion too fast for stars etc to form, therefore
no intelligent life. So, if the universe is to exist and intelligent
life as we know it, then each of the constants could vary be only about
1 or 2 percent. >

>
>>> Once again, your 1) above makes assertions which have not and can not
>>> be demonstrated, in practice or in principle. No one knows if other
>>> combinations of values could not also work. Repetition does not an
>>> argument of coincidence make.
>>>
>> What we are faced with is the only reality we know anything about, and
>> it is this reality we are attempting to explain. You are introducing
>> unreal imaginary worlds, universes, Alice in wonder land, fairy tale
>> scenarios. That need no explanation.
>
> Once again, if you presume this is the only reality possible, then
> there is no need of a purposeful intelligent tuner.
>

Who is to say, again Jill, it's the only reality we know. It's possible
that if the big bang had been weaker or stronger or gravity to
have a different force, or the electrical force of the electron been
different there could have have a different reality or perhaps no reality.

>
If you presume a
> purposeful intelligent tuner is necessary for this universe to exist,
> then you necessarily also presume that other realities are possible.
> These are logical truisms which make mutually exclusive presumptions.
>

An entity intelligent enough to fashion our universe, could have had it
chosen to do so, presumably have chosen entirely different physics,
constants and a different universe. But all we know about is the
universe we live in.

>
> A problem with your expressed arguments is you ping-pong between these
> two presumptions without considering their logical consequences. And
> then you criticize those consequences without applying those
> criticisms to your arguments. "universes" is no more fairy tale than
> your imaginary fine-tuner.

The universe is observable and it is real. The fine tuning of a couple
dozen cosmological constants is logically too much for any of the above
mentioned possible explanation except providence including coincidence.
So, design is the most rational conclusion. So, if it is designed
the most rational explanation is: there must have been something beyond
nature to serve as the designer. The conditions that brought the
universe and life into existence is an effect, and wherever one observes
effect it is always preceded by a cause.

>
Gotta stop. I have to be in the hospital at 6Am. For some test, I have
heart problems, so don't know what if anything follows.

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/6/21 10:23 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 2:41:07 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
>> snip<.....>
>
> Ron, you and "freon" Bill have an unfortunate tendency to snip attributions and
> leave people wondering who said what.

A reasonable person could respond to the arguments made without worrying
about who wrote them. Needless to say, such an exercise is impossible
for Peter.

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/6/21 5:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:

[...]

> I'm sure you know what providence means. I over the years, I have
> defended the finely tuned (designed) universe and the designer implied
> by design. This, I believe falls under the category of providence.

Designer implies design. The reverse does not hold.

>>> Life as we know it. IE carbon based life is the only life we know.
>>
>> That "life as we know it" is the only life we know, is a logical
>> truism and so uninteresting.  More to the point, "carbon based" is
>> insufficient to describe "life as we know it".  That means not just
>> carbon-based life, but life that depends on DNA and a particular
>> genetic code (with minor variations).  "Life as we don't know it"
>> doesn't depend on different physical constants.  You're conflating
>> oranges and orangutans.
>>
> Again, we know of no life other than carbon based life. And all life we
> know about is carbon based. So, this is sufficient. But to you point it
> is essential to life as we know it.

Life as we know it has no relevance to fine-tuning. It is entirely
possible -- some would say probable -- that a universe which began with
*exactly* the same physical laws as this one would not produce life as
we know it. I guess that means *this* universe is not fine-tuned.

> Other physical constants would drastically change the universe, or even
> cause a collapse or expansion too fast for stars etc to form, therefore
> no intelligent life. So, if the universe is to exist and intelligent
> life as we know it, then each of the constants could vary be only about
> 1 or 2 percent.

Meanwhile, in another universe, life forms are arguing on the Interblot
that, if fundamental constants differed by one 1 percent, then free
quarks and magnetic monopoles would not exist, making life as they know
it impossible.

> The universe is observable and it is real. The fine tuning of a couple
> dozen cosmological constants is logically too much for any of the above
> mentioned possible explanation except providence including coincidence.

I remind you that the probability of intelligent life as we know it
existing in this universe, giving what we know of this universe, is 1.
Certainty does not qualify as "coincidence."

> So, design is the most rational conclusion.

Unless you suggest that life was intended. Given the amount of life in
the universe, such a suggestion would be preposterous.



Also, might I suggest that people remove these lines from future posts:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My newsreader (Thunderbird) turns each one into a multi-page
pyramid-like design of nested lines.

[jillery]

On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 20:47:04 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 7/5/21 10:13 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 02:38:15 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> <snip.....>
>>>>>>
>>>>> This is not fair! I have noted four (4) explanations for the values the
>>>>> cosmological constants have, 1) Coincidence 2) necessity 3) providence
>>>>> 4) Infinite numbers of universes (multiverses)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I acknowledge you have noted the above explanations.
>>>>
>>>> Will you acknowledge that when you write:
>>>>
>>>> "where there is no intelligence involved, there is _no_ explanation
>>>> for these values"
>>>>
>>>> you are explicitly *not* accepting all but providence?
>>>>
>>> I accept only providence (supernatural?)
>>
>>
>> Your last line above contradicts your previous "not fair!".
> >

>I'm sure you know what providence means. I over the years, I have
>defended the finely tuned (designed) universe and the designer implied
>by design. This, I believe falls under the category of providence.

Thank you for your vote of confidence. In return, I'm sure you know
what "contradicts" means. What remains uncertain is how you think
these meanings known to both of us support your "not fair!" And that
lack of certainty is because you don't say how these meanings support
your "not fair!".

>>>>> 1) Considering there are 24 - 30 cosmological constants with very
>>>>> critical values where 1% or 2% deviation from the set value would mean
>>>>> no universe, no galaxies, stars or no life or no life as we know it.
>>>>> This to me is incredulous, unfathomable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Once again, that our universe has certain values of physical
>>>> constants, does not show these are the only values possible which
>>>> could provide a universe where intelligent life exists.
>>>>
>>> Life as we know it. IE carbon based life is the only life we know.
>>
>>
>> That "life as we know it" is the only life we know, is a logical
>> truism and so uninteresting. More to the point, "carbon based" is
>> insufficient to describe "life as we know it". That means not just
>> carbon-based life, but life that depends on DNA and a particular
>> genetic code (with minor variations). "Life as we don't know it"
>> doesn't depend on different physical constants. You're conflating
>> oranges and orangutans.
>>
>Again, we know of no life other than carbon based life.

Again, we know of no life other than DNA based life and a common
genetic code.

> And all life we know about is carbon based.

And all we know about is the values of physical constants in this
universe.

>So, this is sufficient. But to you point it is essential to life as we know it.

You first mentioned "life as we know it", and then argue about its
exact meaning. Whatever you mean by that phrase, that our universe

has certain values of physical constants, does not show these are the

only values possible which could provide a universe with that kind of
life in it.

Even if your assertion was true, there's nothing sacred about "life as
we know it".

If life was different from life as we know it now, then we would not
know about life as we know it now, in the same way that if the
physical constants were different, then we would not know about how
they are now. How are you so willing to presume different physical
constants but you refuse to consider different kinds of life? Your
logical incoherence destroys coherent discussion.

>>> If
>>> you introduce other intelligent life, then it's upon you to define the
>>> kind of life you are talking about and the constant values and
>>> conditions required.
>>
>>
>> By that same reasoning, if you introduce the possibility of other
>> values of physical constants, then it's upon you to define how those
>> physical constants could have changed. Once again, you make demands
>> on me that you don't demand of yourself.
>>
>Other physical constants would drastically change the universe, or even
>cause a collapse or expansion too fast for stars etc to form, therefore
>no intelligent life. So, if the universe is to exist and intelligent
>life as we know it, then each of the constants could vary be only about
>1 or 2 percent. >

Again with your bald assertions. How do you know this? The people
who write these assertions, how do you know they know this? Do they
show empirical evidence? Did they provide step-by-step detailed
explanation how they proved it? Did they do any of those things you
demand from scientists when you doubt their conclusions? If so, then
cite it. If not, then they by your own standards, they don't know,
and you don't know either.

>>>> Once again, your 1) above makes assertions which have not and can not
>>>> be demonstrated, in practice or in principle. No one knows if other
>>>> combinations of values could not also work. Repetition does not an
>>>> argument of coincidence make.
>>>>
>>> What we are faced with is the only reality we know anything about, and
>>> it is this reality we are attempting to explain. You are introducing
>>> unreal imaginary worlds, universes, Alice in wonder land, fairy tale
>>> scenarios. That need no explanation.
>>
>> Once again, if you presume this is the only reality possible, then
>> there is no need of a purposeful intelligent tuner.
>>
>Who is to say, again Jill, it's the only reality we know.

Please stop conflating what is reality with what are conditional
presumptions. It destroys coherent discussion.

>It's possible
>that if the big bang had been weaker or stronger or gravity to
>have a different force, or the electrical force of the electron been
>different there could have have a different reality or perhaps no reality.

A more concise description of your premise is "if physical constants
had been different, then reality would have been different". ("No
reality" qualifies as "different").

So here you state a presumption. As does Sean Carroll, I stipulate
freely your presumption is correct. There's no argument here, so
there's no valid reason for you to keep repeating it. To the
contrary, there's good reason to avoid sounding like a mechanical
recording.

More to the point, simply repeating your presumption doesn't show how
"different" translates into "no life as we know it" or even "no life
at all" or even "no reality". You can't just assert the dots, you
have to connect the dots.

> If you presume a
>> purposeful intelligent tuner is necessary for this universe to exist,
>> then you necessarily also presume that other realities are possible.
>> These are logical truisms which make mutually exclusive presumptions.
>>
>An entity intelligent enough to fashion our universe, could have had it
>chosen to do so, presumably have chosen entirely different physics,
>constants and a different universe. But all we know about is the
>universe we live in.
>>
>> A problem with your expressed arguments is you ping-pong between these
>> two presumptions without considering their logical consequences. And
>> then you criticize those consequences without applying those
>> criticisms to your arguments. "universes" is no more fairy tale than
>> your imaginary fine-tuner.
>
>The universe is observable and it is real. The fine tuning of a couple
>dozen cosmological constants is logically too much for any of the above
>mentioned possible explanation except providence including coincidence.
>So, design is the most rational conclusion. So, if it is designed
>the most rational explanation is: there must have been something beyond
>nature to serve as the designer. The conditions that brought the
>universe and life into existence is an effect, and wherever one observes
>effect it is always preceded by a cause.

Again you repeat your presumptions as if repetition explains anything.
Again, you start with an observed universe, and end with an unobserved
designer. Not sure how you *still* don't see the problems with doing
on these things.

>Gotta stop. I have to be in the hospital at 6Am. For some test, I have
>heart problems, so don't know what if anything follows.

That's what you should be focusing on, instead of posting the above.

<snip content not addressed>

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Light that started traveling towards us since the end of the inflationary period couldn't reach us
if the source was 14 billion light years away AT THE TIME. What I didn't take into account was that the galaxies
at the limits of our vision are currently much further away than 14 billion light years, since we are
seeing light that they emitted when they were much closer than they are now. [This is because the
universe is expanding, obviously.]

Wikipedia may be right, given all this reasoning, but I'd have to take a close look at the way they
took the expansion into account; and that may be too complicated to be worth my time.

> Anyway I have indeed no idea what is the use of territories measured in billions of light years.

They are distances. A light year's distance is the distance light travels in one year.

As for use, well, I gave my take on it, and so far I've seen only Bill's reaction. Would you like to
provide some ideas of your own on it?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Bob Casanova demonstrates how wildly and furiously he can kick with his head buried
deep in the sand. He does exactly what Mark Isaak, jillery, Oxyaena, and John Harshman lambasted me for
in the past: never replying directly to a person but criticizing that person severely in reply to others.

On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 11:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 18:17:20 -0700, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>:
>
> >On 7/2/21 12:11 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 09:29:00 -0700, the following appeared in
> >> talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
> >> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>:
> >>
> >>> [snipping to parts that matter]
> >>>
> >> <ditto>
> >>>
> >>> On 7/1/21 4:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Statistics is not, repeat, NOT a part of mathematics.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you. I was not aware that some mathematicians felt that way.

Any mathematician who knows that statistics is not deducible from mathematics
knows that statistics is not a part of mathematics.

You would have better luck reducing algebra to a branch of geometry,
or topology to a branch of algebra. It's as hopeless as trying to reduce
philosophy to a branch of mathematics.

> >> I can only assume from that rather remarkable assertion that
> >> neither calculus nor even simple arithmetic is "part of
> >> mathematics",

Only a complete ignoramus would make such an assertion.
Only a dedicated perpetrator of injustice would try to make it seem like I am party to that assertion.

The only way out for Casanova is to claim that statistics is deducible from simple arithmetic.
And his only excuse for making that claim is that he does not know the difference between
statistics and the pure mathematics of probability theory.

At joint meetings of the American Mathematical Society, there is a place where qualified
people can apply to various positions. I've seen people representing statistics departments
advertise for someone with a doctorate in statistics with the proviso, "Not probability theory."

> > >leaving one to wonder just what mathematics
> >> comprises in PeterWorld, especially since the definition
> >> says mathematics is "The abstract science of number,
> >> quantity, and space.

That's a layman's definition, riding roughshod over mathematical logic and modern set theory.
Small wonder: later on, Casanova reveals the name of the dictionary.

> >> Mathematics may be studied in its own
> >> right (pure mathematics), or as it is applied to other
> >> disciplines such as physics and engineering (applied
> >> mathematics)".

Yes, and I have applied it to medicine, in the following two articles:

H. Champion, W. Sacco, W. Long, H. Smith, P. Nyikos, R. A. Cowley, W.Gill, “Indications for early haemodialysis in multiple trauma”, The Lancet 7867(June 8, 1974) 1125–7.

(with S. Morris) “Sudden cardiac arrest and a problem in topology,” J.Austral. Math. Soc. Ser. B. - Applied Mathematics 33 (1991) 123–132.


> > >(from Lexico,

That's IT??? no mention of statistics???

> > > the online version of the OED,

Deceitful use of "version" noted. It is no more a version of the OED than umpteen dictionaries
with "Webster" in the name are versions of the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary

> >> which Peter doesn't like very much due to its

...highly editorialized and idiosyncratic, in a way the OED wouldn't dream of defining anything...
.

> >> characterization of "moralize").
> >>
> >> Apparently in PeterWorld only "pure" math qualifies as
> >> "mathematics".
> >
> >I did a little googling on the subject, and apparently Peter is not the
> >only mathematician who thinks statistics is not part of the field of
> >mathematics, but there are also many who say it is. My googling did not
> >give me a good feeling for which was the majority, but I think it safe
> >to say that there is no consensus on the matter.

John Harshman would disavow such conclusions from "a little googling", for he wants to claim that there
is a consensus that (1) birds are maniraptoran theropods and
(2) not all maniraptoran theropods are birds. And he knows that there are as many
paleontologists as would fit into "a little googling" who deny either (1) or (2)

> Interesting. Since statistics *is* applied math,

WRONG! Statistics applies oodles of math, but it is the height of ignorance to claim
that all applied math is statistics.

> I'd be
> interested to know the rationale behind the denials; it
> sounds to me as if only "pure" math is math to the
> denialists.

Spoken like a layman with delusions of grandeur.

> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

Quoted from a book by someone who did not share Casanova's swelled head.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

Specialty: set-theoretic topology, NONE of which is deducible either from calculus or arithmetic.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 1:11:07 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
> On 7/2/21 8:50 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 6:51:07 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> This is not fair! I have noted four (4) explanations for the values the
> >> cosmological constants have, 1) Coincidence 2) necessity 3) providence
> >> 4) Infinite numbers of universes (multiverses)
> >>>
> >> 1) Considering there are 24 - 30 cosmological constants with very
> >> critical values where 1% or 2% deviation from the set value would mean
> >> no universe, no galaxies, stars or no life or no life as we know it.
> >> This to me is incredulous, unfathomable.

In a direct reply to the post where you first wrote the above, Ron,
I thoroughly analyzed what's above, and am only including it for context.

> >> 2) It was necessary for the laws of physics, the constants to have
> >> the values they do, otherwise we would nt be here discussing this.
> >> THis to me explains nothing.

In one of his posts to this thread, Mark Isaak tried to spin-doctor the content of the first two lines of 2)
to look like "there is nothing to explain". Did you see where he did it? [keywords: probability 1].

> >> 3) providence This requires a designer, creator God

Jillery is such a dedicated atheist that she tried to spin-doctor your personal preference
for 3) into a form of serious insanity. She did it in reply to me, knowing that I have a
policy which ties my hands as far as addressing this wholesale deceit in direct reply to her.

> >> 4) Infinate number of universes,(multiverse) each with its own set of
> >> set of constants laws of physics etc.values many
> >> are sterile universes, but a few will have the values required for life
> >> and intelligent. In infinite universes anything that can happen will
> >> happen there are an infinite number of earths infinite numbers of me and
> >> you discussing this subject.

It looks like you do mean infinite in the strict mathematical sense of the word.
It would be enough if there were a staggeringly large finite number, growing all the time,
so large that it is impossible for us to express it. Then the possibility arises that the
average number of these universes with at least one intelligent species is a minuscule fraction of 1,
and also that the average number of intelligent species in such a universe is a minuscule fraction greater than 1.

But even if there are an infinite number of universes, there might only be a finite number
where ALL these basic constants make physical sense. Even the best cosmologists
and physicists are at a loss as to how to make sense of a universe where one of them has no meaning.

> >> The problem with this to me is we can never
> >> demonstrate their existence some theories predict this theory of
> >> multiverses, but light from any of these universes can never reach us,
> >> so empirical evidence is absent.

Some theories, like Guth's eternal inflation, include the hypothesis that their existence can be made likely,
given certain yet-unverified laws that could, at least in principle, be empirically verified to hold.

> > <snip>
> >
> > It seems to me that there are a certain number of arguments in favor of fine tuning which you like to use. And that there are a certain number of arguments against the fine tuning argument which you expect to meet. And when you meet them, you argue against those counter arguments.
> >
> > But....somehow arguments against the fine tuning argument which you aren't expecting, just bounce off you as though you never saw them.
> >
> > Here's what I mean. I have repeatedly stipulated that small changes in fundamental constants would drastically change the nature of the universe, making it incompatible wit life, and with most everything else, too. I have also said that we have no idea what caused the fundamental constant to have the values that they do. So far, so good. But when I go on to argue that the fine tuning argument essentially gets you nowhere, you don't seem to know what to make of the argument,

Bill Rogers is spin-doctoring your fine tuning argument below to make it look like you believe 2).

> *********
> You admitted the 24+ cosmological constants have the necessary but exact
> values which enables the universe and life to come about.

"the necessary but exact" makes this an "admission" of 2).

> Where it get you, _assumes_ no intelligent entity exist.

Here, he is essentially accusing you of abandoning 3) and 4) and 1).

>So without an
> intelligent agent setting the essential and precise numbers how did
> these values come to be?
> **********

> so you repeat arguments in favor of points that I've already conceded.

If you conceded what Bill wrote above, then you have no idea what a cunning spin-doctor
Bill Rogers is.

> I'll try one last time.

> > You think that hypothesizing something you call Designer, something about which you say you know nothing, somehow teaches you something about the world.

Have you ever read Plato's Dialogue "Meno," Ron? In it, Socrates makes a sharp distinction between "knowledge"
and "right opinion." With the mindset of the sophists that Socrates tirelessly argued against,
Bill Rogers here completely ignores the concept of "right opinion" and the possibility that you have
lots of right opinions about the Designer in which you believe:

> I say, "no, all you are doing is making the decision to call whatever unknown cause it was that gave the fundamental constants their values "Designer." And that tells you nothing. All you are doing is switching from talking about a cause about which you know nothing to talking about a Designer about which you know nothing. You are just giving a proper name to your (our) ignorance. It teaches you nothing.
> ***********



> I'm convince there is solid evidence of real design, since this is real,
> it requires an answer as to who or what designed what we observe. Design
> infers a designer. Most religious people will believe the designer is
> God: and maybe it is God.

Excellent, as far as it goes; but you should have gone on and given what you think are right opinions
about what the Designer did and how the Designer went about it.

> ***********
> >
> > But what I think is going on is that, although you profess to know nothing of the Designer, beyond the fact that Designer caused the fundamental constants to have the values that they actually have, you really think Designer has other attributes - an interest in life or human life or human consciousness, rather than merely, say, and affection for Magnesium atoms. You seem to think Designer is conscious, perhaps singular, perhaps even in some sense a person.

... or perhaps a Trinity of divine persons, as most Christian denominations think of God.

>> But you can draw none of those conclusions from the fine tuning argument.

> It's possible the designer created the universe, set the laws of
> physics, which set thing in motion then stepped aside and let things
> play out. It does not micro manage anything.

Or perhaps the designer delegated the micromanagement of abiogenesis and evolution here on earth,
to lesser but far more intelligent beings than ourselves. God entrusting archangels, so to speak.
But still keeping tabs on the progress and giving occasional instructions.

> >
> > For example, had the constants been different life would be impossible. But so would an infinite variety of other physical phenomena; so there's no warrant for claiming that Designer chose the constants specifically to allow for life, no reason to think life was not merely a by-product in Designer's quest for beautiful leptons.

Except that it seems more in keeping with its inconceivably immense power and intelligence to
aim for beings that can understand the deepest workings of our universe.

That would go far towards what the Bible says about God making human beings "to his image and likeness".

> >
> > If this argument bounces off you yet again, I guess I'll just give up and figure that your preconceptions about the sort of arguments atheists are likely to make prevents you from understanding arguments that (some of us anyway) actually do make.

If the arguments Bill Rogers makes here are the best atheists can come up with,
he ought to be afraid; to be very afraid.

> I'm not making an argument against "fine tuned Design," instead I'm arguing that it tells you nothing whatsoever. All you are doing is renaming whatever unknown cause gave the constants their values (whether the cause was natural, supernatural, or something else) "Designer."
> >
> I answered this above.
> >
> > Before you said the word "Designer" you didn't know how the physical constants got their values. Since you know nothing at all about Designer, even after you say the word "Designer" you *still* don't know how the physical constants got their values. It's not that the fine tuning argument is wrong, it's that it doesn't tell you anything at all.

Bill Rogers has been sounding like an echo chamber for Mark Isaak all through his spiel.

> ****************************
> Again, you are assuming no intelligent entity exist.

You need to rephrase that: after all, Bill Rogers is an entity and I'm pretty sure he thinks
he has a high degree of intelligence.

> If this is true,
> then it leave unanswered how the laws of physics the constants got their
> numbers. People who acknowledge the highly unlikely odds of these values
> occurring by coincidence turn to the hypothesize infinite numbers of
> other parallel universes, each with it's own set of laws, constants and
> conditions.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS Like Casanova, Bill Rogers hasn't replied to any of the posts I've addressed to
him for over a year, so it is up to you to show him anything I wrote here, if you agree with it.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 9:51:07 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 7/6/21 10:23 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 2:41:07 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
> >> snip<.....>
> >
> > Ron, you and "freon" Bill have an unfortunate tendency to snip attributions and
> > leave people wondering who said what.
> A reasonable person could respond to the arguments made without worrying
> about who wrote them. Needless to say, such an exercise is impossible
> for Peter.

Would anyone but a sanctimonious prig write what you did here, and mean it?


Peter Nyikos

[Bill]

Most of the content of most threads are ad hominems and don't merit
repetition. This is why I sometimes snip those parts so I can emphasize the
stuff I think worthy of response. It's a form of babysitting ...

Bill

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/8/21 8:09 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> Bob Casanova demonstrates how wildly and furiously he can kick with his head buried
> deep in the sand. He does exactly what Mark Isaak, jillery, Oxyaena, and John Harshman lambasted me for
> in the past: never replying directly to a person but criticizing that person severely in reply to others.
>
> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 11:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 18:17:20 -0700, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
>> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>:
>>
>>> On 7/2/21 12:11 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 09:29:00 -0700, the following appeared in
>>>> talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
>>>> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>:
>>>>
>>>>> [snipping to parts that matter]
>>>>>
>>>> <ditto>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/1/21 4:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Statistics is not, repeat, NOT a part of mathematics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you. I was not aware that some mathematicians felt that way.
>
> Any mathematician who knows that statistics is not deducible from mathematics
> knows that statistics is not a part of mathematics.

[snip straying]

>> Interesting. Since statistics *is* applied math,
>
> WRONG! Statistics applies oodles of math, but it is the height of ignorance to claim
> that all applied math is statistics.

You are loudly disagreeing with something that was never said.

Would you agree that statistics is an application of mathematics, and
applied mathematics is not mathematics?

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 2:26:08 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 9:51:07 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 7/6/21 10:23 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 2:41:07 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
> >> >> snip<.....>
> >> >
> >> > Ron, you and "freon" Bill have an unfortunate tendency to snip
> >> > attributions and leave people wondering who said what.
>>>
> >> A reasonable person could respond to the arguments made without worrying
> >> about who wrote them. Needless to say, such an exercise is impossible
> >> for Peter.
> >
> > Would anyone but a sanctimonious prig write what you did here, and mean
> > it?
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos

> Most of the content of most threads are ad hominems and don't merit
> repetition.

Of course not. Which is why Mark Isaak, in a display of sophistry that is typical of him, used the word "argument"
as though talk.origins were all about argument over issues. What he perhaps didn't realize was that nothing
he wrote above was an argument, and that he was hoisting himself with his own petard.

An even greater irony is that Mark actually did YOU a favor by deflecting attention from the very thing that I
wanted to know the author of. It had to do with an ignorant statement about Pi.

But now I am going to humor Mark. I am not going to pursue the question of who was wrong about Pi. Moreover,
if anyone brings it up, I'll just refer him to how Mark acted as though it didn't matter who was wrong about it.

>This is why I sometimes snip those parts so I can emphasize the
> stuff I think worthy of response. It's a form of babysitting ...

I hope you do this without indulging in the snip-n-deceive tactics that Mark has employed several times
just in the past few weeks.

One way is that he snips something and then indulges in shameless deceit about the content of
what he had snipped. Another way is that he snips something to make it look like the argument (!)
had been about something completely different from what it actually was about.


Peter Nyikos

[Bill]

I was the one who was (is) wrong about pi. My point is that constants are
not necessarily constant. In the case of pi, there is no Euclidean space so
"objects" that only exist there, are imaginary. Since there is no two
dimensional space, anything defined with two dimensions is an abstraction.
What is rendered on a piece of paper can only be an approximation, a
representation of a subjective intellectual artifact.

Since space is curved, pi must be calculated as a curve rather than a
straight line. You're the mathematician, you figure it out ...

Bill

[jillery]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 10:08:53 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >> 3) providence This requires a designer, creator God
>
>Jillery is such a dedicated atheist that she tried to spin-doctor your personal preference
>for 3) into a form of serious insanity. She did it in reply to me, knowing that I have a
>policy which ties my hands as far as addressing this wholesale deceit in direct reply to her.

Liar. And you don't even try to back up your willfully stupid lies.

[jillery]

On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 19:57:02 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote nothing scientific:

Is anybody surprised.

Once again, GIYF:
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/03/05/how-much-of-the-unobservable-universe-will-we-someday-be-able-to-see/?sh=5c61426cf827>

<https://tinyurl.com/5bre5php>
*******************************
This fact carries with it a huge implication for the Universe: over
time, galaxies that were once too distant to be revealed to us will
spontaneously come into view. It may have been 13.8 billion years
since the Big Bang occurred, but with the expansion of the Universe,
there are objects as far away as 46.1 billion light-years whose light
is just reaching us.
*********************************

>> Anyway I have indeed no idea what is the use of territories measured in billions of light years.
>
>They are distances. A light year's distance is the distance light travels in one year.
>
>As for use, well, I gave my take on it, and so far I've seen only Bill's reaction. Would you like to
>provide some ideas of your own on it?

Since you wrote nothing scientific, I deleted your .sig which implies
that you did. You're welcome.

[jillery]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 13:03:48 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 2:26:08 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 9:51:07 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> >> On 7/6/21 10:23 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 2:41:07 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
>> >> >> snip<.....>
>> >> >
>> >> > Ron, you and "freon" Bill have an unfortunate tendency to snip
>> >> > attributions and leave people wondering who said what.
>>>>
>> >> A reasonable person could respond to the arguments made without worrying
>> >> about who wrote them. Needless to say, such an exercise is impossible
>> >> for Peter.
>> >
>> > Would anyone but a sanctimonious prig write what you did here, and mean
>> > it?
>> >
>> >
>> > Peter Nyikos
>
>> Most of the content of most threads are ad hominems and don't merit
>> repetition.
>
>Of course not. Which is why Mark Isaak, in a display of sophistry that is typical of him, used the word "argument"
>as though talk.origins were all about argument over issues. What he perhaps didn't realize was that nothing
>he wrote above was an argument, and that he was hoisting himself with his own petard.

Only in your wet dreams. You don't even try to back up your
compulsive self-promotion.

>An even greater irony is that Mark actually did YOU a favor by deflecting attention from the very thing that I
>wanted to know the author of. It had to do with an ignorant statement about Pi.

For a math professor to deny that Pi is based on Euclidian
presumptions, is a classic example of willful stupidity.

>But now I am going to humor Mark. I am not going to pursue the question of who was wrong about Pi. Moreover,
>if anyone brings it up, I'll just refer him to how Mark acted as though it didn't matter who was wrong about it.
>
>
>>This is why I sometimes snip those parts so I can emphasize the
>> stuff I think worthy of response. It's a form of babysitting ...
>
>I hope you do this without indulging in the snip-n-deceive tactics that Mark has employed several times
>just in the past few weeks.
>
>One way is that he snips something and then indulges in shameless deceit about the content of
>what he had snipped. Another way is that he snips something to make it look like the argument (!)
>had been about something completely different from what it actually was about.
>
>
>Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 12:55:06 -0700, the following appeared in

Misquotes and out-of-context "quotes" are just what he does,
and are one of the reasons he resides in my "Special
Children" file.

>
>Would you agree that statistics is an application of mathematics, and
>applied mathematics is not mathematics?
>

Ummm... I'd say that statistics is applied math (in fact, I
did) and that applied math *is* mathematics. It's this
tenured idiot who contends that applied math isn't
"mathematics".

>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Ron Dean]

On 7/6/21 1:23 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 2:41:07 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
>> snip<.....>
>
> Ron, you and "freon" Bill have an unfortunate tendency to snip attributions and
> leave people wondering who said what. In your case, it may be because you are a "comet"
> who only drops by talk.origins infrequently, and so you may not realize that talk.origins
> has an amazing amount of continuity -- vastly better than all but one non-Usenet forum I've encountered,
> but there the number of regulars seems to be smaller than here, and it has only a few threads
> going on at the same time.
>

I have a job which demands much of my time. It requires frequent travel.
So, I visit T.O. when it convenient. I also have some heart problems,
and I just got home from the hospital after a test.

>
>
> Was this by you?
>>>> This is not fair! I have noted four (4) explanations for the values the
>>>> cosmological constants have, 1) Coincidence 2) necessity 3) providence
>>>> 4) Infinite numbers of universes (multiverses)
>
> If you mean "infinite" in the loose sense of "so staggeringly large that we
> have no way of expressing it, but perhaps still finite," then I agree.
>

I have seen the word infinite universes several times. I don't know how
many, but limited infinite numbers, in my view, seems conflicted.

>
>
> I believe this was by jillery:
>>> I acknowledge you have noted the above explanations.
>>>
>>> Will you acknowledge that when you write:
>>>
>>> "where there is no intelligence involved, there is _no_ explanation
>>> for these values"
>>>
>>> you are explicitly *not* accepting all but providence?
>>>
>> I accept only providence (supernatural?)
>
> So you reject 4), which I still think is the best explanation.
>

My problem with #4 is the fact that light can never reach us from any of
these universes. So, we can never observe, send or receive sigtnals, nor
demonstrate their existence Via empirical evidence. So, personally, I
think providence (defined as (beyond nature) is the _better_ explanation
for two dozen+ finely tuned constants that have been found.

>
> Fair enough, if all you are saying is that you prefer 3) on personal grounds.
>

In my view naturalism is simply a philosophy. It's a philosophy which
shackles, boxes in and confines scientific research. The axiom that
science goes wherever the evidence leads, is a fallaciousalse claim. If
the evidence points to something "supernatural" or outside the "box",
this obviously, is ruled out as "non-scientific" and on philosophical

grounds.

>
>>>
>>>> 1) Considering there are 24 - 30 cosmological constants with very
>>>> critical values where 1% or 2% deviation from the set value would mean
>>>> no universe, no galaxies, stars or no life or no life as we know it.
>>>> This to me is incredulous, unfathomable.
>
> "incredulous" is the wrong word here; "absolutely astounding" would work.
>

Okay.

I understand this.

>
> Here is something Dr. Dr. Kleinman could really sink his teeth into, had the biggest
> crybaby in talk.origins not gotten DIG to ban him. "the law of multiplication of probabilities"
> was practically a trademark of his, even more than "Once again" is a trademark
> of the close-knit trio I named above.
>

Hopefully, he can return. I've noticed that over the years people have
departed T.O. and never to return. I think for many this was of their
own decision.

>
>>> Repetition does not an
>>> argument of coincidence make.
>
>> What we are faced with is the only reality we know anything about, and
>> it is this reality we are attempting to explain. You are introducing
>> unreal imaginary worlds, universes, Alice in wonder land, fairy tale
>> scenarios. That need no explanation.
>
> Exactly! Whether the anti-fine-tuning crowd realize it or not,
> they are abandoning the idea of a universe where all the constants of ours
> have meaning. The leading physicists and cosmologists, on the other hand,
> stay within the phyisical stuff of our universe, because even their great minds are
> unequal to the task of analyzing universes which lack some of the eessentials of our universe.
>
> My next reply to this post of yours, hopefully today, will pick up where this one has left off.
>

You, stated that the multiverse is is the best explination. But It
appears to me, that - this is a theory predicated upon another theory.
As I understand it Einstein had problems with quantum mechanics as did
Roger Penrose.

>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>
> PS I suggest you hold off on replying to the replies jillery and Bill Rogers made to this
> same post of yours until you've seen replies by me to one or both of them today.
>

I have dealt with Jillery over the years and even though she and I
rarely see eye to eye, but I do not dislike her, Now Ron O, I will not
respond to any of his post. As far as I'm concern people who engage in
name calling, personal insults and character assassination rather than
deal with the issues at hand have already suffered defeat, I tend to
avoid these people.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Thanks, but the most important thing to remember is that Mark Isaak acted
as though it makes no difference who it was.

However, a lot of what you write below is in need of correcting, irrespective of who wrote it.

> My point is that constants are not necessarily constant.

Pi is a mathematical constant. It is defined unambiguously, and there are formulas
allowing one to approximate it to within any degree of accuracy.

>In the case of pi, there is no Euclidean space so
> "objects" that only exist there, are imaginary.

It would be more straightforward to simply claim that there is no such thing as pi.

.
> Since there is no two
> dimensional space, anything defined with two dimensions is an abstraction.

There are physicists who think there is no three dimensional space: one form
of quantum mechanics hypothesizes that we live in 10 spatial dimensions, but 7 of them
are so insignificant, that the space in which we live is to a three dimensional space as a trillion square mile
sheet of material one atom thick is to a two dimensional space.

[Actually, the numbers are just for illustrative purposes; I don't have the time to look up
the actual numbers these quantum physicists use, but the proportions are enormous.]

> What is rendered on a piece of paper can only be an approximation, a
> representation of a subjective intellectual artifact.

Yes, but here is the bottom line: any intelligent creature, in any universe, that is able to understand
the abstract concept of the Cartesian coordinate plane and to model with it the concept of a perfect circle,
and with it the concept of pi, AND able to discover a formula for approximating
pi to any degree of accuracy ... will be approximating the same irrational number as any other
entity so enabled.

> Since space is curved, pi must be calculated as a curve rather than a
> straight line.

You aren't really talking about pi here. You are talking about empirical observations of
physical phenomena. You remind me of the way I thought of pi as a child: mathematicians
drew bigger and bigger circles as best they could, and thereby got closer and closer
to the true value of pi.

> You're the mathematician, you figure it out ...

I cannot figure out inchoate talk.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of So. Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[jillery]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 18:32:43 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"

<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote nothing scientific:

Is anybody surprised.

>On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 4:26:08 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip spam for focus>

>> I was the one who was (is) wrong about pi.
>
>Thanks, but the most important thing to remember is that Mark Isaak acted
>as though it makes no difference who it was.

It doesn't matter who it was. Any statement of fact stands on its
veracity, whether right or wrong.

>However, a lot of what you write below is in need of correcting, irrespective of who wrote it.
>
>
> > My point is that constants are not necessarily constant.
>
>Pi is a mathematical constant. It is defined unambiguously, and there are formulas
>allowing one to approximate it to within any degree of accuracy.

If Pi is defined as the ratio between a circle's radius and
circumference, then there are instances where that ratio has different
values than other instances.

If Pi is defined as a specific value, then those cases where the ratio
between a circle's radius and circumference are different, don't apply
to that definiiton, by definition. The definition doesn't make those
cases magically disappear.

>>In the case of pi, there is no Euclidean space so
>> "objects" that only exist there, are imaginary.
>
>It would be more straightforward to simply claim that there is no such thing as pi.

It would be even more straightforward to simply recognize there is
space where Euclidian presumptions are sufficient approximations, and
there are cases where Euclidian presumptions are insufficient.

By analogy, there are times when it's reasonable to treat the Earth as
if it's flat. That doesn't mean the Earth is flat. Not sure how a
math professor, especially one who claims a specialty in topology,
argues otherwise.


<snip remaining non-scientific spam, including your .sig>

[Ron Dean]

At one point, I brought Pi into this discussion as a analogy to infinite
numbers of universes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XglOw2_lozc

[Bill]

Pi is a constant because it is defined that way. Some, (many) seem to assume
that it applies to something real. I could define Bugs Bunny, as a wascally
wabbit, but does that make him real? An actual circle will have to be drawn
on a curved surface (a sphere) if the ratio of its radius to its
circumference yields an actually existing circle. The definition of a circle
and pi as presently understood, are inaccurate. We retain the Euclidean
definition from habit.

Bill

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 1:56:08 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 18:32:43 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote

... a lot of mathematics, and some science, part of it restored below.
I add more of both, especially math, this time around.

> >On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 4:26:08 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> >> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> >> I was the one who was (is) wrong about pi.
> >
> >Thanks, but the most important thing to remember is that Mark Isaak acted
> >as though it makes no difference who it was.

> >However, a lot of what you write below is in need of correcting, irrespective of who wrote it.
> >
> >
> > > My point is that constants are not necessarily constant.
> >
> >Pi is a mathematical constant. It is defined unambiguously, and there are formulas
> >allowing one to approximate it to within any degree of accuracy.

> If Pi is defined as the ratio between a circle's radius and
> circumference,

That is not the definition used by research mathematicians *qua* mathematicians,
since it is extremely ambiguous the way you interpret it below.

Elementary and secondary schools use Euclidean geometry, except for
rare courses that mention non-Euclidean geometry. In that context,
pi is indeed defined the way you state it, but there may be some careless
teachers who define it as 22/7 or 3.14 or 3.1416, etc.

It's not as bad a situation as exists in biology, where generations of
students used textbooks saying that the brain has three parts:
the cerebrum, the cerebellum, and the medulla oblongata.

They left out three others: the midbrain, the pons, and the diencephalon,
which includes the all-important thalamus.

And there are still textbooks that use Haeckel's fraudulent sketches of early embyros.
THAT is something which is relevant to the charter of talk.origins, and which needs to
be handled honestly if one is not to embarrass oneself in the presence of creationists.

> then there are instances where that ratio has different
> values than other instances.

In some of those instances, the self-contradiction inherent in the expression "a square circle" disappears.
There are square circles in the plane if one adopts the sup norm metric, where the distance
from (a, b) to (c,d) is the maximum of |c - a| and |d - b|, and also in the l_1 metric, nicknamed
the taxicab metric, where that distance is |c - a| + |d - b|.

[If Richard Norman were still around, I could add a lot more here, but as it is, I'm afraid everything
I would add would be met by blank stares.]

>
> If Pi is defined as a specific value, then those cases where the ratio
> between a circle's radius and circumference are different, don't apply
> to that definiiton, by definition. The definition doesn't make those
> cases magically disappear.

Definitions, as you note here, are of limited usefulness in many contexts, and can be
downright misleading. An extreme case is one you brought to my attention yesterday:
by including the clause that dark matter only interacts with *itself* gravitationally,
the dictionary you were using simply defined dark matter out of existence, because
that extra clause is something for which we have no evidence whatsoever.

> >>In the case of pi, there is no Euclidean space so
> >> "objects" that only exist there, are imaginary.
> >
> >It would be more straightforward to simply claim that there is no such thing as pi.

I was addressing Bill here, and catering to his POV, which seems to logically entails
calling the unambiguous mathematical definition of pi imaginary.

> there is space where Euclidian presumptions are sufficient approximations, and
> there are cases where Euclidian presumptions are insufficient.

Yes, and where the overall structure of our universe is concerned, it is sufficient to treat it as though
it were Euclidean, because no overall curvature to the observable part of it has been detected.

> By analogy, there are times when it's reasonable to treat the Earth as if it's flat.

That depends very much on the scale and the location. Where there are mountains, you
have to make your scale quite large to make that reasonable.

Our universe is another example. There are gravitational wells that produce deep dimples,
so you have to make your scale large enough so that the dimples become insignificant.
But unlike on earth, making the scale greater only increases the flatness, and one has
to make some unevidenced assumptions about the topology of our universe to not treat it as being completely flat.

> That doesn't mean the Earth is flat.

You sure have a flair for belaboring the obvious.


Here comes the restoration of which I wrote at the beginning, followed with a question at the end for you, jillery.

> >>Since there is no two
> >>dimensional space, anything defined with two dimensions is an abstraction.

>>There are physicists who think there is no three dimensional space: one form
>>of quantum mechanics hypothesizes that we live in 10 spatial dimensions, but 7 of them
>>are so insignificant, that the space in which we live is to a three dimensional space as a trillion square mile
>>sheet of material one atom thick is to a two dimensional space.

>>[Actually, the numbers are just for illustrative purposes; I don't have the time to look up
>>the actual numbers these quantum physicists use, but the proportions are enormous.]

I was mildly surprised that you didn't try to upstage me here, jillery, by telling us about the actual numbers.
Was it because you, too, didn't have the time to look them up?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

Ph.D Carnegie-Mellon University, 1971

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/8/21 10:08 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 1:11:07 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
>> On 7/2/21 8:50 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 6:51:07 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> This is not fair! I have noted four (4) explanations for the values the
>>>> cosmological constants have, 1) Coincidence 2) necessity 3) providence
>>>> 4) Infinite numbers of universes (multiverses)

> [...]

>>>> 2) It was necessary for the laws of physics, the constants to have
>>>> the values they do, otherwise we would nt be here discussing this.
>>>> THis to me explains nothing.
>
> In one of his posts to this thread, Mark Isaak tried to spin-doctor the content of the first two lines of 2)
> to look like "there is nothing to explain". Did you see where he did it? [keywords: probability 1].

Peter is spin-doctoring. My point is not that there is nothing to
explain, but that fine-tuning adds nothing to any explanation. And my
explanation for apparent fine-tuning is different from necessity; there
was no inevitability of us ending up here. But now that we are here, it
is trivially true that here is where we are.

The fine-tuning argument notes that there were different possibilities
in the past. It expresses them as different physical laws, but that
hardly matters; different historical contingencies gives the same basic
argument. Once we can imagine such differences, we can imagine a
potentially infinite set of possibilities of what the universe could
have been like. Calculating what percentage of those possible universes
could support life is not easy; perhaps intractable. But of course we
are not in a randomly chosen universe; we are in *this* universe. What
is the probability that we are in the universe we are in? That
calculation is not hard. To Ron Dean's list of explanations, I would
add 5) observer bias.

All of this leaves untouched the most profound question of metaphysics:
why is there something rather than nothing? I don't think we are much
closer to answering that than we were 5,000 years ago.