Sign in to follow this  
bornagainathiest

Is The Fine Tuned Universe (Argument) Leaky..?

Recommended Posts

bornagainathiest    2,727

Hello and welcome.

 

I reckon I've identified a serious flaw in this argument.

It's used by Christian apologists to (allegedly) demonstrate the existence of the God of the Bible.  But before I go any further, I'd like to make three polite requests of you, my fellow members.  

 

Please do not participate in this thread if you are unfamiliar with the workings of the Fine-Tuned Universe argument.

Please do not participate in this thread if you are unfamiliar with the basic workings of science and the scientific method.

Please do not participate in this thread if you are unfamiliar with the basics scientific concepts underpinning the expansion of the universe.

 

In making these requests I mean no offense and I am not trying to put anyone down or to be elitist.

If possible,  I'd like this thread to be where my claim about this flaw can be rigorously checked and tested by those members who are familiar these three things.  The need to explain the workings of any of them would (imho) slow the pace of this thread down to a crawl.  I hope you can appreciate and understand where I'm coming from on this.  If this pans out we Lions will have gained a new and powerful weapon to use in demolishing that particular apologetic argument.  

 

Thank you for your cooperation in this.

 

BAA.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your support
Buy Ex-C a cup of coffee!
Costs have significantly risen and we need your support! Click the coffee cup to give a one-time donation, or choose one of the recurrent patron options.
Note: All Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.
♦ ficino ♦    1,697

She already blinded me with science, but my ears are all open, BAA! Looking forward to what you plan on posting next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bornagainathiest    2,727

If you refer  back to this thread...  http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/76945-the-internet-as-a-truth/?page=6&_fromLogin=1  ...you'll see that the Christian OrdinaryClay (henceforth, OC) writes this.

 

The multiverse theories are unavailable to experimental verification because by definition we cannot observe between universes. So their empirical verification is outside science. This is explained in the book reference I posted earlier.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Science/dp/061891868X.

 

I responded to OC's claim like this.

 

Smolin is a clever man and would never propose something that violates the Laws of Energy Conservation.

But what you've described in this thread does exactly that.  The visual horizon which demarcates the edge of the observable universe is not a fixed barrier across which nothing passes.  Quite the opposite.  Since space is expanding and carrying galaxies with it, every day entire galaxies disappear over this 'edge' and vanish from the observable universe.  By your logic, these galaxies cease to be physical objects and become metaphysical constructs, beyond the reach of science.  If that's so, then according to you, the universe is leaking energy like a sieve.  But that would be a complete violation of Energy Conservation.  Energy cannot be created or destroyed.  But by asserting that these galaxies cease to have a physical existence... you are destroying energy.  Where is this energy going to, OC?

 

Needless to say, OC did not deign to answer me.

.

.

.

Now to the crux of the matter.

The validity of the Fine-Tuned Universe apologetic argument rests upon the definition of the word, 'UNIVERSE'.  Since the argument claims to be a properly scientific one,  it's definition of the universe must be a properly scientific one.   Such a definition cannot treat the observational edge of the universe in the way that OC does - as a physical boundary.   That is totally improper.  For the reasons I described.

 

So where does this leave the Christian supporters and promoters of the Fine-Tuned Universe argument?

In short, up the creek.  Why?   Because of this... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_problem_(cosmology)  (In case this link doesn't work, please Google, 'The Measure Problem in Cosmology, and follow the Wiki link.)  

 

Within a finite volume of space it is possible to assign a probability of an event occurring.

Within an infinite volume of space it is impossible to assign any probability to any event - because infinity cannot be meaningfully divided by any positive integer. 

Within an unknown volume of space it is impossible to assign any probability to any event - because the values involved are unknown.

 

Since cosmological science denies a finite volume of space for the Fine-Tuned universe argument to work with it therefore follows that this argument cannot be made.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joshpantera    588

In short, this doesn't work out any better for them than trying to argue Genesis as literally true....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
end3    483

Pretty mind bending stuff at the observable edge....light can't outpace the expansion?  I don't have any acid to drop to open my mind that far...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
end3    483
4 hours ago, end3 said:

Pretty mind bending stuff at the observable edge....light can't outpace the expansion?  I don't have any acid to drop to open my mind that far...

Here's a question please.  If there is expansion, wouldn't we assume that the greater volume....that this would mess with the conservation aspect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bornagainathiest    2,727

Posted 3 minutes ago

  4 hours ago, end3 said:

Pretty mind bending stuff at the observable edge....light can't outpace the expansion?  I don't have any acid to drop to open my mind that far...

 

Here's a question please.  If there is expansion, wouldn't we assume that the greater volume....that this would mess with the conservation aspect?

 

Ok End, I'll answer both of your points.  In two posts.

First, no acid is necessary.  All you need is to understand this.  As far as we can tell, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light through space.  But space itself can expand at any speed.  It can even expand f-a-s-t-e-r than light can travel through it.  So, when we see distant galaxies moving away from each other what's happening is that space itself is expanding, carrying the galaxies along for the ride.  The galaxies aren't moving through space faster than light, because (as far as we can tell) that's impossible.  

 

This explains how a very distant galaxy can (from our p.o.v.) outrace the light of it's stars.   

Usually some of that light would be headed our way.  But if the galaxy is being carried away from us by the expansion of space at more than the speed of light, then beyond a certain distance we'll never see any of that light.  To us, that galaxy has disappeared forever over our visual horizon.  Please understand that I'm not saying that the galaxy itself is travelling faster than light.  Nor am I saying that it's light is travelling faster than light-speed.  No, in both cases.  What I'm saying is that the space between us and that distant galaxy is expanding faster than the speed of light.  That's the all-important difference.

 

I can illustrate this tricky notion with an Earthly analogy.

Imagine a plane flying over the Atlantic, from New York to London.  It's maximum rated speed is 500 mph.  So, according to it's design and the power of it's engines it cannot exceed 500 mph.  That's it's absolute limit.  500 and no more.  So it takes 7 hours to fly the 3,500 miles between NY and London.  (3,500 divided by 500 = 7)  

 

But, there is a way that the plane can (theoretically) travel at... 750 mph!   How?   Here's how...  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream  "The wind speeds are greatest where temperature differences between air masses are greatest, and often exceed 92 km/h (50 kn; 57 mph) to over 398 km/h (215 kn; 247 mph) have been measured."   If the plane flies into the jet stream (which blows from west to east), it's speed can be accelerated by those fast-moving winds.  The plane itself isn't causing itself to move any faster than 500 mph.  Instead what's happening is that it's combined max speed (500) and the velocity of the jet stream (250) are being added together, yielding a greater speed relative to the distance between NY and London.  That distance hasn't changed, but now we can calculate a new time for the journey.  3,500 divided by 750 = 4.6.  That's 4.6 hours and not 7.  

 

See how it works, when it comes to the speed of light and distant galaxies?

Neither the galaxies, nor their light can travel any faster than the universal speed limit of light-speed.  But these galaxies aren't causing themselves to move through space faster than light.  The space itself between them and us is expanding faster and faster, adding up to more than light speed.  So the distance between them and us is increasing faster than their light can cross it.  To us it looks as if they're barrel-assing away from us under their own steam.  But it taint so! 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bornagainathiest    2,727
1 hour ago, end3 said:

Here's a question please.  If there is expansion, wouldn't we assume that the greater volume....that this would mess with the conservation aspect?

 

Second answer.

What appears to us as the edge of the universe isn't a real, physical boundary.  It's just a visual horizon beyond which we cannot see.  It's no more of a boundary or edge than the horizon in this pic.

scaletowidth

 

Ok, we know that the line of the horizon, between the sea and the sky isn't the actual edge of the world.

It's an observed edge.  In a similar way, what we casually refer to as... "the edge of the universe" ...isn't an actual edge.  It's an observed edge.  That's why astronomers talk about two different things.  The observable universe and the entire universe.  The first one is all that we can see.  The second one is everything else that we cannot see ...but which we infer to exist.  The observable universe is estimated to be 93 billion light years across.  

 

Nobody knows for sure what the real size of the entire universe is.

It could be a thousand or a million times larger than the observable universe or it could be infinitely large.  Nobody real knows.  And that's why we can't really say anything about the true volume of the entire universe.  To say if the volume of something is larger today than it was yesterday we need to know the difference between yesterday's volume and today's volume.  And we can only do that if we can assign a value to these two figures.  But since we can't see the actual edge or boundary of the entire universe (if there is one) we can't say anything meaningful about the difference between yesterday's volume and today's volume.  

 

Here's a pic that might help explain the problem.

flatness.gif

If our observable universe occupies only a tiny portion of one of the squares in the grid how can we possibly know anything about the entire volume of the sphere?  

The volume of the smallest sphere and the largest one would appear exactly the same to us.  We have no direct information about the entire whole to tell us if it's expanding or not.  So all we can safely say is that we see space expanding within the observable universe and we infer that it's also expanding elsewhere, beyond our visual horizon.  

 

And this is where OrdinaryClay's assertion falls down.

He claims that anything beyond our visual horizon (outside the observable universe) isn't real.  Isn't' physical.  He says that what we infer to exist beyond that horizon isn't real.   But if we take his logic and apply it to the galaxies that are being carried over that horizon, then by his faulty logic these galaxies were real yesterday - but aren't real today.   They've ceased to be real.  They've ceased to exist.  So his assertion and his logic are nonsensical.

 

By his broken logic, our observable universe has been 'leaking' galaxies for millions of year!

This is a total violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy.  According to that fundamental Law of Physics neither matter nor energy can be destroyed in this way.  Yet that is the illogical conclusion of his argument.  That's why this thread is about the leakiness of his argument.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knightcore    179

I know you wanted to keep this really academic BAA but I just wanted to say those are really solid explanations. I have a really hard time wrapping my head around more scientific things and that actually made a whole lot of sense to me so thank you for that!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bornagainathiest    2,727
1 hour ago, knightcore said:

I know you wanted to keep this really academic BAA but I just wanted to say those are really solid explanations. I have a really hard time wrapping my head around more scientific things and that actually made a whole lot of sense to me so thank you for that!

 

No problem, KC.    :)

 

End3 raised two very good points  ...points that deserved decent answers.

 

I'm glad that my replies were of help to you!

 

Cheers,

 

BAA.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am finding this fascinating too BAA although a little deep! Thanks for the time you are putting into it! :3:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joshpantera    588

And also what about the idea of the "end of the universe" against this framework? 

 

It would seem to stem that anyone talking about the end of our universe would be speaking within the same context of but one little square of observable universe on the example map. Even if there were some perceived end, would it not only be an end to one small fractional region of the entire universe (possibly infinite) and in the grand scheme not conceivably an "end of the universe" at all? 

 

I say that because many scientific commentaries will focus in on the beginning and end of the universe, likely all having been very wrong for having done so. And possibly in need of correction whenever the topic arises. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
end3    483
19 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

Posted 3 minutes ago

  4 hours ago, end3 said:

Pretty mind bending stuff at the observable edge....light can't outpace the expansion?  I don't have any acid to drop to open my mind that far...

 

Here's a question please.  If there is expansion, wouldn't we assume that the greater volume....that this would mess with the conservation aspect?

 

Ok End, I'll answer both of your points.  In two posts.

First, no acid is necessary.  All you need is to understand this.  As far as we can tell, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light through space.  But space itself can expand at any speed.  It can even expand f-a-s-t-e-r than light can travel through it.  So, when we see distant galaxies moving away from each other what's happening is that space itself is expanding, carrying the galaxies along for the ride.  The galaxies aren't moving through space faster than light, because (as far as we can tell) that's impossible.  

 

This explains how a very distant galaxy can (from our p.o.v.) outrace the light of it's stars.   

Usually some of that light would be headed our way.  But if the galaxy is being carried away from us by the expansion of space at more than the speed of light, then beyond a certain distance we'll never see any of that light.  To us, that galaxy has disappeared forever over our visual horizon.  Please understand that I'm not saying that the galaxy itself is travelling faster than light.  Nor am I saying that it's light is travelling faster than light-speed.  No, in both cases.  What I'm saying is that the space between us and that distant galaxy is expanding faster than the speed of light.  That's the all-important difference.

 

I can illustrate this tricky notion with an Earthly analogy.

Imagine a plane flying over the Atlantic, from New York to London.  It's maximum rated speed is 500 mph.  So, according to it's design and the power of it's engines it cannot exceed 500 mph.  That's it's absolute limit.  500 and no more.  So it takes 7 hours to fly the 3,500 miles between NY and London.  (3,500 divided by 500 = 7)  

 

But, there is a way that the plane can (theoretically) travel at... 750 mph!   How?   Here's how...  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream  "The wind speeds are greatest where temperature differences between air masses are greatest, and often exceed 92 km/h (50 kn; 57 mph) to over 398 km/h (215 kn; 247 mph) have been measured."   If the plane flies into the jet stream (which blows from west to east), it's speed can be accelerated by those fast-moving winds.  The plane itself isn't causing itself to move any faster than 500 mph.  Instead what's happening is that it's combined max speed (500) and the velocity of the jet stream (250) are being added together, yielding a greater speed relative to the distance between NY and London.  That distance hasn't changed, but now we can calculate a new time for the journey.  3,500 divided by 750 = 4.6.  That's 4.6 hours and not 7.  

 

See how it works, when it comes to the speed of light and distant galaxies?

Neither the galaxies, nor their light can travel any faster than the universal speed limit of light-speed.  But these galaxies aren't causing themselves to move through space faster than light.  The space itself between them and us is expanding faster and faster, adding up to more than light speed.  So the distance between them and us is increasing faster than their light can cross it.  To us it looks as if they're barrel-assing away from us under their own steam.  But it taint so! 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

But when we define "universe", are we not defining the scientific constants, to the best of our ability, within that definition?  Does the "space" have different properties?  Or do we know this?  Or am I thinking off path? 

 

Edit:  Wouldn't we assume because light travels x speed and matter moves at x speed, then the "space", the "void" has some measureable properties?

 

'Thx. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bornagainathiest    2,727
5 hours ago, end3 said:

But when we define "universe", are we not defining the scientific constants, to the best of our ability, within that definition?  Does the "space" have different properties?  Or do we know this?  Or am I thinking off path? 

 

Edit:  Wouldn't we assume because light travels x speed and matter moves at x speed, then the "space", the "void" has some measureable properties?

 

'Thx. 

 

Please hang in there,End.

 

I'll get back to you with answers, asap.

 

Promise!

 

BAA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bornagainathiest    2,727
On 20/09/2017 at 8:27 AM, Realist said:

I am finding this fascinating too BAA although a little deep! Thanks for the time you are putting into it! :3:

 

You're welcome, Realist. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bornagainathiest    2,727
21 hours ago, end3 said:

But when we define "universe", are we not defining the scientific constants, to the best of our ability, within that definition?  Does the "space" have different properties?  Or do we know this?  Or am I thinking off path? 

 

Edit:  Wouldn't we assume because light travels x speed and matter moves at x speed, then the "space", the "void" has some measureable properties?

 

'Thx. 

 

Back at last!  Thanks for your patience, btw End.  Now for your questions.

 

But when we define "universe", are we not defining the scientific constants, to the best of our ability, within that definition?

 

Yes, just so.

On Tuesday (my 2nd post) I referred to the observable universe and the entire universe.  We can see these scientific constants in action within the observable universe, but we can't say for sure if they hold good elsewhere, in the wider, entire universe.  Scientists measure these constants and then use that data to build up a working definition of what the universe is.   This definition works in two different ways, on two different levels.  The observable universe is defined as everything that is visible to us.  The scientific constants at work within the observable universe are part of our definition of it.  This definition is based on direct knowledge that can be tested.

 

Our definition of the wider, entire universe uses what we know about the observable universe as it's starting point and then infers that what is true here should also be true elsewhere.   

These inferences cannot be directly tested.  However, scientists employ the Copernican Principle to justify their use of inference about what they cannot see and cannot test.

 

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

 

I can explain further if you'd like, End.  Please lmk.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

p.s.

I'll deal with these points...

 

Does the "space" have different properties?  Or do we know this?  Or am I thinking off path? 

Edit:  Wouldn't we assume because light travels x speed and matter moves at x speed, then the "space", the "void" has some measureable properties?

 

...in a few hours.

 

Please maintain a holding pattern.

 

:)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bornagainathiest    2,727

Does the "space" have different properties?  Or do we know this?  Or am I thinking off path? 

 

So far as we know space has certain different properties that can be seen under special conditions, but never on Earth.

Although we can't see inside a black hole we believe that inside one of these bizarre objects, space itself becomes infinitely compressed.  Right down to no size at all.  Nothing.  Zip.  Nada.   At the other end of the scale galactic clusters are moving apart more and more quickly.  As I mentioned before, the fabric of space itself (whatever that is) is opening up between these clusters, causing each one to move away from it's neighbors.  

 

The view from any location would look the same.

Go a hundred trillion light years in any direction and every galactic cluster would seem to be moving away from wherever you are.  It looks as if you are stationary and that everything is moving away from you.  In reality, everything is moving away from everything else.  This is the expansion of the universe.  The very same expansion that is carrying galaxies along for the ride and beyond the visual 'edge' of the observable universe.  

 

So, space does indeed have some special properties.

It can be bent, warped and distorted.  It can be crushed and compressed to nothing.  It can be stretched and stretched and stretched some more, without breaking or rupturing.  It can expand faster than the speed of light.  Waves and ripples of gravitational energy can pass through space, just as sound waves pass through air.  We know some of these things by having seen them happen and we can infer some of these other things because of what our theories tell us.  

 

Here's an example of space being warped by the intensely-strong gravity of a massive galaxy.  

The light from a blue-white galaxy behind the yellow-colored one is being distorted into a horseshoe shape.

A_Horseshoe_Einstein_Ring_from_Hubble.JPG

 

Here's a link to the LIGO facility.  http://www.ligo.org/news.php

These scientists listen in to the ripples and waves of gravitational energy travelling through space.

 

Here's a link to the Event Horizon Telescope.  http://eventhorizontelescope.org/

Sometime soon (possibly in a few months) they'll announce if they've been able to image the ultra-massive black hole that sits at the center of the Milky Way, our home galaxy.  Of course they can't see inside the damn thing because it doesn't give off any light and it swallows all light entering it.  But they hope to see the effects it has on it's surroundings.  Time will tell.  

 

So in conclusion End, space has different properties... but only in extreme conditions. 

 

Thanks, 

 

BAA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bornagainathiest    2,727

Wouldn't we assume because light travels x speed and matter moves at x speed, then the "space", the "void" has some measurable properties?

 

Exactly.

But we don't need to assume everything about the way light and matter move through space.  Some things we can (and have) tested, here in specially equipped labs on Earth.  Other tests have been done in orbit or on the Moon.  Further tests have been and are being done by probes to all of the planets and also by the Voyager spacecraft, which are now well beyond the edge of the solar system.  Astronomers carefully monitor events in deep space via their telescopes.  All of this data goes into our understanding of the nature of the 'void' of space.  

 

This understanding is still in it's earliest stages and we have much to learn.

However, there have been some notable successes.  In certain situations we can make predictions about what we expect to see when certain events occur thousands and even billions of light years away.  Here are two of my favorite examples of spectacularly-confirmed predictions.

 

   http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/60105-a-challenge-to-funguyrye/   

In 1987 John Bahcall predicted that 'a few dozen' neutrino particles would detected from the supernova (a kind of exploding star) that occurred 168,000 light years away.  In all, 24 neutrinos were detected.  So his understanding of the measurable properties of space was right on the money!  

 

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

In 2014 the light of this supernova was seen to have been distorted and split into four different images, in a similar way to the 'horseshoe' galaxy image I posted earlier.  Three different teams of scientists (Jauzac, Diego and Grillo) calculated exactly how space was being warped and then predicted when (approximately) and where (exactly) a fifth image of that explosion would appear in the sky.

 

http://authors.library.caltech.edu/65415/2/1512.04654v1.pdf  

Please scroll down to page # 6 of this pdf file and look at figure # 3.  There you will see two red circles (Jauzac and Diego) a green circle (Grillo) and a red cross ( + ).   The circles are where each of three teams predicted that the fifth image of the supernova would appear.  The cross is where it actually appeared.  As you can see, all three circles overlap, meaning that all three teams got it exactly right.  So, their understanding of the measurable properties of highly-warped space, across a distance of 9.34 billion light years, was spot on!

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
disillusioned    752

BAA, I think you're right that the fact that we don't know the actual volume of the universe is a real problem for the teleological argument. It's not the only problem for that argument either. I think that the argument appeals to our sensibilities, but ultimately doesn't obtain anything. It falls apart on inspection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bornagainathiest    2,727
9 hours ago, disillusioned said:

BAA, I think you're right that the fact that we don't know the actual volume of the universe is a real problem for the teleological argument. It's not the only problem for that argument either. I think that the argument appeals to our sensibilities, but ultimately doesn't obtain anything. It falls apart on inspection.

 

Thanks, D.   In connection with your point...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_problem_(cosmology)

 

This is a major problem for theists, like OrdinaryClay.

Provided that he samples only the observable universe, he then has a known volume of space within which to point out the many (apparent) examples of fine-tuning.  From this (apparent) abundance of examples he then goes on to conclude that these examples indicate the hand of God.   His God, specifically.  The God of the Bible.  Quite why another God isn't indicated isn't explained by him.

 

But OC is no fool.  

He knows that the fine-tuned universe argument only works if you have a known volume of space to work with.  That's why he applies his false and arbitrary cut-off of the edge of the observable universe - deeming anything beyond that limit to be a metaphysical construct.  Since the fine-tuning argument deals only with the physical, he's succeeded in dividing reality up into two regions.  The physical observable universe and the metaphysical entire universe.  Discarding the metaphysical he then samples only the known volume of the observable universe.

 

However, he falls foul of the Laws of Energy Conservation and the Copernican Principle, by carrying out this sneaky maneuver.

And there's another stumbling block for him, D.  His own support for this...  https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012  He uses the conclusion of this paper (that Inflation is not past-eternal) to insert his God into that gap and claim that the Inflation couldn't have begun naturally, but required a supernatural beginning.  (Once again, quite why this supernatural initiator of Inflation has to be the God of the Bible is not explained by him.)  

 

Alas for OC, that paper properly and rightly conforms to the Laws of Energy Conservation and the Copernican Principle.

Which impales him on the horns of a dilemma.  He can't continue to support that paper while maintaining his observable-universe-only line of demarcation for the fine tuned universe argument. These are two mutually incompatible positions.  He is contradicting himself.

 

Anyway, back to the Measure Problem.

Since using only observable universe as a sample for the fine-tuned universe argument is ruled out, the only other viable option is to use the entire universe.  But as you point out... we don't know the real extent of it.  Therefore, no measure of the likelihood of any event or any physical phenomenon is possible.  Without such a measure it's not possible to say if any given region of the entire universe is any more finely-tuned for life than any other other.  Nor is it possible to say that we inhabit the best-tuned region.  There could be others that are far less hostile to life.  In short, without a viable method of evaluating the odds, no argument for fine-tuning can be made at all.  Game over!

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joshpantera    588
7 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

But OC is no fool.  

He knows that the fine-tuned universe argument only works if you have a known volume of space to work with.  That's why he applies his false and arbitrary cut-off of the edge of the observable universe - deeming anything beyond that limit to be a metaphysical construct.  Since the fine-tuning argument deals only with the physical, he's succeeded in dividing reality up into two regions.  The physical observable universe and the metaphysical entire universe.  Discarding the metaphysical he then samples only the known volume of the observable universe.

 

So in this instance, the metaphysical (entire universe) is nothing more than the physical (observable universe) which has 'receded' out of observable view. 

 

physical / material (us) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ( edge of observation) <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< (them) metaphysical / spiritual 

 

So what is the implication of this assertion? 

 

Both are actually physical, the only difference between one or the other is whether or not we can observe some aspect of the physical within our particular range of observation.

 

If we were to travel far out from the earth, our range of observation would widen. What was previously metaphysical from the vantage point of earth, would become physical upon our ability to observe it. And likewise, to some alien life out there beyond our observable range of the entire universe (them) , we (us) would exist as metaphysical to "them" according to the edge of the universe assertion. 

 

But are we metaphysical just because we're out of range for some alien life out there to observe?

 

Even more to the point, is anything metaphysical simply because it's beyond the observational ability of fixed point in space? 

 

Are you sure OC is no fool? 

 

It looks to me like OC is fool enough to have started digging a deeper hole for himself in the process of trying to get himself out of a hole, a problem quit common to christian thinkers.... 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bornagainathiest    2,727
2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

So in this instance, the metaphysical (entire universe) is nothing more than the physical (observable universe) which has 'receded' out of observable view. 

 

physical / material (us) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ( edge of observation) <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< (them) metaphysical / spiritual 

 

So what is the implication of this assertion? 

 

OC's assertion violates the Copernican Principle, Josh.

 

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Both are actually physical, the only difference between one or the other is whether or not we can observe some aspect of the physical within our particular range of observation.

 

Yes.

And it's only the location of a given observer (us or them) that decides where the line of demarcation between physical and metaphysical is drawn.  Two observers, both just within the radius of each other's observable horizon will declare both themselves and each other to be physical.  Two observers, both beyond the radius of each other's observable horizon will declare themselves to be physical, but each other to be mere metaphysical constructs.  This is the kind of nonsense that results from taking the edge of one's observable universe as a true edge of reality.

 

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

If we were to travel far out from the earth, our range of observation would widen. What was previously metaphysical from the vantage point of earth, would become physical upon our ability to observe it. And likewise, to some alien life out there beyond our observable range of the entire universe (them) , we (us) would exist as metaphysical to "them" according to the edge of the universe assertion. 

 

Yes.

As you travel through space, aliens living on planets ahead of you would change from metaphysical to physical as the leading edge of your observable horizon moves with you.  They would 'pop' into reality as your horizon swept over them.  Likewise, aliens living on planets behind you would cease to be physical as the trailing edge of your observable horizon moves with you.  If you looked into your rear-view mirror you'd see them blink out of existence as your horizon swept over them.  This is also the kind of nonsense that results from taking the edge of one's observable universe as a true edge of reality.

 

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

But are we metaphysical just because we're out of range for some alien life out there to observe?

 

OrdinaryClay doesn't play by the rules of the CP, remember?

According to those rules ALL observers, ANYWHERE in the entire universe must be on an equal footing.  But OC violates that by making us the physical center of reality.  For the record, he denies the possibility of intelligent alien life.  He firmly believes that life cannot arise naturally, anywhere in the universe and has done so only once, here on Earth because God supernaturally caused it to do so.

 

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Even more to the point, is anything metaphysical simply because it's beyond the observational ability of fixed point in space? 

 

Are you sure OC is no fool? 

 

It looks to me like OC is fool enough to have started digging a deeper hole for himself in the process of trying to get himself out of a hole, a problem quit common to christian thinkers.... 

 

 

 

Yes and No.

The only fixed point in space OC cares about is this one.  The planet Earth.  So to him, everything beyond our visual horizon is metaphysical, not physical.  No other fixed point in the observable or entire universe is of interest to him.

 

shareasimage.png

 

Oy vey!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this