What is also remarkable is the precision of the calculations behind the discovery. The constants of the universe, the very laws governing physics as we know it, can be stated in mathematical equations to the point where the approximate location and mass of the Higgs boson were found. Yet elation has given way to a reluctant admissionâand thoughts of throwing out what's been found. As The Economist explains: "One problem [with the Higgs discovery] is that, as it stands, the [Standard] model requires its 20 or so constants to be exactly what they are to an uncomfortable 32 decimal places . Insert different values and the upshot is nonsensical predictions, like phenomena occurring with a likelihood of more than 100%" (p. 72, emphasis added throughout). It is mindboggling to contemplate this incredible degree of required cosmic fine-tuning. Why would scientists be "uncomfortable" with it? Because it logically leads to the best explanation of the factsâthat an ultra-intelligent Mind engineered and orchestrated all of it! In fact, most scientists today are evolutionists who won't allow the subject of God to enter the conversation. As Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once admitted: "âWe take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism [rejection of the existence of anything divine or supernatural]. "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori [presumptive] adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door" ("Billions and Billions of Demons," The New York Review, Jan. 9, 1997, p. 31). http://www.ucg.org/science/god-science-and-bible-higgs-boson-evidence-universes-fine-tuning/
I know you are looking for stu, but I have seen all this and there are many counterarguments. I am not convinced, but I am not going to debate this either. http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf
1. the higgs boson makes the case stronger than before it... stenger is one of the few top physicists who denies the fine tuning... but if you really read what he says... he does not do a very good job of denying it. but... if you read his paper... he only addresses a few points and he virtually admits he can not explain the fine tuning of the cosmological constant and in the end... his explanation for the fine tunings is the speculation that there could be almost infinite other universes. So its faith to explain the fine tuning. here is a more in depth critique... which cites a paper. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-fine-tuning-a-fallacy/
jem, we don't know what the independant variables are, the question is unanswered really. In other words all this constants could be related by a unified theory, giving the illusion of fine tuning. the anthropic priciple is also discounted
sure .. a theory of everything could explain the tuning... but a TOE might just illustrate a very elegantly chosen precision. The fact of the matter is... that as far as science knows... it seems absolutely beyond luck that all these constants are tuned to such a fine degree. Why else would some many dozens of top scientists get on board with the idea of almost infinite other universes... even though they are unseen and untested.
It's the appearance of fine tuning Jem. The multiverse theory was not created to counter the fine tuning argument. It is a consequence of the no boundary condition and according to Stephen Hawking, ..."these (many universes) are just different expressions of Feynman sum over histories." (The Grand Design p 136) If there are many universes, then it does make the fine tuning of our universe appear unremarkable. But even though, if there is a creator, a God if you will, then if there are many universes, they are the product of the Creator. However it breaks down, get Higgy with it!
So, it seems you must have faith that there are many universes of which ours is one in trillions that has order. Or, you have faith in a Deity which created the universe with the proper constants to make it have order. In the absence of any evidence for the former, it seems the latter is at least as plausible as the former if not more so. The logical next question is: 1) If multiple universes, where are they and how do we find them. Or 2) If a Deity, where is it and where did it come from.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf here is the paper which preceded that book... hawking plainly states... In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see. you quote is a reference to a multiverse... he uses the feynman sum over histories idea to explain why... even though anything is possible... we are just lucky that the path predicted in classical bottom up approach is also the path with the strongest likelyhood of happening in infinite universes.... as well. Nothing about the idea that you can sum up the histories posits that there really are infinite universes any more than the idea that the star trek writers dreamt up an alternate kirk and spock. So far no one has ever tested or found even 1 alternate universe...
Compact version of where debate with Jem goes. jem: 2+2=3 here's why 2+2 is not ..... jem: liar. Black is white no... jem: lying fucking troll liar. Wrong is right look... jem: you said 2+2=5. You lying trolling sockpuppet jeez... jem: 2+2=3