It's pointless to quote Weinberg, Hawking, or Penrose as long as you don't understand what they are saying. That's why I've tried to explain that to you. I was apparently not successful. I don't even know what you think that they mean, as you just repeat quotes with the word "fine-tuning" in them. I can only assure you that they are not talking about supernatural miracles, and if you think they are, you must have seriously misunderstood something.
i did not just quote them.. I gave you videos.. Even weinberg who holds out against the fine tuning of other constants says he argues that idea against scientists who say they are fine tuned. if you wish to explain something to me... rather than saying Penrose did not say that... show me some work of penrose which contradicts his video. I can give dozens of quotes from the top scientists saying our universe appears designed. But, I just gave you videos. What more do you need? you are not accepting plain english and science. And you are missing the point. Our universe appears fine tuned. Whether there is a Tuner or there is another explanation is what the science is about right now. -- "Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: âEveryone has their own reason why theyâre keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.â But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isnât conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire? Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it âan abdication of human intelligence.â That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid âthe overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.â But even if you donât go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why." http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
Yes, but the vast majority of relevant scientists, including Einstein, Penrose and Hawking, are atheists. Thus they don't believe in a fine tuner. So you can stop arguing a moot point.
Well, then just do it. In all your quotes and videos is no top scientist saying anything like that. All videos are only about the fine tuned physical constants, which have a perfectly normal reason - the anthropic principle - and have nothing to do with "designed". I have even tried to explain to you what Penrose and Weinberg particularly talk about. Again, Penrose was referring to string theory solutions and Weinberg to vacuum energy. Just listen to the videos again. No one was saying that the universe is or appears "designed". - On a more general note: You seem to insist that anything that science can't explain yet must be a miracle by god. It is true that today science can explain with certainty only about 70% of our universe. For the 30% rest there are no models yet. To name a few of the gaps: dark matter, dark energy, string theory solutions, vacuum energy, proton decay, CP violation, abiogenesis, and so on. For all this we have no commonly accepted models, or rather, we have too many models and not enough data to decide between them. You can now assume that in all those gaps sits a god and generates those phenomena by miracles. The problem with this is just that the gaps are shrinking fast, and your gods are shrinking with them. In 200 years from now most likely we'll have mathematical models for anything, there won't be such gaps anymore, and thus no god. It is futile to look in physics or cosmology for a reason of your god belief. Rather, look inside your head. I can probably explain to you why you believe in God. In this, there's no miracle involved either.
you don't know it but you just started down the path to understanding the argument. I bet you don't follow up this conversation. Answer the following.... 1. if there is only one universe how does the anthropic principle account for the appearance of fine tuning in our universe? vs. 2. if there is a multiverse how does the anthropic principle account for the appearance of fine tuning in our universe. you have not explained anything with any type of link or support...I am still waiting for you to explain Penrose. In fact with respect to penrose... I am concerned you have no idea what you are saying.. here is some background on this subject from wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology) Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted. Nevertheless, several physicists, mathematicians and philosophers of science have voiced criticisms, claiming unfulfilled promises and lack of serious empirical support. In 1999, John Earman and Jesús MosterÃn published a thorough critical review of inflationary cosmology, concluding that âwe do not think that there are, as yet, good grounds for admitting any of the models of inflation into the standard core of cosmologyâ.[96] Since 1999 the results of the WMAP mission in 2006 made the empirical case for cosmic inflation very compelling. In order to work, and as pointed out by Roger Penrose from 1986 on, inflation requires extremely specific initial conditions of its own, so that the problem (or pseudoproblem) of initial conditions is not solved: âThere is something fundamentally misconceived about trying to explain the uniformity of the early universe as resulting from a thermalization process. [â¦] For, if the thermalization is actually doing anything [â¦] then it represents a definite increasing of the entropy. Thus, the universe would have been even more special before the thermalization than after.â[97] The problem of specific or âfine-tunedâ initial conditions would not have been solved; it would have gotten worse. A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data we could get. It is significant that Paul J. Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics. He calls âbad inflationâ a period of accelerated expansion whose outcome conflicts with observations, and âgood inflationâ one compatible with them: âNot only is bad inflation more likely than good inflation, but no inflation is more likely than either. ⦠Roger Penrose considered all the possible configurations of the inflaton and gravitational fields. Some of these configurations lead to inflation ⦠Other configurations lead to a uniform, flat universe directly âwithout inflation. Obtaining a flat universe is unlikely overall. Penroseâs shocking conclusion, though, was that obtaining a flat universe without inflation is much more likely than with inflation âby a factor of 10 to the googol (10 to the 100) power!â[98]
Finely I wonder how you can say in no video does a scientist say our universe appears designed. I wonder if you are brain dead. ------ Susskind says in this video He state there are 4 possibilities to explain the knife's edge fine tuning... guess what one explanation is... 1. God (that is correct... susskind says it) 2. luck 3. megaverse/ multiverse 4. someday find a theory of everything. http://www.closertotruth.com/video-...Tuned-for-Life-and-Mind-Leonard-Susskind-/431 if you get blocked -- go to closertothetruth.com search on susskind then go to the second page of videos.
It's 2. The anthropic principle requires that observers can only exist in those locations of the multiverse where the physical constants allow complex structures, such as suns, planets, and life. No observer will be in a location where life can't exist. That's just plain logic. Just look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_Cyclic_Cosmology That's Penrose's theory. I am not familiar with Susskind, but I'd give the same 4 explanations. Or add explanation 5): 5. the universe sits on a back of a giant turtle that takes care of the fine tuning. If you have several explanations for something, remove the unlikely and you have the solution. I believe Sherlock Holmes said that.
BTW, you should not take too seriously what you read in Wikipedia about "inflatons" or CCC theory. Although inflation indeed happens, as it can be observed, no one knows its mechanism yet. There are dozens of different models and not enough data yet to decide. The same goes for Penrose's CCC - it's an outsider model with little observed data to back it up.
You implied the anthropic principle explains the tunings. here you are using the AP as sophistry. AP can only explains the tunings in a multiverse situation. In and of itself AP does not explain why Our universe appears fine tuned.
2. Penrose is still suggesting multiverse... and from your cite I saw nothing contradicting the appearance of fine tuning. 3. I have no problem if you have a plausible reason for adding to a list of plausible reasons for the fine tunings. If I narrow the list of explanations for the fine tunings... ... We have - a. you can have faith we may have an explanation in the future. b. you can have faith in a Creator or c. faith in a Multiverse. You can therefore say the fine tunings may be evidence of a Creator or they may be evidence of a Multiverse.