Lol ...and true is defined as right, and right is defined as true, and circular reasoning is true because circular reasoning is right. ..and on being unable to support that failed argument, the best you can do is insult. Well done.... a Relativistic one then, not an Absolute troll like yourself.
1. correct... ricter... an that appearance can be explained in one of 4 ways... see the susskind video a page or 2 back. Note... however if you use the term fine tuning as a scientist... there is no question our universe is fine tuned. Weinberg explained in a video... there is no doubt our universe is fined tuned for human life. I showed a video of Penrose saying it a few pages back. To scientists... the question is what caused the fine tuning. 2. Stu is such a troll he is implying natural forces are not created by either random chance or design but he won't explain... what besides random chance or a designer could be the root cause of his natural forces. He won't elaborate because he knows it show his troll bullshit. Now, to hide his moronic argument he is trying to wade into a debate about the hoped for Theory of Everything. But I have explain that to him via video with top a top scientist... the Theory of Everything which has not been found my not shine any light on the random chance vs design argument anyway. You may still be able ask why is the Theory of Everything still set just perfectly. To those not versed in the science his specious argument sounds ok. To those who have educated themselves a bit in the science... he is a troll.
1. so now you are admitting there is fine tuning.... what is that the second time in 7 years you have told the truth? your statement here was a lie... correct? "Talking about "the fine tuning of our universe" is not talking science. It's talking unfounded presumption." 2. So you now you HOPE to find a theory of everything to explain the incredible fine tuning of the constants... That is one of the 4 possible explanations. Tuner multiverse theory of everything showing us why it had to be that way. (sort of like the hopes we had for string theory) impossible luck note... if you argue for any of these explanations in particular you are hoping or having faith.
I don't care if we use appearance or our universe is... but... you all have to understand fine tuning has become a term in the scientific lexicon. Pretty much by defintion our universe is fine tuned. However, if you are talking to layman and speaking of an explanation you say our universe appears extremely fine tuned. The science says we are fine tuned... I have presented this dozens of times now... This is science not stu's bullshit... 1. We only have one universe that we know about. Our standard model of physics is extremely fine tuned. That is not an appearance of fine tuning.. .its 20 or more very finely tuned constants that have been experimentally confirmed by CERN. The extremely fine tuned constants were used to predict the appearance of a higgs boson. The CERN LHC created experimental proof of the extreme fine tuning when the standard model of physics was used to predict where the higgs boson could be located. There were 20 or more constants tuned to 30 decimal places and the one is tuned to 100 decimal places. 2. You also just saw the penrose video. He is one of the smartest men on the planet when it comes to this stuff. He explained absolutely stunning fine tuning a few pages back. 3. I have presented other physicists like steven weinberg saying there is no doubt our universe is extremely fine tuned for life. 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." He also states that "'anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because biogenesis occurs frequently".[17] Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of explanations have been proposed, such as the anthropic principle along with multiple universes. George F. R. Ellis states "that no possible astronomical observations can ever see those other universes. The arguments are indirect at best. And even if the multiverse exists, it leaves the deep mysteries of nature unexplained."[18] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuning 5. In theoretical physics, fine-tuning refers to circumstances when the parameters of a model must be adjusted very precisely in order to agree with observations. Theories requiring fine-tuning are regarded as problematic in the absence of a known mechanism to explain why the parameters happen to have precisely the needed values. The heuristic rule that parameters in a fundamental physical theory should not be too fine-tuned is called naturalness.[1][2] Explanations often invoked to resolve fine-tuning problems include natural mechanisms by which the values of the parameters may be constrained to their observed values, and the anthropic principle. The idea that Naturalness will explain fine tuning was brought into question by Nima Arkani-Hamed, a theoretical physicist, in his talk 'Why is there a Macroscopic Universe?', a lecture from the mini-series "Multiverse & Fine Tuning" from the "Philosophy of Cosmology" project, A University of Oxford and Cambridge Collaboration 2013. In it he describes how naturalness has usually provided a solution to problems in physics; and that it had usually done so earlier than expected. However, in addressing the problem of the cosmological constant, naturalness has failed to provide an explanation though it would have been expected to have done so a long time ago. The necessity of fine-tuning leads to various problems that do not show that the theories are incorrect, in the sense of falsifying observations, but nevertheless suggest that a piece of the story is missing. For example, the cosmological constant problem (why is thecosmological constant so small?); the hierarchy problem; the strong CP problem, and others. An example of a fine-tuning problem considered by the scientific community to have a plausible "natural" solution is the cosmological flatness problem, which is solved if inflationary theory is correct: inflation forces the universe to become very flat, answering the question of why the universe is today observed to be flat to such a high degree.
What do you need explaining? I am not implying natural forces must be created by either random chance or design. You are. What's happening is, you are arguing that I am arguing random chance, when it's obvious I'm doing no such thing. Natural forces are forces that are natural. A natural consequence of their essential qualities is the "root cause" as you put it, of natural forces. (Perhaps you should think of them being like your imaginary God ....creating, powerful, omniscient, only...natural forces are observed and do actually exist. ) Inevitable is not random. Inevitable is incapable of being avoided or prevented, while random may or may not be. So the inevitable outcomes of natural forces are not random and not chance.Otherwise they couldn't be inevitable. How come you need this stuff explaining to you!? The implications are that an inevitable outcome means imaginary design God is not needed, and that's why you blindly, un-intelligently and illogically try to pin random chance onto things that are if anything, quite the opposite. Now, you explain how inevitable outcomes, are not inevitable outcomes but random chance outcomes, and how natural forces are not natural but unnatural and synthetic after being supernaturally fiddled with by some God wizard or other. The only one arguing for random chance here is you. Fine-tuning has been used by some scientists to characterize situations where a lack of information means parameters have to be adjusted to precise values in order to fit with observations. Such values are in scientific terms, unsatisfactory, problematical, and so far, unexplained, unresolved work in progress. Fine Tuning also represents the unscientific pseudo science of some religious types who so desperately need a god creator they'll claim science says things it doesn't, such as 'the universe is incredibly fine tuned', when there is no science anywhere to confirm it is. In all of science, the question why there is something rather than nothing, and why the universe exists, is addressed and evidenced in terms of the inevitable outcome of natural forces in the observed universe and physical world. There is in the whole of science, no science that says any different. That the universe could have been magicked by an in-explainable, imaginary God designer wizard is not science, is no explanation at all and belongs in fairy tale books of the dark ages not the 21st century.
saying natural forces could create the universe and life... without explaining how the natural forces became natural forces or what they are is the same as saying a Creator did it. I present the science. you write specious non scientific troll shit... well
I've already given explanation. naturally - of course. they are natural. At this point you really gotta ask yourself why are you struggling with this so much. Also pointed out was the science in quantum mechanics which explains how everyday atomic event stuff commonly occurs naturally, spontaneously, without cause. Natural can't be natural - if some creator tuner god had created it. Then it would be supernatural, and very unnatural.