tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post2184250806535729574..comments2024-01-04T11:40:48.827-06:00Comments on Dr Michael G Strauss: An Introduction to the Anthropic Principle and Fine TuningMichael G Strausshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-12528496719649435462018-02-17T17:09:04.366-06:002018-02-17T17:09:04.366-06:00Sure unlikely things happen. But there are still p...Sure unlikely things happen. But there are still problems with that explanation because unlikely things only happen if there is a large data set, and the more valuable the outcome, the more one questions the outcome of an unlikely outcome. As far as we know there is only one universe so we have only one data point. If there is a multiverse, that refines the argument somewhat, though it still doesn't eliminate the argument. But with only one improbable known universe, the atheist must try to appeal to the unknown to argue there is a multiverse so we are in an improbable one. But since no multiverse is known, this is simply an "atheism of the gaps" argument based on philosophical bias, not observational evidence. Second, the higher the stakes, the more an unlikely event seems designed. If your poker opponent gets a royal flush at the one time when everyone is all in, it seems much more contrived than if she gets a royal flush when there is little money in the pot.<br /><br />The fine tuning argument is real and can't simply be explained by being the correct lottery winner because as far as we know, the lottery has only been played once. I recommend the book "A Fortunate Universe" by Geraint Lewis and Luke Barnes for a very complete discussion of this.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-71769688527497730612018-02-15T09:21:47.216-06:002018-02-15T09:21:47.216-06:00Thank you for a wonderful post. I am a Christian, ...Thank you for a wonderful post. I am a Christian, but I struggle with the Fine Tuning argument. I believe the universe is fine tuned, but I also don't see it as a good argument to convince an unbeliever. Take the firing squad example. If that happened to me, I would be surprised because the odds of something like that happening is so low, but, at the same time I would also accept that unlikely things can happen. The odds of winning the mega-lottery is incredibly low, but I don't think the winner necessarily believes that he/she won by anything other than chance and that they might say "there must have been an invisible hand guiding the person picking the number because the odds of me winning are so low." Can you help me in my thinking? Thanks.The Theisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03155472166345005836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-69827793700388046112017-09-26T09:34:25.890-05:002017-09-26T09:34:25.890-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Natehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08761582051547496633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-34266996364376171402017-09-26T09:09:40.700-05:002017-09-26T09:09:40.700-05:00Here is another example. In their book "Rare ...Here is another example. In their book "Rare Earth" Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee show why tectonic activity is absolutely necessary for higher life forms like us to exist. Consequently, any planet with higher life forms must have earthquakes or that life could not exist. <br /><br />Would you prefer there wasn't a sun? That wouldn't be good. Would you prefer there wasn't an ice cap? That wouldn't be good. Would you prefer a planet that didn't rotate so there were no winds? That wouldn't be good. <br /><br />Given the constraints of biological systems we do live in a paradise. Ward and Brownlee (non-theists) even call our earth a "Garden of Eden."Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-68796980861440348382017-09-26T08:58:13.224-05:002017-09-26T08:58:13.224-05:00You need to argue with the expert who I am paraphr...You need to argue with the expert who I am paraphrasing. I'm not the one who made those statements.<br /><br />Of course, the conditions that create hurricanes, tornados, etc. are required for our existence on earth.<br /><br />Please read Isaiah 45:5-7, particularly verse 7 and we can discuss this more. (I prefer NASB or NIV for my translation).Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-10064783655499653122017-09-26T08:47:21.744-05:002017-09-26T08:47:21.744-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Natehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08761582051547496633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-69346539043135082692017-09-26T08:30:42.575-05:002017-09-26T08:30:42.575-05:00It is interesting you bring this up. I was watchin...It is interesting you bring this up. I was watching a news magazine show on CBS this week where an expert on climate and development was talking about the deaths in Houston due to Hurricane Harvey. He attributed them all to poor decisions made by humans who primarily built where they shouldn't and neglected to build proper water barriers. He said all of the death and destruction could have been avoided if humans made better decisions despite the ferocity of the hurricane. The expert would argue the real problem is not the hurricane but the human decisions based primarily on financial considerations to maximize profit.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-2869856347566774582017-09-26T08:24:57.048-05:002017-09-26T08:24:57.048-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Natehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08761582051547496633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-47637990359919108112017-09-25T06:32:30.202-05:002017-09-25T06:32:30.202-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Natehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08761582051547496633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-8962829864712337762017-09-24T21:40:02.800-05:002017-09-24T21:40:02.800-05:00Nate, I can respond to each of these with what I t...Nate, I can respond to each of these with what I think are reasonable answers. Some are in my blog already. But what good would it do? What answers are you actually seeking? Look at my post on "A Small Big Universe" for why it took so long for humans to arrive. Look at that same post about the Saturn V on the answer to parts of the universe or earth that are inhospitable to life. Meteors are really important for providing elements to the earth. I'm sure you can look that up. Bacteria are mandatory for our existence. <br /><br />Some of these questions seem to me to not be genuine and/or quite naive. Do you really want to give up bacteria for instance? You'd die without the appropriate bacteria in your gut. Do you want a planet without 70% water when that is just about the perfect amount to support higher life forms? Just look up on the internet the need for us to have oceans for our existence. <br /><br />This list is really almost a list of necessary requirements for our existence that all fall into finely-tuned ranges rather than some indictment against fine-tuning.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-11044933903564166422017-09-12T06:57:12.589-05:002017-09-12T06:57:12.589-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Natehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08761582051547496633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-48593165047531792802017-05-23T09:03:23.161-05:002017-05-23T09:03:23.161-05:00I'm not sure what your point is. The big bang ...I'm not sure what your point is. The big bang is the "alternative" to a naturalistic explanation for the beginning of our universe. I encourage you to read my post titled "Should the Big Bang be disdained?" The 10**120 fine tuning even gives more evidence for a designer as well.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-38976259374645063732017-05-22T11:14:37.599-05:002017-05-22T11:14:37.599-05:00According to Michel Brooks
"13 Things that d...According to Michel Brooks <br />"13 Things that don't make sense" the actual value of the vacuum energy of space is only 1/10**120 different from the theoretical value. So is the big bang refuted? No! It must be that the alternative is too offensive to scientifically beliefs.<br />Alan Montgomeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14141624883968418873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-76392989985802286602017-04-18T19:08:06.675-05:002017-04-18T19:08:06.675-05:00The most recent estimate or count states there are...The most recent estimate or count states there are roughly 20,000 genes in teh human genome. To say the human genome is fine tuned is an understatement since we know the malformation in gestation most frequently results in deficiency, malformation, disease, death, deformity or a life of diminished function,pain and early death. Originally a perfect genome created by God now diminished and susceptible all its existence to mutation followed in many cases by the most serious diseases onset. The ultimate example of a God designed tuning of 20,000 "parameters" and their sensitivity to perturbation.<br /><br />Keithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16219283160015859565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-80626246692419588982017-04-12T06:58:52.505-05:002017-04-12T06:58:52.505-05:00I like your son's project. That is a great way...I like your son's project. That is a great way to illustrate the fine-tuning principle. As far as your question is concerned, it is almost impossible to give a definitive answer to the number of fine tuning parameters. I usually say about 100, or dozens, based on the items discussed in Barrow and Tiplers' book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. In his 1999 book, Just Six Numbers, Martin Rees lists six dimensionless constants that give overall fine-tuning to the universe. On the Reasons To Believe web site, Hugh Ross has compiled a list of 322 parameters necessary for a planet to support higher life forms. So I think it depends on how you try to classify the fine tuning. I'm comfortable with saying about 100 based on Barrow and Tipler's book. Although you could argue there are only six based on Rees's book, I think that is an under-estimation since I'm not sure it would include all important processes necessary for life like the formation of carbon as part of a star's life cycle, or the parameters necessary to create a planet suitable for higher life forms.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-23655011875905794582017-04-11T11:19:46.727-05:002017-04-11T11:19:46.727-05:00How many of these parameters have actually been te...How many of these parameters have actually been tested for fine tuning? To illustrate this for my school age son's science project, I had him bake several batches of cookies, each time varying one ingredient up or down by a small amount. He called it a "A Cookie Universe" and successfully demonstrated the fine tuning principle. Now, if we could only do this with as many of the real parameters, wouldn't that give skeptics an empirical problem to explain. Dr Nick Tavanihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14234656246575972661noreply@blogger.com