The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

[he_who_is_nobody]

Again, the Fine-Tuning Argument states this universe is perfect for life, yet you keep making analogies demonstrating that either things are not perfect because the creator has limits or the creator does not care to make something perfect for X in the first place. You have to realize that you are proving my point every time you create this analogies by now. Do not be upset with me, because I am pointing out the logical short comings of your analogies; the faults lies with you. Maybe just drop the analogies all together, since you always argue my side with them. You know what works better than analogies? Evidence. .

however you are still saying that perfect necessary imples "that contains 100% of life" you haven done anything to support that claim.

I have never claimed that. What I have claimed is that claiming X is perfect for Y when X only supports less than one percent of Y is asinine. In what way is something containing less than one percent of something else perfect for that something else? As I have already stated, that strongly implies whatever X is, Y was not made for it, thus cannot be perfect for it. You are the one that is trying to claim that something perfect made X for Y well readily admitting that Y is only in less than one percent of X. This is something you need to square with your beliefs.

Again, that definition states things should be perfect for life if Fine-Tuning is true, yet you readily admit that this universe is not perfect for life. Thus, I am not sure how you can claim this universe is finely-tuned when you readily admit this universe is not perfect for life. Other universes are irrelevant at this point since we both already agree to this.

you are obviously not following, the conversation.

My statement was that even if this where the only possible universe, the universe would still be finally tuned. nothing in the definition of fine tuning suggest otherwise.

So unless you quote form the definition anything that suggest otherwise, you have to admit that you where wrong on that point.

How is this universe fine-tuned when you have failed to present any evidence that it is fine-tuned? All you have done is proclaimed it to be so. Now you need to demonstrate that those initial conditions were fine-tuned. The fact that you keep side stepping this leads me to believe that you cannot.

We already agreed on what fine-tuning means and we agreed on what the initial conditions of our universe were. Thus, the next step is you demonstrating that the initial conditions were finely-tuned. How many times does that have to be spelled out to you? The fact that you have not attempted this next step, but only proclaimed it, strongly suggests you have nothing but an empty bag. Again, whenever you are ready, I will be happy to look at your evidence or evidence.

Ok, and if for example gravity would have been 1% stronger this would be a life prohibiting universe, this is what it is meant by fine tuning, given that you agree with this statement, you also agree that the universe is finely tuned.

:facepalm:

All you have is a counterfactual conditional to offer up? I pointed this out in the blog and yet you still rely on this logical fallacy? That means after months of this we are back at square one of you trying to get out of meeting your burden? How pathetic.

If the queen had balls, he would be the king. Again, we have a universe sample of one. You do not know that the initial condition can be anything else, nor do you know that if we change them what that would lead to besides being different from ours. In order for this to work, you need to demonstrate other universes exist, that they can be different, those differences do lead to life not existing, and the initial conditions we see here are the best set possible. Please meet your burden and stop relying on logical fallacies.

Beyond all this, I need to point something out:

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.

This is the definition of Fine-Tuning that we agreed too. See how that states that our models are fine-tuned and not the universe? That means simply agreeing with the definition of fine-tuning does not mean I agree that the initial conditions of our universe were fine-tuned. Yes, our models need to be fine-tuned, but the map is not the terrain.

Just like I thought, no math, just empty assertions. What else was I expecting? Demonstrate using mathematics that you are not using a logical fallacy. Should be easy for you since you already know it is a fact. You even say it is demonstrably true, so demonstrate it is true. I can wait

.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

if you are unable to understand simple sentence, what makes you think that you can understand a mathematical proof?

Adorable. Made even more adorable by you demonstrating that you do not understand probability.

well this is my mathematical proof,

There are 3 possibilities regarding the fine tuning of the universe....

1 The FT of the universe is explained by design, the probability of this being true is X

2 The FT of the universe is caused by chance the probability of these being true is Y

3 The FT of the universe is caused by something else, it has an other explanation, the probability of Z


X+Y+Z = 100% agree? and each letter has a value bigger than 0%

Just like I predicted, you have incorrectly defined your sample space. Thank you for demonstrating that you do not know the first thing about probability. There are more than just three possibilities. Thus, one cannot just add up three options to find out there likelihood. This is the point of the Holmesian Fallacy, which you have just brilliantly demonstrated that you are making.

If "2" is falsified........then......

given that 2 was falsified...

The probability of 1 being true would be X + 0.5Y and the probability of 3 would be Z+0.5Y

given that X+0.5Y is necessarily grater than X one can easily conclude that I am correct, falsifying one competing hypothesis makes your hypothesis more probability true than before.

And this is were you fail. You would be correct if the only options we had were three. However, your third option in reality is nearing infinity in the amount of answers it can generate. Again, you are not correctly defining your sample space (i.e. garbage in, garbage out). You would first have to prove that there are only three options before your probability would be true. Again, his is the whole point of the Holmesian Fallacy, thank you once again for brilliantly demonstrating that you are making it. The fact that all current options could be wrong and a different option is the correct answer means the possible solutions nears infinity.

I am aware of the fact that I am oversimplifying the math, but feel free to use robust and more precise methods, the conclusion will remain the same falsifying 1 competing hypothesis makes your hypothesis more probably true than before.

Your failure comes from incorrectly defining your sample space, just like I predicted; which is why you are making the Holmesian Fallacy. Your example would be correct only if there were three options, since you cannot prove that, your sample space approaches infinity.

if you disagree please prove me wrong using your math.

I will give you another chance, because I do enjoy laughing at your hubris. Just an FYI: it would be X+Y+Z+∞ = 100%.

Nor does that fallacy state that something is true, it says something is believed to be true (i.e. more probably true). You even highlighted that part, thus on some level you have to know that you are full of shit when trying to make this argument. How pathetic can you honestly get? Again, let us see the math, because this sad attempt at semantics is beneath even you

once again, Reeeeeeeeed......

however it is still a fact that disproving 1 hypothesis makes other competitive hypothesis more probably true than before,

Read what? That you do not know what you are talking about? Again, you have incorrectly defined your sample space. Using a more correct sample space shows that before and after are irrelevant.

 

[leroy]

Greetings

You're still getting nowhere - the multiverse is still in play without BBs because it doesn't necessitate infinite time or universes.

Kindest regards,

James

Ok so before moving forward, do you admit that your previous world view of infinite time is wrong? do you admit that design is a better hypothesis than your previous hypothesis of infinite time and infinite universes?


there are many versions of the multiverse hypothesis, some of them are falsified by BBs others are not affected by the BBP. which version are you going to defend now?


so know that you have brand new world view, please explain this new world view and explain why is it better than design.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings

You're still getting nowhere - the multiverse is still in play without BBs because it doesn't necessitate infinite time or universes.

Kindest regards,

James

Ok so before moving forward, do you admit that your previous world view of infinite time is wrong? do you admit that design is a better hypothesis than your previous hypothesis of infinite time and infinite universes?

I never claimed that I believed the multiverse existed in infinite time and/or infinite universes.

The multiverse requires 10^500 universes as a minimum - this is a large though finite number of universes. Hence the BBP does not apply.

The design hypothesis is not better than any undesigned explanation.

there are many versions of the multiverse hypothesis, some of them are falsified by BBs others are not affected by the BBP. which version are you going to defend now?

so know that you have brand new world view, please explain this new world view and explain why is it better than design.

My "world view", as you call it, hasn't changed - any undesigned explanation is better than any designed one because they only require one or no explanation, whereas the designed ones require two. Since you can't provide evidence of a "designer" - of any kind - you can't win this argument.

There is no "fine-tuning" of the universe except in the heads of creationists/ID-ers - the term only refers to cosmological models being fine-tuned to fit their observations.

We exist because of the universe - not the other way round.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

The multiverse requires 10^500 universes as a minimum - this is a large though finite number of universes. Hence the BBP does not apply.

same problem, if there are 10^500 universes, then BBs are expected to exist, BBs are expected to be more vastly more abundant than normal brains and therefore you are almost certainly a BB.

so you still have these 3 options

1 change your world view

2 accept that you are a BB

3 Send some red herrings and try to avoid the question by changing the subject.

The design hypothesis is not better than any undesigned explanation.

why not? justify your claim.

I am making a very uncontroversial claim, all I am saying is that a hypothesis without evidence is better than a falsified hypothesis, so even if I never present evidence for design, it would still be better than a falsified hypothesis.

any undesigned explanation is better than any designed one because they only require one or no explanation, whereas the designed ones require two.

even if I grant that multiverse is more parsimonious than design, it is still a fact that an unparsimonious hypothesis is better than a falsified hypothesis.


by your logic, then you should accept that you are a BB, this is by far the most parsimonious explanation, all you need to explain is a single quantum fluctuation, you don't need to explain stars, planets, dark energy, dark matter, the origin of life, the origin of humans, nor anything else.

unless you believe that your are a BB, you most accept that parsimony is not the only, nor the most important criteria used to determine the best hypothesis.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

The multiverse requires 10^500 universes as a minimum - this is a large though finite number of universes. Hence the BBP does not apply.

same problem, if there are 10^500 universes, then BBs are expected to exist, BBs are expected to be more vastly more abundant than normal brains and therefore you are almost certainly a BB.

so you still have these 3 options

1 change your world view

2 accept that you are a BB

3 Send some red herrings and try to avoid the question by changing the subject.

The design hypothesis is not better than any undesigned explanation.

why not? justify your claim.

I am making a very uncontroversial claim, all I am saying is that a hypothesis without evidence is better than a falsified hypothesis, so even if I never present evidence for design, it would still be better than a falsified hypothesis.

How is the multiverse falsified by an hypothesis? You need to provide evidence that we are BBs - without that, the multiverse is not falsified.

any undesigned explanation is better than any designed one because they only require one or no explanation, whereas the designed ones require two.

even if I grant that multiverse is more parsimonious than design, it is still a fact that an unparsimonious hypothesis is better than a falsified hypothesis.


by your logic, then you should accept that you are a BB, this is by far the most parsimonious explanation, all you need to explain is a single quantum fluctuation, you don't need to explain stars, planets, dark energy, dark matter, the origin of life, the origin of humans, nor anything else.

unless you believe that your are a BB, you most accept that parsimony is not the only, nor the most important criteria used to determine the best hypothesis.

Evidence is the only criterion that matters.

We have evidence that the universe exists - you don't have evidence that a "designer" exists. Until you do, the naturalistic (undesigned) explanation is the default.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

]

I have never claimed that. What I have claimed is that claiming X is perfect for Y when X only supports less than one percent of Y is asinine. In what way is something containing less than one percent of something else perfect for that something else? As I have already stated, that strongly implies whatever X is, Y was not made for it, thus cannot be perfect for it. You are the one that is trying to claim that something perfect made X for Y well readily admitting that Y is only in less than one percent of X. This is something you need to square with your beliefs.

. .

And I already provided real life examples of things that contain less 1% of something and that no one would consider poor design. Pyramids contain less than 1% of dead bodies, but we al agree that pyramids require better and more talented designers than collective graves, even though collective graves contain 100% of dead bodies.

What you have to show is that less than 1% necessarily implies no design or at least imperfect design, your own personal opinion is not enough, please provide objective testable and falsifiable evidence or admit that you don't have such evidence.

How is this universe fine-tuned when you have failed to present any evidence that it is fine-tuned? All you have done is proclaimed it to be so. Now you need to demonstrate that those initial conditions were fine-tuned. The fact that you keep side stepping this leads me to believe that you cannot

Again, the problem is that you don't understand what is meant by fine tuning,

if the force of gravity would have been 1% stronger or weaker, this would be a life prohibiting universe, as long as you agree with this statement, you are agreeing with the fact that the force of gravity is FT for the existence of life permitting universes, ...........if you don't like the term fine tuning, feel free to use any other term.

the next step of the argument would be to show that design is the best explanation for the FT of the universe, but every time I try to make this step, you say something that forces me to go back to the previous step.

This is the definition of Fine-Tuning that we agreed too. See how that states that our models are fine-tuned and not the universe? That means simply agreeing with the definition of fine-tuning does not mean I agree that the initial conditions of our universe were fine-tuned. Yes, our models need to be fine-tuned, but the map is not the terrain.

Granted...
agreeing with the definition of FT does not necessary imply that you agree that there is a tuner (or a designer)............ is that what you meant?

if Your failure comes from incorrectly defining your sample space, just like I predicted; which is why you are making the Holmesian Fallacy. Your example would be correct only if there were three options, since you cannot prove that, your sample space approaches infinity

well provide your math and prove me wrong.

the Holmesian Falassy (HF) states that it is fallacious to conclude that something is true, just because other alternatives are disproven, given that I am not making that statement, I am not making the falsify.


In fact I thought of a very clever and verifiable way to prove that my statement is true,

Pretend that your hypothesis is that Brazil will win the Next Football tournament,

and my hypothesis is that Germany will be the winner.


obviously there are many other possible hypothesis, it could be that both of us are wrong.


However if Brazil gets eliminated form the tournament after the first round, my hypothesis becomes more probably true, than before Brazil's elimination. ....you can verify this at any point, all you have to do is go to any betting site and confirm this statement.

 

[leroy]

How is the multiverse falsified by an hypothesis? You need to provide evidence that we are BBs - without that, the multiverse is not falsified.

How many times do I have to repeat this? is it really very hard to understand?


according to your world view, that includes 10^500 universes, BB necessary exist in some universes, BB are more abundant than normal brains, therefore you are almost centrally a BB

So please decide, are you a BB, or are you going to change your world view? please answer unambiguously which of these 2 alternatives are you going to choose.

[
Evidence is the only criterion that matters.

We have evidence that the universe exists - you don't have evidence that a "designer" exists. Until you do, the naturalistic (undesigned) explanation is the default.

Kindest regards,

James

Interesting, but irrelevant, I said that a falsified hypothesis is worst than a hypothesis without evidence. ..agree? please answer yes or no.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

How is the multiverse falsified by an hypothesis? You need to provide evidence that we are BBs - without that, the multiverse is not falsified.

How many times do I have to repeat this? is it really very hard to understand?

according to your world view, that includes 10^500 universes, BB necessary exist in some universes, BB are more abundant than normal brains, therefore you are almost centrally a BB

If this were the case - that BBs only exist in some universes - then I can't "almost certainly be a BB".

You still have to provide evidence that this universe - out of a multiverse - contains BBs.

And, more to the point, as the Wiki article notes:

"No argument is reliable in a Boltzmann brain universe."

Which means that, if this is a BB universe, your claim that it's designed is unreliable.

So please decide, are you a BB, or are you going to change your world view? please answer unambiguously which of these 2 alternatives are you going to choose.

You still have not shown that our universe contains BBs, never mind that they outnumber evolved brains.

Evidence is the only criterion that matters.

We have evidence that the universe exists - you don't have evidence that a "designer" exists. Until you do, the naturalistic (undesigned) explanation is the default.

Kindest regards,

James

Interesting, but irrelevant, I said that a falsified hypothesis is worst than a hypothesis without evidence. ..agree? please answer yes or no.

That's as maybe - you yet have to show that the multiverse is a falsified hypothesis.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

If this were the case - that BBs only exist in some universes - then I can't "almost certainly be a BB".

You still have to provide evidence that this universe - out of a multiverse - contains BBs.

And, more to the point, as the Wiki article notes:

"No argument is reliable in a Boltzmann brain universe."

Which means that, if this is a BB universe, your claim that it's designed is unreliable.

for the 6th time....

If your world view is true......then BBs would exist and the would be more abundant that normal brains, therefore if your world view where ture you would be almost certainly a BB.

That's as maybe - you yet have to show that the multiverse is a falsified hypothesis.

Kindest regards,

James

Yes the BBP falsify your hypothesis, I already explained why. the BB hypothesis is demonstrably a better explanation for FT than the multiverse hypothesis.

If you what to reject the BB hypothesis, you most also reject the multiverse hypothesis.

this is what I mean by multiverse hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe#Multiverse



an analogy to this would be .....

if you observe yourself wining the lottery 1000 times in a row, it would demonstrably be more probable that this observation is just an illusion, caused by your mental illness, than the idea that you where simply lucky and won the lottery by chance 1000 times in a row.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

An hypothesis is an idea - it requires evidence to turn it into a theory.

The BB hypothesis is just an idea - no actual evidence has been put forward for it other than a probabilistic argument.

On that basis, claiming that it somehow falsifies a multiverse is not true.

You'd still have to show that our universe - out of a possible multiverse - is a BB universe. There's no guarantee that it would be, even if other universes in the multiverse were. Our universe could be one of the minority that aren't a BB universe. Claiming that statistically it's likely to be doesn't mean that it is.

As I keep pointing out, any undesigned explanation is better than a designed one.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

]

I have never claimed that. What I have claimed is that claiming X is perfect for Y when X only supports less than one percent of Y is asinine. In what way is something containing less than one percent of something else perfect for that something else? As I have already stated, that strongly implies whatever X is, Y was not made for it, thus cannot be perfect for it. You are the one that is trying to claim that something perfect made X for Y well readily admitting that Y is only in less than one percent of X. This is something you need to square with your beliefs.

. .

And I already provided real life examples of things that contain less 1% of something and that no one would consider poor design. Pyramids contain less than 1% of dead bodies, but we al agree that pyramids require better and more talented designers than collective graves, even though collective graves contain 100% of dead bodies.

What you have to show is that less than 1% necessarily implies no design or at least imperfect design, your own personal opinion is not enough, please provide objective testable and falsifiable evidence or admit that you don't have such evidence.

Again, we know pyramids were designed because of evidence. You need evidence of design before this analogy could make any sense. Beyond that, you are getting away from my point. Fine-Tuning states this universe is perfect for life, yet you once again appeal to something less than perfect and is designed. You keep defeating your own argument.

I think I see the problem here. You are confusing design with fine-tuning. Things can be designed and lack fine-tuning. Thus, even if this universe was designed, you have done a fine job showing it is not fine-tuned for life.

How is this universe fine-tuned when you have failed to present any evidence that it is fine-tuned? All you have done is proclaimed it to be so. Now you need to demonstrate that those initial conditions were fine-tuned. The fact that you keep side stepping this leads me to believe that you cannot

Again, the problem is that you don't understand what is meant by fine tuning,

Incorrect, as you demonstrate later.

if the force of gravity would have been 1% stronger or weaker, this would be a life prohibiting universe, as long as you agree with this statement, you are agreeing with the fact that the force of gravity is FT for the existence of life permitting universes, ...........if you don't like the term fine tuning, feel free to use any other term.

:docpalm:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]All you have is a counterfactual conditional to offer up? I pointed this out in the blog and yet you still rely on this logical fallacy? That means after months of this we are back at square one of you trying to get out of meeting your burden? How pathetic.

If the queen had balls, he would be the king. Again, we have a universe sample of one. You do not know that the initial condition can be anything else, nor do you know that if we change them what that would lead to besides being different from ours. In order for this to work, you need to demonstrate other universes exist, that they can be different, those differences do lead to life not existing, and the initial conditions we see here are the best set possible. Please meet your burden and stop relying on logical fallacies.

the next step of the argument would be to show that design is the best explanation for the FT of the universe, but every time I try to make this step, you say something that forces me to go back to the previous step.

Incorrect. The first step is you demonstrating that the initial conditions were fine-tuned. You see what I just quoted above (which you ignored)? That is your next step. Without this, you are simply holding an empty bag. Again, you cannot just declare something is X, you need to demonstrate it.

This is the definition of Fine-Tuning that we agreed too. See how that states that our models are fine-tuned and not the universe? That means simply agreeing with the definition of fine-tuning does not mean I agree that the initial conditions of our universe were fine-tuned. Yes, our models need to be fine-tuned, but the map is not the terrain.

Granted...
agreeing with the definition of FT does not necessary imply that you agree that there is a tuner (or a designer)............ is that what you meant?

That is not what I meant, getting back to my third paragraph. To summarize what we both agree fine-tuning to mean is, the circumstance wherein parameters have to be very precise for an outcome. Not once have you demonstrated that the initial conditions of our universe meets this. In order to do that, you would have to do the things I quoted above. This is what you need to do before showing that there is a designer behind it. Now please meet your burden.

if Your failure comes from incorrectly defining your sample space, just like I predicted; which is why you are making the Holmesian Fallacy. Your example would be correct only if there were three options, since you cannot prove that, your sample space approaches infinity

well provide your math and prove me wrong.

the Holmesian Falassy (HF) states that it is fallacious to conclude that something is true, just because other alternatives are disproven, given that I am not making that statement, I am not making the falsify.

Again, you are misunderstanding the Holmesian Fallacy. It is an appeal to omniscience. As I pointed out, and you ignored, the problem comes with an improperly defined sample space. In this case, we do not know how many probable answers are out there, thus the sample space approaches infinity. In order not to commit this fallacy, you would have to demonstrate all the possible solutions and make sure it was a small enough number that the elimination of any one of them would actually have an effect on the odds. As I said, if our sample space was three, than you would be correct.

In fact I thought of a very clever and verifiable way to prove that my statement is true,

Pretend that your hypothesis is that Brazil will win the Next Football tournament,

and my hypothesis is that Germany will be the winner.


obviously there are many other possible hypothesis, it could be that both of us are wrong.


However if Brazil gets eliminated form the tournament after the first round, my hypothesis becomes more probably true, than before Brazil's elimination. ....you can verify this at any point, all you have to do is go to any betting site and confirm this statement.

Again, you make the mistake of looking at something with a known sample space, which demonstrates that you still do not understand the Holmesian Fallacy. In the case we are talking about we do not know how large the sample space is. You need to have that information first. Until you do this you will keep committing the fallacy.

for the 6th time....

If your world view is true......

Dandan/Leroy, remember the last time you tried to tell others what their world view was? Remember how everyone exposed that you did not know the first thing about the subject? Remember how you abandoned that thread because you looked so foolish? How about trying to deal with Dragan Glas's answer instead of telling him what his world view is and is not.

 

[leroy]

Greetings,

An hypothesis is an idea - it requires evidence to turn it into a theory.

The BB hypothesis is just an idea - no actual evidence has been put forward for it other than a probabilistic argument.

yes one can make a probabilistic argument,


it is demonstrable more probable to have small fluctuation than a big fluctuation, big FT universes like ours requires a big fluctuation, small universes as small as our solar system, requieres a smaller fluctuation, and a BB requires even a smaller fluctuation. This is why by chance alone BBs are vastly more probable than big universes FT universes this is demonstrably true.

On that basis, claiming that it somehow falsifies a multiverse is not true

it is demonstrably more probable for chance to create a BB that imagines itself living in a big FT universe, than a real big FT universe. therefore according to your word view that states that the FT of our universe is just a coincidence, it would be more reasonable to say that you are a BB that imagines itself being a normal brain and living in a big FT universe.

You'd still have to show that our universe - out of a possible multiverse - is a BB universe. There's no guarantee that it would be, even if other universes in the multiverse were. Our universe could be one of the minority that aren't a BB universe. Claiming that statistically it's likely to be doesn't mean that it is

For the 7th time.....

according to your view there are 10^500 universes agree?

If there are 10^500 universes some of this universes will be BBs universes and others would be big FT universes agree?

given that BB requiere smaller fluctuations, than big FT universes, BB universes are more likely to appear than big FT universes....agree

therefore you are almost certainly a BB.....

Given your world view YOU are almost certainly a BB,

Our universe could be one of the minority that aren't a BB universe

sure it is a possibility, but given your world view BB are more probable than big FT universes, shouldn't you take the explanation that is more probably ture?


obviously what I am trying to say is not that you are a BB what I am trying to say is that your world view is demonstrably wrong, if your world view leads you to the conclusion that you are a BB then one should change their world view.

 

[Akamia]

Greetings,

An hypothesis is an idea - it requires evidence to turn it into a theory.

The BB hypothesis is just an idea - no actual evidence has been put forward for it other than a probabilistic argument.

yes one can make a probabilistic argument,


it is demonstrable more probable to have small fluctuation than a big fluctuation, big FT universes like ours requires a big fluctuation, small universes as small as our solar system, requieres a smaller fluctuation, and a BB requires even a smaller fluctuation. This is why by chance alone BBs are vastly more probable than big universes FT universes this is demonstrably true.

You missed his point somehow; the probabilistic argument is all that's been put forward. As an argument, it is not itself evidence, and is simply not good enough to demonstrate anything to do with reality.

But more to the point, how do you know it's more probable? Do you have the math to back it up? Please show us.

On that basis, claiming that it somehow falsifies a multiverse is not true

it is demonstrably more probable for chance to create a BB that imagines itself living in a big FT universe, than a real big FT universe. therefore according to your word view that states that the FT of our universe is just a coincidence, it would be more reasonable to say that you are a BB that imagines itself being a normal brain and living in a big FT universe.

See above.

You'd still have to show that our universe - out of a possible multiverse - is a BB universe. There's no guarantee that it would be, even if other universes in the multiverse were. Our universe could be one of the minority that aren't a BB universe. Claiming that statistically it's likely to be doesn't mean that it is

For the 7th time.....

according to your view there are 10^500 universes agree?

If there are 10^500 universes some of this universes will be BBs universes and others would be big FT universes agree?

given that BB requiere smaller fluctuations, than big FT universes, BB universes are more likely to appear than big FT universes....agree

therefore you are almost certainly a BB.....

Given your world view YOU are almost certainly a BB,

Don't tell us what our world views are, especially since you clearly don't understand said views as well as you seem to think you do.

Our universe could be one of the minority that aren't a BB universe

sure it is a possibility, but given your world view BB are more probable than big FT universes, shouldn't you take the explanation that is more probably ture?


obviously what I am trying to say is not that you are a BB what I am trying to say is that your world view is demonstrably wrong, if your world view leads you to the conclusion that you are a BB then one should change their world view.

He may be right, or he may be wrong, but either way, what you're doing is demonstrating neither right now. As Dragan pointed out, you need a lot more than some vague probabilistic argument to do that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

yes one can make a probabilistic argument,


it is demonstrable more probable to have small fluctuation than a big fluctuation, big FT universes like ours requires a big fluctuation, small universes as small as our solar system, requieres a smaller fluctuation, and a BB requires even a smaller fluctuation. This is why by chance alone BBs are vastly more probable than big universes FT universes this is demonstrably true.

You missed his point somehow; the probabilistic argument is all that's been put forward. As an argument, it is not itself evidence, and is simply not good enough to demonstrate anything to do with reality.

But more to the point, how do you know it's more probable? Do you have the math to back it up? Please show us.

[Emphasis added]

Providing the math should be easy since this is demonstrably true. However, dandan/leroy already demonstrated that he does not understand how probabilities works when he last boasted about something being demonstrably true.

 

[leroy]

But more to the point, how do you know it's more probable? Do you have the math to back it up? Please show us.

I don't claim to fully understand the math, but we know for the second law of thermodynamics that a small fluctuation of low entropy is more likely than a big one.

this is a quote from Wikipedia, but feel free to look an any other source that you consider reliable

The Boltzmann brains concept is often stated as a physical paradox. It has also been called the "Boltzmann babies paradox".[2] The paradox states that if one considers the probability of our current situation as self-aware entities embedded in an organized environment versus the probability of stand-alone self-aware entities existing in a featureless thermodynamic "soup", then the latter should be vastly more probable

 

[leroy]

wel what can I say...

And I already provided real life examples of things that contain less 1% of something and that no one would consider poor design. Pyramids contain less than 1% of dead bodies, but we al agree that pyramids require better and more talented designers than collective graves, even though collective graves contain 100% of dead bodies.

What you have to show is that less than 1% necessarily implies no design or at least imperfect design, your own personal opinion is not enough, please provide objective testable and falsifiable evidence or admit that you don't have such evidence.

this is your reply

[
Again, we know pyramids were designed because of evidence. You need evidence of design before this analogy could make any sense. Beyond that, you are getting away from my point. Fine-Tuning states this universe is perfect for life, yet you once again appeal to something less than perfect and is designed. You keep defeating your own argument.

]

.

everybody can see how your reply was irrelevant to my comment....

in this point you are the one who is making the positive claim, you are the one who is saying that containing 1% necessary implies a designer with limitations

my analogies where simply examples to show that containing 100% does not necessarily implies a more talented designer than something that contains 1%


.again......

if the force of gravity would have been 1% stronger or weaker, this would be a life prohibiting universe, as long as you agree with this statement, you are agreeing with the fact that the force of gravity is FT for the existence of life permitting universes, ...........if you don't like the term fine tuning, feel free to use any other term.

Why cant you answer with a simple yes or no? please do not repeat the same meaningless and useless, just answer, do you agree with the statement?

Again, you are misunderstanding the Holmesian Fallacy. It is an appeal to omniscience. As I pointed out, and you ignored, the problem comes with an improperly defined sample space. In this case, we do not know how many probable answers are out there, thus the sample space approaches infinity. In order not to commit this fallacy, you would have to demonstrate all the possible solutions and make sure it was a small enough number that the elimination of any one of them would actually have an effect on the odds. As I said, if our sample space was three, than you would be correct.

just for the record, you haven't proved me wrong with your math, one wonders how long will it take for you to present your mathematical prove.

my math is aplicable even if the size of the same is unknown, if a hypothesis is disproved, other hypothesis would be more probably true than before, this is true even if you don't know the size of sample.

the only exception is when falsifying a hypothesis you falsify or harm an other competing hypothesis, in this case this other hypothesis would also be less probably ture than before.

Again, you make the mistake of looking at something with a known sample space, which demonstrates that you still do not understand the Holmesian Fallacy. In the case we are talking about we do not know how large the sample space is. You need to have that information first. Until you do this you will keep committing the fallacy.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
well pretend that you don't know much about football, pretend that you don't know how many teams are participating in the tournament, even for someone that does not the size of the sample, it is obvious that when 1 team is eliminated, the chances of any other team being the winner are grater, than before the elimination of such team

but I have a better idea, instead of pretending stuff, why don't you simply show your math and disprove mine?...........as long as the odds of brazil being the winner are grater than zero, if brazil gets eliminated the odds of any other team being the winner would be bigger than before,

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

wel what can I say...

And I already provided real life examples of things that contain less 1% of something and that no one would consider poor design. Pyramids contain less than 1% of dead bodies, but we al agree that pyramids require better and more talented designers than collective graves, even though collective graves contain 100% of dead bodies.

What you have to show is that less than 1% necessarily implies no design or at least imperfect design, your own personal opinion is not enough, please provide objective testable and falsifiable evidence or admit that you don't have such evidence.

this is your reply

[
Again, we know pyramids were designed because of evidence. You need evidence of design before this analogy could make any sense. Beyond that, you are getting away from my point. Fine-Tuning states this universe is perfect for life, yet you once again appeal to something less than perfect and is designed. You keep defeating your own argument.

]

.

everybody can see how your reply was irrelevant to my comment....

:facepalm:

The very next thing I said:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]I think I see the problem here. You are confusing design with fine-tuning. Things can be designed and lack fine-tuning. Thus, even if this universe was designed, you have done a fine job showing it is not fine-tuned for life.

Which perfectly answers your objection. I will not ask you to work on your reading comprehension, since it appears you are not reading my posts. How about just read my post completely, instead of looking foolish? This is very pathetic at this point and you can say you are sorry for skimming my posts.

in this point you are the one who is making the positive claim, you are the one who is saying that containing 1% necessary implies a designer with limitations

Which it does. Every time you make an analogy to explain this away, you agree with it. The only other possibility is that it is a byproduct of whatever Y is supposed to be for.

my analogies where simply examples to show that containing 100% does not necessarily implies a more talented designer than something that contains 1%

Yep, and I answered to that (you just ignored it and made this post). Again, you are confusing design with fine-tuning. We can have something that is designed without it being fine-tuned. My point with this was never to disprove design with it, but to cast doubt on fine-tuning, which you agree with.

.again......

if the force of gravity would have been 1% stronger or weaker, this would be a life prohibiting universe, as long as you agree with this statement, you are agreeing with the fact that the force of gravity is FT for the existence of life permitting universes, ...........if you don't like the term fine tuning, feel free to use any other term.

Why cant you answer with a simple yes or no? please do not repeat the same meaningless and useless, just answer, do you agree with the statement?

No, obviously I do not. In order for that to be the case, you would need to demonstrate that other universes exist, that they can be different, and that the initial conditions of our universe is the best set of initial conditions out of all those other universes. There is no way around that. Now please try to meet your burden and stop relying on logical fallacies.

Again, you are misunderstanding the Holmesian Fallacy. It is an appeal to omniscience. As I pointed out, and you ignored, the problem comes with an improperly defined sample space. In this case, we do not know how many probable answers are out there, thus the sample space approaches infinity. In order not to commit this fallacy, you would have to demonstrate all the possible solutions and make sure it was a small enough number that the elimination of any one of them would actually have an effect on the odds. As I said, if our sample space was three, than you would be correct.

just for the record, you haven't proved me wrong with your math, one wonders how long will it take for you to present your mathematical prove.

Yes I did.

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]

if you disagree please prove me wrong using your math.

I will give you another chance, because I do enjoy laughing at your hubris. Just an FYI: it would be X+Y+Z+∞ = 100%.

[Emphasis added]

Thank you for once again demonstrating that you are not reading my post.

my math is aplicable even if the size of the same is unknown, if a hypothesis is disproved, other hypothesis would be more probably true than before, this is true even if you don't know the size of sample.

:lol:

If we had 100 possible answers, that would mean eliminating one would only produce a .01 difference. X and X.01 are statistically the same. Thus you are wrong. Beyond that, since we do not know the number of possible answer, the search space approaches infinity; meaning the the elimination of any answer has a vanishingly small effect on the other answers.

the only exception is when falsifying a hypothesis you falsify or harm an other competing hypothesis, in this case this other hypothesis would also be less probably ture than before.

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]Once again, you demonstrate just how little you know of science. One hypothesis/theory is not made stronger by the disproving of another. Hypotheses/Theories stand on their own. If one falls, the others are only affected if what disproved the one that fell bolsters it. Simply disproving a hypothesis/theory on its own does nothing for proving another one correct.

[Emphasis added]

Looks like what I am saying is starting to sink in. Perhaps, if you started reading my whole post, you would learn more.

Again, you make the mistake of looking at something with a known sample space, which demonstrates that you still do not understand the Holmesian Fallacy. In the case we are talking about we do not know how large the sample space is. You need to have that information first. Until you do this you will keep committing the fallacy.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
well pretend that you don't know much about football, pretend that you don't know how many teams are participating in the tournament, even for someone that does not the size of the sample, it is obvious that when 1 team is eliminated, the chances of any other team being the winner are grater, than before the elimination of such team

When talking about sports, we know the amount of teams in a tournament are less than 100. Once one moves to around 100 option, the affect of removing one option becomes less and less of a factor.

but I have a better idea, instead of pretending stuff, why don't you simply show your math and disprove mine?...........as long as the odds of brazil being the winner are grater than zero, if brazil gets eliminated the odds of any other team being the winner would be bigger than before,

I already did back on the 12[sup]th[/sup]. Stop skimming my post and start reading them. This is pathetic.

 

[leroy]

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]I think I see the problem here. You are confusing design with fine-tuning. Things can be designed and lack fine-tuning. Thus, even if this universe was designed, you have done a fine job showing it is not fine-tuned for life.
[

..

Which perfectly answers your objection. I will not ask you to work on your reading comprehension, since it appears you are not reading my posts. How about just read my post completely, instead of looking foolish? This is very pathetic at this point and you can say you are sorry for skimming my posts.

well then provide your evidence, prove that containing less 1% necessarily implies no-fine tuning.

pyramids where finely tuned for the burial of some important pharaoh , they contain less than 1% of dead bodies but that doesn't change the fact that they where finely tuned.

buses are finely tuned for bus drivers, even though less than 1% of the volume of a bus contains drivers.

look at any of the definitions of fine tuning that you have quoted, you will note that no where in the definition does it say that containing more than less 1% implies no fine tuning.

what you have to do is show that containing 1% necessarily implies no fine tuning............lets see how long does it take for you to provide your evidence.

No, obviously I do not. In order for that to be the case, you would need to demonstrate that other universes exist, that they can be different, and that the initial conditions of our universe is the best set of initial conditions out of all those other universes. There is no way around that. Now please try to meet your burden and stop relying on logical fallacies.

the universe could be FT even if other universes do not exist, even if they could have not been different, and even if we don't have the best possible set of conditions.

the problem is that you still don't understand the concept of fine tuning,

something could be FT even if you have a sample of 1, even if it could have not been different, and even if it is not the best possible sample. I challenge you to quote anywhere on the definition of FT where it suggest otherwise.



obviously FT does not imply design, let alone a perfect designer, but that concerns the next step of the argument for design, after you agree that the universe is FT, I would have to argue that design is the best explanation for FT. but I can not do that until you understand the concept of FT

Again, you are misunderstanding the Holmesian Fallacy. It is an appeal to omniscience. As I pointed out, and you ignored, the problem comes with an improperly defined sample space. In this case, we do not know how many probable answers are out there, thus the sample space approaches infinity. In order not to commit this fallacy, you would have to demonstrate all the possible solutions and make sure it was a small enough number that the elimination of any one of them would actually have an effect on the odds. As I said, if our sample space was three, than you would be correct.

I will give you another chance, because I do enjoy laughing at your hubris. Just an FYI: it would be X+Y+Z+∞ = 100%.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


that equation is absurd at so many levels

If we had 100 possible answers, that would mean eliminating one would only produce a .01 difference. X and X.01 are statistically the same. Thus you are wrong. Beyond that, since we do not know the number of possible answer, the search space approaches infinity; meaning the the elimination of any answer has a vanishingly small effect on the other answers

[/quote]


that is exactly my point, I am glad that we both agree on something.

disproving 1 hypothesis would make other hypothesis more probably ture than before, depending on the circumstances and depending on many factors, this probability might increase in a considerable way, or it might increase just a little bit.

in the case of FT and in the general sense, there are only 4 posible explanations for our observations of being in a big, ordered and FT universe

1 it is due to design
2 it is due to chance
3 it is due to necessity
4 our observations are not real they are just an illusion.
0 a combination of 2 or more.....

The BBP completely disproves any chance hypothesis, we have a sample of 4 so disproving 1 hypothesis makes all other hypothesis much more probably than before.

if 3 and 4 are also falsified and no one presents evidence against 1, then design becomes almost certainly true. (note that I said almost certainly true)

evidence against other hypothesis does help the design hypothesis.
the lack of evidence against design also helps the design hypothesis.
if we add that FT is usually (if not always) caused by a designer, we should conclude that design is the best explanation for the FT.


note that I am not saying that design is the only possible explanation, but given the evidence design is certainly the best explanation that has even been suggested. feel free to prove me wrong, feel free to provide a better explanation.
.

[

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I'll let HWIN deal with your reply but I thought I'd point out a few things.

Firstly, the pyramids were more than just a cemetery - they linked the heavens and the Earth, effectively reproducing heaven on Earth (the three pyramids at Giza reproduce the arrangement of the stars of Orion's (Osiris') belt.

Secondly, buses aren't "finely tuned for bus drivers" - they're people-carriers: they're intended to carry lots of people.

Thirdly, if it's possible that what you call FT might be due to chance (or that it's chimaera - you're seeing a pattern that doesn't exist), then that's the default explanation.

Fourthly, it's clear you still don't understand probability theory: any other explanation isn't a single option - it's potentially infinite.

Like so many creationists and ID-ers, your basic error is to mistake order for design: our visible universe is ordered, that does not mean that it's designed.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

Greetings,

I'll let HWIN deal with your reply but I thought I'd point out a few things.

Firstly, the pyramids were more than just a cemetery - they linked the heavens and the Earth, effectively reproducing heaven on Earth (the three pyramids at Giza reproduce the arrangement of the stars of Orion's (Osiris') belt.

Secondly, buses aren't "finely tuned for bus drivers" - they're people-carriers: they're intended to carry lots of people.

well no one is saying that hosting life is the only purpose of the universe, no one is saying that the universe is just a life hoster.

what HWN has to prove is that containing 1% of something necessarily implies no FT.

Thirdly, if it's possible that what you call FT might be due to chance (or that it's chimaera - you're seeing a pattern that doesn't exist), then that's the default explanation.

well since you believe that you are a BB, then yes under your view FT is just an illusion.

my assumption is that the default position should be that our observations represent the real world, until proven otherwise, if our observations tell us that we live in a big universe with low entropy, we most assume that this observation is real until proven otherwise..........I am confident that this is a fare assumption.


BBW have you made up your mind yet? what are you going to do, are you going to change your world view or are you going to accept the implications of you world view and accept that you are a BB?

Fourthly, it's clear you still don't understand probability theory: any other explanation isn't a single option - it's potentially infinite

it doesn't matter, my math works even if there where infinite samples

as long as the design hypothesis and the disproven hypothesis had an initial probability of being true grater than 0%, you could have potencially infinit hypothesis, it would still be a fact that disproving a hypothesis makes design more probably true than before.

Like so many creationists and ID-ers, your basic error is to mistake order for design: our visible universe is ordered, that does not mean that it's designed.

well order is usually caused by design, I see no reason why should we make an arbitrary exception with the universe. well obviously it depends on what you mean by order