The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

[leroy]

Do you think I am an idiot?

yes

Are you really going to try and pretend that you have ANY data with which to calculate probabilities?

Go on - what data do you have already

yes I have the data, I can show that it is more likely to imagine a universe with low entropy than to have a universe with low entropy by chance,

but I will respect your rules and wont mention it until I address all the claims that have been debunked by you.

so what other claims should I justify or admit my mistakes?

until you do that we can start talking about the BBP and I will provide my data (this are your rules) remember?

We'll talk about that when I am ready to talk about that, and not a moment before.

Learn some manners, LEROY.


You have made a slew of claims which I have debunked. As such, you either need to address that, or to acknowledge your error.

are you ready to talk about it?

Then you can actually explain to me how you set about making that calculation

thanks but you are overestimating my intellect, I haven't done any calculations, brilliant scientist did.

 

[Sparhafoc]

yes

It's clear from how you think you can slip things past me that a 5 year old would call you out on.

However, if I am an idiot, what word can we possibly use for you? Someone who thinks he has the right to dictate reality, lacks any substance or knowledge, can't cite support for any of his claims, and repeatedly shows he doesn't even understand any of the topics he pontificates incoherently on?

yes I have the data, I can show that it is more likely to imagine a universe with low entropy than to have a universe with low entropy by chance,

Nonsensical blather with goalpost shifts.

Show your data then. Why do you keep talking about these things yet never actually do what you proclaim you can do?

I say it's because you're lying. Prove me wrong by citing a) your data and b) walking me through your equation divining probability.

but I will respect your rules and wont mention it until I address all the claims that have been debunked by you.

What rule was that?

Are you now going to try to tell me - again - what I supposedly said even when I said nothing of the sort?

Have you no shame, LEROY. You act the cretin over and over, maybe it's because you are a cretin, eh?

Go on then lying LEROY, show us where I said that there's a rule where you don't mention the data until wibble wibble woo.

Anyone can look up the handful of posts and see this is yet another transparent, juvenile evasion on your part.

Because you don't have ANY data.

So your argument was bullshit.

And I exposed it.

So now we go on to the LEROY merry-go-round where he keeps beating his chest, but can't muster a single word that actually supports his bullshit.

so what other claims should I justify or admit my mistakes?

Don't care about your manufactured diversion, LEROY - feel free to admit that you don't have any data whenever you evolve some morality.

until you do that we can start talking about the BBP and I will provide my data (this are your rules) remember?

Not my rules, stop lying to my face. It doesn't reflect at all on me, only on you.

are you ready to talk about it?

Feel free to read what I just wrote, which you quoted, and then ignored.

thanks but you are overestimating my intellect, I haven't done any calculations, brilliant scientist did.

Nope. They didn't, because any 'brilliant scientist' would understand that you don't pull probabilities from your rectum. In the same vein, Yahweh just called me and told me you were a lying cunt.

Everything's a diversion so LEROY never has to admit he was wrong.

 

[leroy]

but I will respect your rules and wont mention it until I address all the claims that have been debunked by you.

What rule was that?

Are you now going to try to tell me - again - what I supposedly said even when I said nothing of the sort?


..............................................................................................

Not my rules, stop lying to my face. It doesn't reflect at all on me, only on you.


[.

again you are the one who claims not to be ready to talk about this stuff...

Sparhafoc worte

We'll talk about that when I am ready to talk about that, and not a moment before.

Learn some manners, LEROY.


You have made a slew of claims which I have debunked. As such, you either need to address that, or to acknowledge your error.

so are you know ready to talk about this stuff? or is any other argument that I should address that, or to acknowledge my mistake?

 

[Sparhafoc]

again you are the one who claims not to be ready to talk about this stuff...

Stop lying to my face, LEROY, because you know I will just quote what you actually said, and show you red-handed in the act of lying again.

As anyone with any level of reading comprehension can readily see.... I said that I am not prepared to join you as you attempt to once again evade being shown wrong by dragging the conversation onto your next canard.

I am not easily swayed even by intelligent people, LEROY, so what chance do you really think you have of distracting me?

Either acknowledge that you were bullshitting when you claimed to be able to calculate probabilities from 'any' data, and then acknowledge that you were bullshitting when you proceeded to claim that there was 'some' data.... or stop waving your hands around and cite the fucking data and means of calculating.

How transparent do you want to be?

How many people do you think you're fooling?

so are you know ready to talk about this stuff? or is any other argument that I should address that, or to acknowledge my mistake?

No, I told you that I will talk about it when I am ready, not in the very next post where you try to evade it all again.

We can do this all day - I won't get bored, and I will enjoy watching you dig a hole in your credibility - assuming that you actually have any credibility on this forum, which I highly doubt.

So about that assertion regarding the manner in which you claim you can calculate probabilities from one data point.

Going to show us that calculation, or do you want to broadcast your incompetence and discoursive mendacity by, once again, trying to change subjects when shown wrong?

 

[leroy]

Sparhafoc......

I claim to have the data that proves that it is more likely to imagine a universe with low entropy than having a universe with low entropy that came in to existence by chance. this is the Boltzman Brain Paradox.

In some paragraphs you seem to be implying that I most provide such data, and in other paragraphs you seem to be implying that you are not ready to talk about it. so please tell me what should I do?

don't worry I take the blame, maybe I am very bad in understanding your texts.........................just tell me what do you want me to do? what claim should I justify or admit my mistake? I honestly don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Sparhafoc......

I claim to have the data that proves that it is more likely to imagine a universe with low entropy than having a universe with low entropy that came in to existence by chance. this is the Boltzman Brain Paradox.

Show the data then.

Why can't you show it?

Why didn't you show it when first asked?

Because Russian Dolls, LEROY. Because the Boltzman Brain Paradox doesn't purport to employ data, it's about the artifacts of our thinking. It's not about probabilities - not in the slightest, but if I start talking about this, it lets you off the hook on your previous bullshit assertion that you are trying to avoid acknowledging the destruction of.

But that's not really important.

What's important is how you repeatedly twist away from ever acknowledging your errors.

This is just another evasion on your part, and when we've spent 20,000 words repeatedly stating that the latest attempt at evasion doesn't do what you claim it does, when you finally have nowhere left to wriggle: you'll simply invoke a new essential piece of distraction that you'll expect others to stupidly chase.

Nope. You're wrong.

I've showed that you were talking with your rectal passage when you claimed that you could calculate probabilities without data.

I've showed you that by providing you the opportunity to show me wrong, by engaging in that calculation.

At each stage you've basically come up with an excuse, not 'no data' 'any data', even idiots could calculate, but then you couldn't calculate... and so on.

Who you think you're fooling is anyone's guess, but I would submit its yourself more than anyone which makes this a tragedy.

In some paragraphs you seem to be implying that I most provide such data, and in other paragraphs you seem to be implying that you are not ready to talk about it. so please tell me what should I do?

Mendacious troll is mendacious, and a troll. Go figure!

Nice try, but that revolves around your attempted evasion, whereas I was refusing to engage in your attempted evasion.

don't worry I take the blame, maybe I am very bad in understanding your texts.........................just tell me what do you want me to do? what claim should I justify or admit my mistake? I honestly don't know what you are talking about.

The problem is that you don't know what you are talking about, but your arrogance, your ridiculous assumption that your religious belief system makes you automatically superior in every topic that you deign to address, that's the discoursive issue here.

But do play the victim if it makes you feel your ridiculous behavior is justified.

 

[leroy]

Sparhafoc......

I claim to have the data that proves that it is more likely to imagine a universe with low entropy than having a universe with low entropy that came in to existence by chance. this is the Boltzman Brain Paradox.

Show the data then.

Why can't you show it?
.

because I had the impression that you where not ready to talk about it,


so about bolzman brains

lets start with some quotes that affirm the same thing that I am affirming, it is more likely t have a Boltzmann brains who imagines himself living inside a body and in a big universe with low entropy,

If our current level of organization, having many self-aware entities, is a result of a random fluctuation, it is much less likely than a level of organization which only creates stand-alone self-aware entities. The number of self-aware brains that spontaneously and randomly form out of the chaos, complete with memories of a life like ours, should vastly outnumber the brains evolved from an inconceivably rare local fluctuation the size of the observable universe. To quote Lawrence S. Schulman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

The Boltzmann brain paradox is that any observers (self-aware brains with memories like we have, which includes our brains) are therefore far more likely to be Boltzmann brains than evolved brains. This suggest a problem either with current cosmological theories or the anthropic principle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

The Boltzmann Brain paradox is an argument against the idea that the universe around us, with its incredibly low-entropy early conditions and consequential arrow of time, is simply a statistical fluctuation within some eternal system that spends most of its time in thermal equilibrium. You can get a universe like ours that way, but you’re overwhelmingly more likely to get just a single galaxy, or a single planet, or even just a single brain — so the statistical-fluctuation idea seems to be ruled out by experiment. (With potentially profound consequences.)

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2008/12/29/richard-feynman-on-boltzmann-brains/



no you what to see the math.

A completely general initial state for the universe does not inflate, but we can ask merely for a small initial region that is smooth enough to inflate to the universe that we observe (cost: 10 ^10 ^123).

(One can estimate that the entire solar system, including its living inhabitants, could be created from the random collision of particles and radiation with a probability of one part in 101060 (or probably a good deal less than 10 ^10 ^60). The Wgure 101060 is utter ‘chicken feed’ by comparison with the 10 ^10 ^123 needed for the Big Bang of the observable universe

http://chaosbook.org/library/Penr04.pdf
pages 762 to 767


so according to R Penrose the probability of having a big universe with low entropy like ours, is 10 ^10 ^123 while the probability of having a smaller universe but, big enough to sustain intelligent life and observers is 10 ^10 ^60

note
10 ^10 ^123 = a number with 1230 digits

10 ^10 ^60 a number with 600 digits

as i said before you don't need much data, even if you don't have the exact numbers, even a high school student would know that it is more likely to have a small quantum fluctuation than a big quantum fluctuation.


so for every universe with observers with low entropy, like the universe that we observe, there are 10 ^10 ^63 universes with observers relatively high entropy,

given this probabilities, our observations of a universe with low entropy are more likely to be an illusion, you are more likely to be a mentally ill patient who lives in a psychiatric hospital who lives in a universe with relatively high entropy, but who imagines (dreams) to be in a universe with higher entropy.



so what about bolzman brains, ?

it is claimed that the probabilities of having a single brain in a universe with much higher entropy, are considerably smaller than 10 ^10 ^60


So even if you disagree with the math, I hope that at least you would agree that it is statistically more probable to have a relatively small fluctuation than a big one.

and hopefully you would also agree that the universe is unnecessarily too big, a smaller universe would be enough to sustain intelligent life and observers.

and hopefully you would also agree that it is possible to have intelligent beings (observers) that imagine stuff that doesn't exist,

 

[leroy]

and to be clear, this is not an argument for the existence of God, The Boltzmann Brain paradox is an argument against the idea that the universe around us, with its incredibly low-entropy early conditions and consequential arrow of time, is simply a statistical fluctuation


if you personally don't believe that the low entropy of our universe is a statistical fluctuation, then you don't have to worry about this paradox

 

[Sparhafoc]

because I had the impression that you where not ready to talk about it,

LEROY, when I spend 25 posts repeatedly asking you to show me the data, you don't get to claim that you had the impression that I was not ready to talk about 'it'.

It, of course, being the operative word there.

What IT are we talking about?

The IT I want to talk about which is my criticism of your claim, or the IT you want to talk about which is a Russian Doll evasion of that criticism? A way to deflect from that criticism?

So don't poe-face bullshit me, as you must know by now, I will always take the time to expose it as mendacious bullshit.

However, as you've actually offered something that goes beyond your usual stringing together of words in loosely syntactic arrangements, I will actually take the time to reply to the remainder of your post in detail. See? I actually have to engage my brain for the first time as a result of something you've written. Surely, that's what we're here for, no? Perhaps you could try it sometime as well!

Regardless, 3am and up in 2 hours to go to teach, so I won't be replying to the remainder until I am back tomorrow evening. Even chronic insomniacs need to pretend to try to sleep!

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

and hopefully you would also agree that the universe is unnecessarily too big, a smaller universe would be enough to sustain intelligent life and observers.

Strange things to say for one who thinks the universe as we know it is fine-tuned.

 

[leroy]

and hopefully you would also agree that the universe is unnecessarily too big, a smaller universe would be enough to sustain intelligent life and observers.

Strange things to say for one who thinks the universe as we know it is fine-tuned.

Shhhhh..............="he_who_is_nobody remove your comment, if you don't do that people will notice that you don't even understand what scientists mean by fine tuning.


anyone who understands the concept of FT would know that a big universe with many stars would requires more fine tuning than a small universe with 1 or 2 stars and 1 or 2 planets.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Shhhhh..............="he_who_is_nobody remove your comment, if you don't do that people will notice that you don't even understand what scientists mean by fine tuning.

Fucking unwarranted hubris. You really need to get a room with yourself, and give yourself a good fucking so you can stop groping yourself in public.

anyone who understands the concept of FT would know that a big universe with many stars would requires more fine tuning than a small universe with 1 or 2 stars and 1 or 2 planets.

What an abjectly foolish assertion to make, and ironically exposes your initial bollocks slap on HWIN as being nothing more than the same old tiresome hubris LEROY lives by.

Same forces LEROY, not MORE forces because more stuff. They all occur due to the interactions of the same 4 fundamental forces whether there's only 1 sun, or billions of trillions suns and planets.


Yes, yes, I know what you'll say next (troll behavior is so predictable), but as I've already said - I will reply when I have time.

 

[leroy]

Shhhhh..............="he_who_is_nobody remove your comment, if you don't do that people will notice that you don't even understand what scientists mean by fine tuning.

Fucking unwarranted hubris. You really need to get a room with yourself, and give yourself a good fucking so you can stop groping yourself in public.

anyone who understands the concept of FT would know that a big universe with many stars would requires more fine tuning than a small universe with 1 or 2 stars and 1 or 2 planets.

What an abjectly foolish assertion to make, and ironically exposes your initial bollocks slap on HWIN as being nothing more than the same old tiresome hubris LEROY lives by.

Same forces LEROY, not MORE forces because more stuff. They all occur due to the interactions of the same 4 fundamental forces whether there's only 1 sun, or billions of trillions suns and planets.


Yes, yes, I know what you'll say next (troll behavior is so predictable), but as I've already said - I will reply when I have time.

but a universe with many suns requires lower entropy than a universe with just 1 sun. this has nothing to do with the 4 fundamental forces.


hopefully you understand what low entropy means in your reply on Boltzman Brains,

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Shhhhh..............="he_who_is_nobody remove your comment, if you don't do that people will notice that you don't even understand what scientists mean by fine tuning.


anyone who understands the concept of FT would know that a big universe with many stars would requires more fine tuning than a small universe with 1 or 2 stars and 1 or 2 planets.

:lol:

Sure pal.

 

[Sparhafoc]

but a universe with many suns requires lower entropy than a universe with just 1 sun. this has nothing to do with the 4 fundamental forces.

I think you've put the cart before the horse. The suns themselves are the points of low entropy in the system of the universe. Without gravity, there'd be no conglomerations of matter, everything would be isotropic. A sun is converting the potential energy locked in all that matter, crushing it under its own gravity, fusing together elements, and tying up the energy of the local system in molecules, light, and heat.

If there were no suns (because no gravity had pulled them together) then the universe would be isotropic, the matter mostly evenly distributed, and there would be no local thermodynamic interactions, so no work could be done.

I expect you're making a mistake about the systems in place, where you're mistakenly putting in restrictions to one system that are not relevant to it.

However, I am under no obligation from my ego to declare myself correct (unlike you), so I am happy to be shown wrong.

To that end, I will ask Hack to come and correct me, and therefore you. This is what human knowledge is all about - distribution of specialist knowledge. Only Creationists think that their beliefs provide them the moral high ground from which to observe everything perfectly.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Ok, so I have now read all the links LEROY gave.

Plus I have read half a dozen papers by cosmologists (of which I understood but a fraction), several pop science sources explaining in English, I've read comments, quotes, discussion from nearly every one of the great physicists of the last century, and I still can't find any evidence that supports LEROY's claims.

What is it I am looking for?

I think it would depend on who you ask. If you asked me, I would be contesting the claim LEROY originally made about making up probabilities without having any data. My readings don't provide any sign of that data.

If you asked LEROY, I think he basically just wants to get a single thing right so that he can pretend that all other things he's said are right.

Either which way, if LEROY thinks that cosmologists actually believe that we are Boltzmann Brains, then it's a fundamental mistake on his part. Rather, the question is how we know we're not because of the nature of nature, of the directionality of the forces of the universe.

So apparently the notion was first forwarded by Sir Arthur Eddington around a century ago. A few decades back, Feynman wrote at length about this and perhaps can shed some light where LEROY can only shed darkness?

So far as we know, all the fundamental laws of physics, such as Newton’s equations, are reversible. Then were does irreversibility come from? It comes from order going to disorder, but we do not understand this until we know the origin of the order. Why is it that the situations we find ourselves in every day are always out of equilibrium?

One possible explanation is the following. Look again at our box of mixed white and black molecules. Now it is possible, if we wait long enough, by sheer, grossly improbable, but possible, accident, that the distribution of molecules gets to be mostly white on one side and mostly black on the other. After that, as time goes on and accidents continue, they get more mixed up again.

Thus one possible explanation of the high degree of order in the present-day world is that it is just a question of luck. Perhaps our universe happened to have had a fluctuation of some kind in the past, in which things got somewhat separated, and now they are running back together again. This kind of theory is not unsymmetrical, because we can ask what the separated gas looks like either a little in the future or a little in the past. In either case, we see a grey smear at the interface, because the molecules are mixing again. No matter which way we run time, the gas mixes. So this theory would say the irreversibility is just one of the accidents of life.

...

We would like to argue that this is not the case. Suppose we do not look at the whole box at once, but only at a piece of the box. Then, at a certain moment, suppose we discover a certain amount of order. In this little piece, white and black are separate. What should we deduce about the condition in places where we have not yet looked? If we really believe that the order arose from complete disorder by a fluctuation, we must surely take the most likely fluctuation which could produce it, and the most likely condition is not that the rest of it has also become disentangled! Therefore, from the hypothesis that the world is a fluctuation, all of the predictions are that if we look at a part of the world we have never seen before, we will find it mixed up, and not like the piece we just looked at. If our order were due to a fluctuation, we would not expect order anywhere but where we have just noticed it.

We therefore conclude that the universe is not a fluctuation, and that the order is a memory of conditions when things started. This is not to say that we understand the logic of it. For some reason, the universe at one time had a very low entropy for its energy content, and since then the entropy has increased. So that is the way toward the future. That is the origin of all irreversibility, that is what makes the processes of growth and decay, that makes us remember the past and not the future, remember the things which are closer to that moment in history of the universe when the order was higher than now, and why we are not able to remember things where the disorder is higher than now, which we call the future.

So again, what's the probability right now? 1.

What was the probability of it happening this way from initial conditions? Incalculable, presumably the process is stochastic, and nothing suggests determinism, so that pretty much ends LEROY's claims.

Still going to see if I can get Hack to razor through this bullshit.

 

[Deleted member 619]

and to be clear, this is not an argument for the existence of God, The Boltzmann Brain paradox is an argument against the idea that the universe around us, with its incredibly low-entropy early conditions and consequential arrow of time, is simply a statistical fluctuation


if you personally don't believe that the low entropy of our universe is a statistical fluctuation, then you don't have to worry about this paradox

Bookmarking for later. In the meantime, what's 'entropy', Leroy?

 

[leroy]

apart from your lies and strawmans that I said I was going to ignore and appart from the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.............we both agree with your conclusion (or the conclusion presented by your quote to be precise)

(his quote)

We therefore conclude that the universe is not a fluctuation, and that the order is a memory of conditions when things started. This is not to say that we understand the logic of it. For some reason, the universe at one time had a very low entropy for its energy content, and since then the entropy has increased. So that is the way toward the future. That is the origin of all irreversibility, that is what makes the processes of growth and decay, that makes us remember the past and not the future, remember the things which are closer to that moment in history of the universe when the order was higher than now, and why we are not able to remember things where the disorder is higher than now, which we call the future.
.

so we both agree that our universe is not a fluctuation. that is the intent of the BBP, any model of the universe that asumes that the low entropy was caused by a random fluctuation has to deal with the BBP, if you personally don't believe in such kind of models then you don't have to worry about this paradox is there anything in your vast research that makes you conclude otherwise?

 

[leroy]

and to be clear, this is not an argument for the existence of God, The Boltzmann Brain paradox is an argument against the idea that the universe around us, with its incredibly low-entropy early conditions and consequential arrow of time, is simply a statistical fluctuation


if you personally don't believe that the low entropy of our universe is a statistical fluctuation, then you don't have to worry about this paradox

Bookmarking for later. In the meantime, what's 'entropy', Leroy?

In statistical mechanics (the context that is relevant in this conversation) entropy is a measure of disorder.


if you consider all the states and possible combinations in which particles can exist, there are more possible combinations that would produce 1 star than combinations that would produce billions of stars. and according to the BBP, there are more possible combinations that would produce a bellman brain than combinations that would produce a universe like ours.


in the previous examples, the scenarios that have more possible combinations are said to have more entropy (more disorder)


under this basis I am affirming that a big universe like ours requires more fine tuning than a small universe or a BB, hackenslash can you please honor your word and correct HWN?

hackenslash wrote


In fact, these days, I spend far more effort in correcting these bad arguments (made by atheist) than I do arguing with theists.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

apart from your lies and strawmans that I said I was going to ignore and appart from the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.............we both agree with your conclusion (or the conclusion presented by your quote to be precise)

(his quote)

We therefore conclude that the universe is not a fluctuation, and that the order is a memory of conditions when things started. This is not to say that we understand the logic of it. For some reason, the universe at one time had a very low entropy for its energy content, and since then the entropy has increased. So that is the way toward the future. That is the origin of all irreversibility, that is what makes the processes of growth and decay, that makes us remember the past and not the future, remember the things which are closer to that moment in history of the universe when the order was higher than now, and why we are not able to remember things where the disorder is higher than now, which we call the future.
.

so we both agree that our universe is not a fluctuation. that is the intent of the BBP, any model of the universe that asumes that the low entropy was caused by a random fluctuation has to deal with the BBP, if you personally don't believe in such kind of models then you don't have to worry about this paradox is there anything in your vast research that makes you conclude otherwise?

Leroy, your problem is that you're not as good at reading/understanding English as you think.

What do you think the word "fluctuation" means in the above paragraph?

Kindest regards,

James