Why do atheist's fear God?

[jem]

which is why i said or whatever you believe.

and many people including some at ET explain our universe came about by random chance. Frankly I am interested in what you believe... if you don't believe in a creator but you don't believe in random chance either.
(unless you believe that there could be a creator but you call yourself non religious.

in which case... you can call me non religious as well because so far I don't think any natural man or religion has gotten it all correct.

I don't know how many time I have to say this before it sinks in, but there is no chance that the incredible precision you keep harping on would arise by random chance. And so far as I know, no one in the Universe believes that! But religious people, like yourself, believe that that's what non-religious people believe. Non-religious people don't believe that!!!

 

[jem]

a. you could have been more clear.
b. penrose is (also) a mathematical physicist.
c. his thinking does not contradict what I believe... in fact it informs some of my thoughts on this subject.

if you attempted to put my hypothesis into this set of ideas... you could say
faith collapses waves via a quantum mind in concert with the light of the Quantum Mind. (please understand that what I just said is my speculation.)

I think you misunderstood me. I said you, not Penrose, would become a laughing stock. Penrose is a mathematician, but his thinking does not support yours. Rather it contradicts yours. If it is of any consolation, I don't know, of course, if Penrose is right. No one, including Penrose, does. And in any case I wouldn't be the one to know, since I barely have an inkling of his work. One of his ideas is that consciousness must depend on a physical process that can't be computational. One consequence, if he is right, would be that we will never be able to use a deterministic computational device like a computer to artificially, if you like, produce consciousness. And there are other consequences as well, none of which I understand.

 

[stu]

Stu... we know the standard model is incomplete. we have gone over this before you troll. that does not mean it is not finely tuned...

Yes we've been over this before because you won't directly address anything put to you but rather go round in circles, trolling the same tortured nonsense conclusions out of the same old cut and pastes.

And yes it does mean it is not 'finely tuned'.
I just suggested you go educate yourself on the Hierachy Problem to understand why and how the Standard Model does not conform to your so called 'fine tuning'. So what do you do but ignore it and re-post the same stuff yet again so you can misunderstand everything and make the silliest of comments from it, like these....

"the standard model of physics is very finely tuned... and it was used to predict and find the higgs..."

"fine tuning was proven at CERN when they used the standard model of physics with its constants tuned to 22 decimal places or more to find the higgs boson."

"the fine tuning of the standard model was confirmed when the scientists at CERN found the higgs boson as predicted by the model."

"the standard model of physics is very finely tuned.."

"...the accuracy of the fine tuning of the standard model."


...then you post this !

Theories requiring fine-tuning are regarded as problematic in the absence of a known mechanism to explain why the parameters happen to have precisely the needed values.

Which goes to show you neither understand or even read anything much you post.

You've demanded over and over there IS so called fine tuning, with utterly ridiculous comments that the Standard Model IS fine tuned to find Higgs, then you post a link that states fine tuning itself is problematic.

No kidding problematic.

In absence of knowing exactly HOW these Standard Model constants got to be the values they are, any question of them being fine tuned certainly is problematic to say the least to the point of being impossible so far to confirm.

And what (scientific) theories require fine tuning!? Why none of course.

Scientific theories require parameters to be at precise values, they are observed at those values, not that they ARE fine tuned to those values.
How they come to be those values is not completely scientifically supported (yet). Where they are ( Stephen Weinberg) there's no question or need of any so called fine tuning.

There is however no rational reason and certainly no scientific grounds whatsoever to assume anything other than it is each constant's fundamental properties which constrain it into having its precise value.

 

[jem]

its your lack of understanding of the use of the words which causes your ignorance.
the points you make in your post were moronic garbage.

Fine tuned theories (such as the fine tuning of the standard model) are problematic for scientists because they point to solutions which are non natural. In other words... fine tuning points to solutions which scientists don't wish to posit... for instance a Tuner, or a Multiverse in which every value happens.

learn some science troll.

Yes we've been over this before because you won't directly address anything put to you but rather go round in circles, trolling the same tortured nonsense conclusions out of the same old cut and pastes.

And yes it does mean it is not 'finely tuned'.
I just suggested you go educate yourself on the Hierachy Problem to understand why and how the Standard Model does not conform to your so called 'fine tuning'. So what do you do but ignore it and re-post the same stuff yet again so you can misunderstand everything and make the silliest of comments from it, like these....

"the standard model of physics is very finely tuned... and it was used to predict and find the higgs..."

"fine tuning was proven at CERN when they used the standard model of physics with its constants tuned to 22 decimal places or more to find the higgs boson."

"the fine tuning of the standard model was confirmed when the scientists at CERN found the higgs boson as predicted by the model."

"the standard model of physics is very finely tuned.."

"...the accuracy of the fine tuning of the standard model."


...then you post this !



Which goes to show you neither understand or even read anything much you post.

You've demanded over and over there IS so called fine tuning, with utterly ridiculous comments that the Standard Model IS fine tuned to find Higgs, then you post a link that states fine tuning itself is problematic.

No kidding problematic.

In absence of knowing exactly HOW these Standard Model constants got to be the values they are, any question of them being fine tuned certainly is problematic to say the least to the point of being impossible so far to confirm.

And what (scientific) theories require fine tuning!? Why none of course.

Scientific theories require parameters to be at precise values, they are observed at those values, not that they ARE fine tuned to those values.
How they come to be those values is not completely scientifically supported (yet). Where they are ( Stephen Weinberg) there's no question or need of any so called fine tuning.

There is however no rational reason and certainly no scientific grounds whatsoever to assume anything other than it is each constant's fundamental properties which constrain it into having its precise value.

 

[stu]

Theories requiring fine-tuning are regarded as problematic in the absence of a known mechanism to explain why the parameters happen to have precisely the needed values.

See that. You posted it for fks sakes.

The Standard Model has no science confirming any fine tuning. It has values that don't have proper scientific explanations.

It doesn't require fine tuning, it requires the values are what they are.

As they don't have proper explanations, what makes them fine tuned you prick.

 

[jem]

I can't tell if you are that stupid or you are just paid to be argumentative and your would rather be aid than appear to be scientifically literate.

Correct...right now science has no known explanation for why the constants of the universe are so finely tuned.

as Susskind told you in the video..

it could be:
a. God or
b. the multiverse or
c and d watch for yourself.

So no, you are the prick... let us focus on the cosmological constant as Susskind did. that value is so precise determined it goes out over 120 decimal places. any weaker out at 120 decimal places and the universe flys apart... any stronger and it crunches.

is that not a very fine tuning?

now the question why or what made it that way... because its non natural to be that precise according to the best minds in science and common sense.


does your brain not get the significance of that?

See that. You posted it for fks sakes.

The Standard Model has no science confirming any fine tuning. It has values that don't have proper scientific explanations.

It doesn't require fine tuning, it requires the values are what they are.

As they don't have proper explanations, what makes them fine tuned you prick.

 

[stu]

Correct...right now science has no known explanation for why the constants of the universe are so finely tuned.

Incorrect.

Right now there is no scientific explanation for why the constants of the universe are the values they are.

And no for the millionth time, Susskind does not confirm the universe IS fine tuned. You're just going in circles..again.

 

[Covertibility]

The major problem with fine tuning is the lack of independent constants. You can't change one while holding the rest constant.

 

[jem]

why do you lie about something which is so easily refuted... he explains how the cosmological constant is tuned on a knifes edge and then at 6 minutes the interviewer says how can we explain the fine tuning.

He then explains it.


don't go bullshiting your troll ass off and try to change this whole argument to a new point about the universe not in actuality being fine tuned because he believes the best answer is the multiverse. We already know that.
we just discussed a.b. c&d for the 100th time a post or 2 ago. and just 2 posts ago you spoke of the standard model.


go to 6 minutes for proof your troll as is being deceitful.

Incorrect.

Right now there is no scientific explanation for why the constants of the universe are the values they are.

And no for the millionth time, Susskind does not confirm the universe IS fine tuned. You're just going in circles..again.

 

[stu]

he explains how the cosmological constant is tuned on a knifes edge

Tuned on a knifes edge? pfft... he does no such thing.

He explains the sharpest part of a knife edge being the tiny value of the cosmological constant.
He explains how physicists have never understood why the cosmological constant is soo small.

He does not explain how any of it IS fine tuned.

Of course, not Susskind, or anyone else, has science to confirm the cosmological constant IS fine tuned. Neither is he suggesting anywhere that he does. Only you and some other religious wackjobs are doing that.
Susskind does however have the science to show the cosmological constant is sitting on a knife edge, at the tiniest decimal away from zero.

As usual, you're going round in circles.