Why do atheist's fear God?

[jem]

you argue for ignorance.
you lie for athesim

string theory per Polichinsky has 10 to the 500 or more solutions. (virtual infinite solutions or possibilities)
We have read that many scientists had been hoping for one solution... the Theory of Everything.
those are 10 to the 500 solutions for string theory... a theory which according to Penrose and others is just a collection of ideas.
the idea that those almost infinite solutions are real universes is even more wild.

the fact that CERN found the higgs boson where it was predicted is, you troll, confirmation of the accuracy of the fine tuning of the standard model.

(how could you not understand that... or why are you lying your ass off or trying to be cute by typing ARE as a misdirection?)

It's you whose missing the point. To the point of ridiculous.

Lots of theoretical physics, science and math, suggests Multiverse. It is a scientific proposition.

No physics, no science, no math, suggests anything like a magical Tuner called God or whatever. It is not a scientific proposition. (Do you really need that explaining to you)

The two are entirely different.

And there is no science anywhere that confirms any constants ARE fine tuned.

 

[piezoe]

whatever that means it does not follow from our previous exchange I asked you what about it was non falsifiable. ... I see you recognized you erred in your flipant characterizations of the information I presented.

Of course it is falsifiable! Isn't that obvious.

 

[piezoe]

you argue for ignorance.
you lie for athesim

string theory per Polichinsky has 10 to the 500 or more solutions. (virtual infinite solutions or possibilities)
We have read that many scientists had been hoping for one solution... the Theory of Everything.
those are 10 to the 500 solutions for string theory... a theory which according to Penrose and others is just a collection of ideas.
the idea that those almost infinite solutions are real universes is even more wild.

the fact that CERN found the higgs boson where it was predicted is, you troll, confirmation of the accuracy of the fine tuning of the standard model.

(how could you not understand that... or why are you lying your ass off or trying to be cute by typing ARE as a misdirection?)

If your going to bring Penrose into any of these discussions you'll be come a laughing stock!

 

[jem]

are kidding me? piezoe?

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

Penrose has been awarded many prizes for his contributions to science. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 1972. In 1975, Stephen Hawking and Penrose were jointly awarded the Eddington Medal of theRoyal Astronomical Society. In 1985, he was awarded the Royal Society Royal Medal. Along with Stephen Hawking, he was awarded the prestigious Wolf Foundation Prize for Physics in 1988. In 1989 he was awarded the Dirac Medal and Prize of the British Institute of Physics. In 1990 Penrose was awarded the Albert Einstein Medal for outstanding work related to the work of Albert Einstein by the Albert Einstein Society. In 1991, he was awarded theNaylor Prize of the London Mathematical Society. From 1992 to 1995 he served as President of the International Society on General Relativity and Gravitation. In 1994, Penrose was knighted for services to science.[30] In the same year he was also awarded an Honorary Degree (Doctor of Science) by the University of Bath.[31] In 1998, he was elected Foreign Associate of the United States National Academy of Sciences. In 2000 he was appointed to the Order of Merit. In 2004 he was awarded the De Morgan Medal for his wide and original contributions to mathematical physics. To quote the citation from the London Mathematical Society:

His deep work on General Relativity has been a major factor in our understanding of black holes. His development of Twistor Theory has produced a beautiful and productive approach to the classical equations of mathematical physics. His tilings of the plane underlie the newly discovered quasi-crystals.[32]

In 2005 Penrose was awarded an honorary doctorate by Warsaw University and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium), and in 2006 by the University of York. In 2008 Penrose was awarded the Copley Medal. He is also a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association and one of the patrons of the Oxford University Scientific Society. In 2011, Penrose was awarded the Fonseca Prize by the University of Santiago de Compostela. In 2012, Penrose was awarded the Richard R. Ernst Medal by ETH Zürich for his contributions to science and strengthening the connection between science and society

If your going to bring Penrose into any of these discussions you'll be come a laughing stock!

 

[stu]

the fact that CERN found the higgs boson where it was predicted is, you troll, confirmation of the accuracy of the fine tuning of the standard model.

Go educate yourself on the Hierarchy Problem, you jerk, then stop making such an ass of yourself thinking you have any idea what you're talking about from crap you've simply pulled from the internet.

The Standard Model isn't fine tuned, it's incomplete, and in any case does nothing to confirm any so called fine tuning. No science does.

Anyone with half a braincell understands how some fine tuning Creator God or other has nothing to do with science and that you're simply acting like an idiot trying to suggest it does.

 

[piezoe]

Your driving me nuts with this expression of yours. I guess you picked it up from Penrose. "Fine tuned"! And now you've taken his unwise and loose use of the language and using it to imply "fine tunER"!!!! Penrose should have said "extremely precise." That's the correct scientific terminology. (Susskind's guilty too). Hardly any scientist today thinks complex organisms arose strictly via random chance. So please stop parroting what they told you in Sunday School that the evil atheists and scientists were saying.

I have mentioned in an earlier post that great precision, "fine tuning" Yikes!, is present everywhere in nature because the natural laws require it. And that no one in their right mind believes we evolved in such a twinkling of the eye as a few billion years by "random chance". You can put dirt in a jar and shake it for eternity, but that dirt will never turn into a frog. You can put water in jug and shake it for eternity and that water will never turn into Chateau Margaux, 1945 vintage. It won't even turn into Gallo Chablis..

 

[jem]

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...

here is another scientist explaining the fine tuning to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Examples
Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six dimensionless physical constants.[12]

• N, the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to the strength of gravity for a pair of protons, is approximately 1036. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.[12]

• Epsilon (ε), the strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei, is 0.007. If it were 0.006, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. If it were 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang.[12]

• Omega (Ω), also known as the Density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.[12]

• Lambda (λ) is the cosmological constant. It describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, λ, is on the order of 10−122.[13] This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If the cosmological constant was not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.[12]

• Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10−5. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees.[12]

• D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4.[12]

• Size and density of the Universe, (the current observable mass of the universe 1053kg). The more matter there is in the Universe, the stronger will be the gravitational pull among the matter. If the Universe were too dense then it would re-collapse into singularity. However, if the Universe contained too little matter then the expansion is accelerated greatly, thereby leaving no time for planets and planetary systems to form.[14]

• Uniformity of radiation in the the Universe. If smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed. If coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space.[15][15][16][17][18][19][20]

• Entropy level of the universe, If larger: stars would not form within protogalaxies, if smaller there no proto-galaxies would form.[21]

 

[jem]

piezoe...

a. you are coming up to speed... now start asking how likely is it that this incredible precision would come about by chance or whatever explanation you would like to pick... and why.

fine tuning was not used unwisely or loosely.

its a scientific term used perfectly well to describe the precision as being not natural (in the jargon of scientists).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuning

In theoretical physics, fine-tuning refers to circumstances when the parameters of a model must be adjusted very precisely in order to agree with observations. Theories requiring fine-tuning are regarded as problematic in the absence of a known mechanism to explain why the parameters happen to have precisely the needed values. The heuristic rule that parameters in a fundamental physical theory should not be too fine-tuned is called naturalness.[1][2] Explanations often invoked to resolve fine-tuning problems include natural mechanisms by which the values of the parameters may be constrained to their observed values, and the anthropic principle.


b. These debates I have had with stu have been going on for about 10 years. Susskind published a book about this. I have been using fine tuning properly ever since.

try... this.. I find it compelling and very well explained.
he explained the fine tuning and the 4 possible explanations including his choice.

you will see how much you have been missing.

Your driving me nuts with this expression of yours. I guess you picked it up from Penrose. "Fine tuned"! And now you've taken his unwise and loose use of the language and using it to imply "fine tunER"!!!! Penrose should have said "extremely precise." That's the correct scientific terminology. (Susskind's guilty too). Hardly any scientist today thinks complex organisms arose strictly via random chance. So please stop parroting what they told you in Sunday School that the evil atheists and scientists were saying.

I have mentioned in an earlier post that great precision, "fine tuning" Yikes!, is present everywhere in nature because the natural laws require it. And that no one in their right mind believes we evolved in such a twinkling of the eye as a few billion years by "random chance". You can put dirt in a jar and shake it for eternity, but that dirt will never turn into a frog. You can put water in jug and shake it for eternity and that water will never turn into Chateau Margaux, 1945 vintage. It won't even turn into Gallo Chablis..

 

[piezoe]

are kidding me? piezoe?

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

Penrose has been awarded many prizes for his contributions to science. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 1972. In 1975, Stephen Hawking and Penrose were jointly awarded the Eddington Medal of theRoyal Astronomical Society. In 1985, he was awarded the Royal Society Royal Medal. Along with Stephen Hawking, he was awarded the prestigious Wolf Foundation Prize for Physics in 1988. In 1989 he was awarded the Dirac Medal and Prize of the British Institute of Physics. In 1990 Penrose was awarded the Albert Einstein Medal for outstanding work related to the work of Albert Einstein by the Albert Einstein Society. In 1991, he was awarded theNaylor Prize of the London Mathematical Society. From 1992 to 1995 he served as President of the International Society on General Relativity and Gravitation. In 1994, Penrose was knighted for services to science.[30] In the same year he was also awarded an Honorary Degree (Doctor of Science) by the University of Bath.[31] In 1998, he was elected Foreign Associate of the United States National Academy of Sciences. In 2000 he was appointed to the Order of Merit. In 2004 he was awarded the De Morgan Medal for his wide and original contributions to mathematical physics. To quote the citation from the London Mathematical Society:

His deep work on General Relativity has been a major factor in our understanding of black holes. His development of Twistor Theory has produced a beautiful and productive approach to the classical equations of mathematical physics. His tilings of the plane underlie the newly discovered quasi-crystals.[32]

In 2005 Penrose was awarded an honorary doctorate by Warsaw University and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium), and in 2006 by the University of York. In 2008 Penrose was awarded the Copley Medal. He is also a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association and one of the patrons of the Oxford University Scientific Society. In 2011, Penrose was awarded the Fonseca Prize by the University of Santiago de Compostela. In 2012, Penrose was awarded the Richard R. Ernst Medal by ETH Zürich for his contributions to science and strengthening the connection between science and society

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.

 

[piezoe]

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!!!