Originally posted by Boogie:
Prof Brian Cox (pbuh) said it's the most significant discovery in his lifetime, he's very excited.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Being roughly translated, this means "please extend our research funding by a few more decades".
"if and when a new particle is discovered, it will not be clear straight away that it is the Higgs. Physicists will need to characterise its properties in order to confirm whether it is the version of the Higgs predicted by the Standard Model, a "non-conformist" Higgs that hints at new laws of physics, or something else entirely.
This will involve years of detailed and difficult work, said Dr Tony Weidberg, a University of Oxford physicist and member of one of the LHC's experimental teams, Atlas."
quote:The funny thing is: no scientist is really happy with this theory (the Standard Model). I guess quite a number of them were hoping not to find the Higgs boson, so that they could throw it out.
orfeo: If they find it, it's another thumbs up for the theory.
quote:I'm not sure why anybody ever called this the "God particle", that really is a bad name. And as a former high energy particle physicist I bet some money against colleagues over a decade ago that the Standard Model would hold, based on the sophisticated "theory" that nature dislikes the aestheticism physicist have used to extend their theories in the complete absence of data, and is about to teach us a painful lesson...
Originally posted by orfeo:
The God Particle is a catchy book title that stuck. As Wikipedia indicates, a lot of scientists really dislike the name because it completely overstates the importance of the particle. It's important yes, but I doubt that any physicist would claim that it has anything to do with explaining/proving/disproving God whatsoever.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The funny thing is: no scientist is really happy with this theory (the Standard Model). I guess quite a number of them were hoping not to find the Higgs boson, so that they could throw it out.
quote:Nonsense- that is not at all fantastic. It makes obvious sense that I'm English, because I happened to be born in England. We happen to inhabit this universe, so it's totally non-fantastic that it is a universe in which conditions are supportive of our being here to observe it. The probability of this universe being just right is 1. It is a certainty.
Originally posted by IngoB:
...alternate explanations rely on unobserved entities in a way that one can consider at least as "fantastic", e.g., the idea that there is an infinite number of universes co-existing, that cover all possibilities, of which we happen to inhabit the one which allows us to come into being.
quote:At this very same moment, somewhere deep underground with the LHC at CERN in Geneva:
IngoB: And as a former high energy particle physicist I bet some money against colleagues over a decade ago that the Standard Model would hold
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
)
quote:This is true, but it's hardly significant. Had any of those values been different then the universe would have been different. Maybe intelligent life would never have evolved. Maybe life wouldn't have evolved at all. Maybe matter wouldn't even have coalesced into stars and planets.
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, if the Standard Model holds and if we find the corresponding Higgs (rather than say supersymmetry and the Higgs belonging to that), then a massive so-called "fine tuning problem" arises. The universe as we find it would be incredibly unlikely, in the sense that some parameters would have to have very precise values or otherwise the world would not be as it is.
quote:Yup.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Nonsense- that is not at all fantastic. It makes obvious sense that I'm English, because I happened to be born in England. We happen to inhabit this universe, so it's totally non-fantastic that it is a universe in which conditions are supportive of our being here to observe it. The probability of this universe being just right is 1. It is a certainty.
Originally posted by IngoB:
...alternate explanations rely on unobserved entities in a way that one can consider at least as "fantastic", e.g., the idea that there is an infinite number of universes co-existing, that cover all possibilities, of which we happen to inhabit the one which allows us to come into being.
Yes, this does not speak to the possibility of countless other universes, in which conditions were not quite right, but the fact that we are in this one is totally non-fantastic.
quote:But to me, this doesn't answer the question: "Why is the Universe like this?"
orfeo: The probability of this universe being just right is 1. It is a certainty.
quote:
More work will be needed to be certain that what they see is a Higgs, however.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:I have no problem with that. I'm not in the 'scientists are money wolfs' camp.
BBC news, quoted by Eutychus: More work will be needed to be certain that what they see is a Higgs, however.
quote:But that's just it. This is no dichotomy. The universe is NOT extremely unlikely. Life is not extremely improbable- it is absolutely inevitable! The 'fine tuning problem' is therefore not a problem if you allow that the conditions which exist do in fact exist, which seems pretty straightforward. (And this is not a tautological thing if we can allow that other universes are theoretically possible in which the conditions are not suited to life.)
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The universe is, and is also extremely unlikely?
quote:
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.)
quote:Ah yes - the supernaturalist explanation. I'm impressed! Though I must admit that in a (fantasy) world of orbiting teapots, invisible pink unicorns and four-sided triangles, an infinite number of non-existent universes probably rates as small beer.
I can’t remember the source, but one of the Copenhagen crowd famously said that those who struggle with how mathematically unlikely this universe is (and therefore how Special it must be) fail to take into account all the other universes that didn’t make it. That’s a LOT of coin throws.
quote:Also to quote Wikipedia:
Originally posted by Yorick:
IngoB, your coin-tossing analogy doesn’t work here. You make it seem that there’s a possibility that the result could be anything other than 53 heads, but this is not the case, so although it may seem remarkable that all 53 throws come up heads, it actually isn’t. It is not demented to think there’s no trick involved.
You claim that the conditions necessary for the emergence of life are hugely improbable compared with all other alternatives for the universe that we may imagine. But this is a meaningless comparison. You claim that 53 heads is too improbable when one of those throws may have resulted in a tails. But none of those throws could have resulted in tails, or else the conditions would not have been met. In other words, 53 heads were certain, since the possibility of existence in which any tail are thrown is nil.
I can’t remember the source, but one of the Copenhagen crowd famously said that those who struggle with how mathematically unlikely this universe is (and therefore how Special it must be) fail to take into account all the other universes that didn’t make it. That’s a LOT of coin throws.
quote:
When a sequence of independent trials of a random process is observed to contain a remarkably long run in which some possible outcome did not occur (for example, when a roulette ball ended up on black 26 times in a row, and not even once on red, as reportedly happened on August 18, 1913, in the Monte Carlo Casino[295]), the underrepresented outcome is often believed then to be more likely for the next trial: it is thought to be "due".[296][297][298] This misconception is known as the gambler's fallacy; in reality, by the definition of statistical independence, that outcome is just as likely or unlikely on the next trial as always—a property sometimes informally described by the phrase, "the system has no memory".
quote:I think it’s a perspective thing. Ockham requires that the simplest explanation is the most likely to be true. From my perspective, a) is a simpler explanation than b), where: a) an infinite number of universes is theoretically possible, of which only one exists because it is the only one in which the conditions are right for life;
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
...it does rather drive a coach and horses through William of Ockham's little idea.
quote:I think your argument relies on a pack of cards being the same class of thing as a universe. Theories about card shuffling are accessible to us by testing empirically, hence (if your stated odds are correct), we can demonstrate that. Universes are not even accessible to us observationally. We are existent within a minute part of one, and can only observe even a tiny part of that. Theories about multiple universes are simply speculation. So I think your analogy falls at this point. It's not really a question of supernaturalism or not, unless of course you consider absolutely everything beyond the reach of empirical science to be supernaturalism.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
My understanding of probability and how it relates to evidence for god is cobbled together from the internet and pub conversations but here is the jist of it. Imagine if i took a normal pack of cards, shuffeled them and began to deal. The odds of dealing thirteen specified cards are about 635,000,000,000 to one. Nobody would look on in awe and tell me I just did the impossible and insist there must be something supernatural going on.
quote:Sorry, what precisely is the supposed DH here? Fine-tuning? Identified as DH according to which of the criteria?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[Puts on Host Hat
Think I'll leave it here. Another round or two may see the clear emergence of the Dead Horse, but there are other things to talk about re Higgs Boson so it seems fair to allow a bit of scope. B62 Purg Host. Takes off Hat]
quote:Erk! Sorry from me too. I'll shut up right now.
To add: sorry for this tangent, B62 and everyone. I will stop now!
quote:Unfortunately for you, you have committed one of the major fallacies of reasoning, which is confusing necessary and sufficient conditions.
Originally posted by Yorick
Life is not extremely improbable- it is absolutely inevitable!
quote:Of course something else could have been the case, both in the analogy and in reality. The important question there is what the "could" gets defined by. And - as explicitly pointed out - it does get defined by the model one builds, i.e., by the understanding one has of the world. That which we think is true about a coin toss makes it not only entirely possible that some other result than 53 heads in a row could occur, it indeed makes that exceedingly likely. Of course, we could be mistaken in our understanding of a coin toss. That is just what stands behind building different models of explanation: a model where both sides of the coin show heads finds it very easy to explain 53 heads in a row. But within the terms of any one model it is the role of reason to explore whether it is a likely explanation of what we see in the world. This process we call science.
Originally posted by Yorick:
You make it seem that there’s a possibility that the result could be anything other than 53 heads, but this is not the case, so although it may seem remarkable that all 53 throws come up heads, it actually isn’t. It is not demented to think there’s no trick involved.
quote:This simply is demented reasoning. I am not asking the question "How likely is it that observers observe themselves to be in a universe that allows the existence of observers?" Clearly that is certain in an entirely trivial way. I am asking the question: "Given what observers understand about the functioning of the universe they find themselves in, how likely would it have been that the same functional mechanisms could have produced universes that do not support observers (and yes, hence would not be observed)?" If the answer to this is "exceedingly likely" then these observers can be considered "incredibly lucky" to exist, according to their own understanding of how the world works.
Originally posted by Yorick:
But none of those throws could have resulted in tails, or else the conditions would not have been met. In other words, 53 heads were certain, since the possibility of existence in which any tail are thrown is nil.
quote:You clearly do not realize that this - unattributed and paraphrased - comment presupposes exactly the logic I have laid out above, unlike your response. The "many universes" explanation precisely reflects the force of the argument I'm making here. That is sensible, even though the given explanation is not particularly compelling. The "many universes" idea tries to deal with the problem of likelihood by saying that while the chances are 10^16 to one (or whatever), there are also a huge number of worlds (usually an "infinite" number gets claimed), so that we should not be particularly surprised that one of them ends up like ours. In response to the infinitesimal likelihood, the sample size got cranked up astronomically. This is no denial of infinitesimal likelihood, this is the obvious "statistical" fudge for it! Unfortunately, to posit a huge or even infinite number of entities that are unobserved, and by definition always will remains so, is hardly satisfying. That really is spitting Ockham in the face...
Originally posted by Yorick:
I can’t remember the source, but one of the Copenhagen crowd famously said that those who struggle with how mathematically unlikely this universe is (and therefore how Special it must be) fail to take into account all the other universes that didn’t make it. That’s a LOT of coin throws.
quote:Say you have no clue about poker whatsoever, but you are given a videostream where you can see countless games being played by top level players, including the chips that get exchanged. Slowly you begin reconstructing the basic rules of poker from your observations, and even start to understand some of the "higher rules" that govern these games. Then one day you see someone getting three royal flushes in a row, taking all the chips available in the process. Are you perhaps a little bit suspicious? In spite of this having the same probability as any other three sets of cards?
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Imagine if i took a normal pack of cards, shuffeled them and began to deal. The odds of dealing thirteen specified cards are about 635,000,000,000 to one. Nobody would look on in awe and tell me I just did the impossible and insist there must be something supernatural going on.
quote:It is a thoroughly ridiculous definition of simplicity, which considers an infinity of utterly unobservable causes to be "simpler" than a single cause that potentially could be observed in some of its effects.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Ockham requires that the simplest explanation is the most likely to be true. From my perspective, a) is a simpler explanation than b), where: a) an infinite number of universes is theoretically possible, of which only one exists because it is the only one in which the conditions are right for life; b) God created this universe.
quote:An interesting variant of "I admit I'm wrong".
Originally posted by Yorick
Fortunately for me, I don't give a fuck.
quote:HA!
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Alan Cresswell
Very interesting information - wish I'd learnt more about Physics when I was younger!
Re the 'God particle': Just adding one more small point to the references made above - I understand the publishers thought the book would sell better if it was called 'The God Particle' and not the 'Goddam; one!!
quote:That may be but someone said that this is only one side of the rubic cube. There are another five sides to discover.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Prof Brian Cox (pbuh) said it's the most significant discovery in his lifetime, he's very excited.
quote:It is, of course, even worse than that. Not only can't we prove anything we can't disprove something either (after all, 'disprove' is simply prove something is wrong).
Originally posted by Think²:
I just want to stick my oar in about one principle of scientific endeavour. Nothing has been proved, support has been provided for the alternate hypothesis. Experimentation can only ever disprove - not prove.
quote:Very few particles are named after people, but then most of them come in families. If this new particle is in fact the carrier, or whatever the term is, of the Higgs field, then I'd expect it to keep the name.
Originally posted by Balaam:
Peter Higgs postulated the existence of a particle. Years later scientists find something very similar. But even if the particle is identical to Higgs hypothesis, expect the particle to be named after someone in the team that found it.
After the euphoria dies down the name Higgs Boson will be history.
quote:Don't knock it Alan. Why, merely another thirty-three tossed heads would prove the existence of God!
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Even the 5 sigma criterion they've applied is a relatively low level of statistical significance (similar to the odds of tossing 20 heads in a row), and a statistical fluke is still a remote possibility.
quote:Being pretty doesn't make you right.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Prof Brian Cox (pbuh) said it's the most significant discovery in his lifetime, he's very excited.
quote:The two statements I've highlighted point to where your argument falls down. You are assuming that life as we know it was the pre-determined "royal flush" of existence from its very start, and that the Higgs must therefore have been fine tuned to achieve that extremely unlikely end.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The natural scientific reaction to seeing patterns is to seek an explanation. Every pattern could be random, but if the odds are so terribly against it then we expect there to be an explanation. Furthermore, this incredibly unlikely pattern occurs in a context of already established meaning. It's not just any pattern. Just like a royal flush is not just any arrangement of cards. It's what wins you the money for sure. If you see it three times in a row to get all the money, you must wonder. Hence practically no scientist would accept that the Higgs really has been fine-tuned by chance. There must be something going on there.
quote:Whilst not exactly false, it does show how maths lives in a closed world unrelated to the real world. For a more educated view on this, read the discussion on mathematical probability in A. J. Ayer's Language Truth and Logic.
When a sequence of independent trials of a random process is observed to contain a remarkably long run in which some possible outcome did not occur . . . the underrepresented outcome is often believed then to be more likely for the next trial: it is thought to be "due". This misconception is known as the gambler's fallacy; in reality, by the definition of statistical independence, that outcome is just as likely or unlikely on the next trial as always—a property sometimes informally described by the phrase, "the system has no memory"
quote:While I privately do believe that the universe does have a (Divine) plan, that was not the point. The point was rather that the Higgs is already an established part of our understanding of the universe. We are not talking about detecting regularity from scratch in a sea of noise. We are talking about detecting it within a detailed network of already established regularities. The problem of fine tuning we are talking about actually is expressed in specific quantum field theoretic calculations (see here), in a system of descriptive maths that has proven ability to predict nature.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The two statements I've highlighted point to where your argument falls down. You are assuming that life as we know it was the pre-determined "royal flush" of existence from its very start, and that the Higgs must therefore have been fine tuned to achieve that extremely unlikely end. But that's not the case, because there is no "already established meaning" to the universe. The universe is like a card game for which there are no rules and in which no particular hand is better than any others, just different.
quote:All that means is we theorised that a certain particle should exist based on our other observations of the universe, and then we finally detected it. It's a fabulous bit of science, but it's not proof of universal "fine tuning" in the way I thought you were using the term.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The point was rather that the Higgs is already an established part of our understanding of the universe. We are not talking about detecting regularity from scratch in a sea of noise. We are talking about detecting it within a detailed network of already established regularities.
quote:If three of us are sitting around the table, all with Royal Flushes, we can deduce quite a lot about the deck of cards that had been used to deal with. We can even say how unlikely it is that we all have Royal Flushes.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:All that means is we theorised that a certain particle should exist based on our other observations of the universe, and then we finally detected it. It's a fabulous bit of science, but it's not proof of universal "fine tuning" in the way I thought you were using the term.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The point was rather that the Higgs is already an established part of our understanding of the universe. We are not talking about detecting regularity from scratch in a sea of noise. We are talking about detecting it within a detailed network of already established regularities.
quote:Surely the standard reply to the fine-tuning problem is as follows. It's only a universe as fine tuned as ours that can possibly give rise to people who can run around going "Wow! Look at how fine tuned the universe is!" In other words, unlike being dealt a hand at poker, the phenomenon and our tendency to remark on it are actually interdependent.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If three of us are sitting around the table, all with Royal Flushes, we can deduce quite a lot about the deck of cards that had been used to deal with. We can even say how unlikely it is that we all have Royal Flushes.
What we can't say is that the dealer meant to deal those cards to us, rather than any other combination of cards.
It could be that the dealer has, in fact, presorted the deck - but we have no way of telling unless two of us both have the Ace of Spades. Since the universe doesn't appear to have an extra Ace up it's sleeve, the dealer remains inscrutable.
quote:Actually, the odds of those three royal flushes being dealt are exactly the same as the odds of any other three hands. It's only because an extra significance is attached to that particular combination of cards in advance of the deal that it seems so unlikely.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If three of us are sitting around the table, all with Royal Flushes, we can deduce quite a lot about the deck of cards that had been used to deal with. We can even say how unlikely it is that we all have Royal Flushes.
quote:At some point, all analogies break down and become useless. Both the problem, and the joy of it, is that we look for and find patterns, even when there are none that are purposefully meant: clouds in the shape of animals or faces in the side of a cliff. We say "how remarkable", when the remarkable thing is that we are able to form those associations in the first place.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The nearest analogy I can think of right now is if I were to say, "Isn't it amazing that the word "the" contains the letters t, h and e in precisely that order!" Actually, it's only the fact that I am already an English speaker that enables me to make that remark in the first place.
quote:Which makes the analogy even better! We look for patterns that have meaning. When we find one, we treasure it.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Actually, the odds of those three royal flushes being dealt are exactly the same as the odds of any other three hands. It's only because an extra significance is attached to that particular combination of cards in advance of the deal that it seems so unlikely.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If three of us are sitting around the table, all with Royal Flushes, we can deduce quite a lot about the deck of cards that had been used to deal with. We can even say how unlikely it is that we all have Royal Flushes.
Take away that pre-defined significance and all you've got is three hands that happened to be dealt the way they were dealt.
quote:Terry Pratchett got clever in his "About the Author" section along these lines.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The nearest analogy I can think of right now is if I were to say, "Isn't it amazing that the word "the" contains the letters t, h and e in precisely that order!" Actually, it's only the fact that I am already an English speaker that enables me to make that remark in the first place.
quote:Science!
Terry Pratchett lives in England, an island off the coast of France, where he spends his time writing Discworld novels in accordance with the Very Strong Anthropic Principle, which holds that the entire Purpose of the Universe is to make possible a being that will live in England, an island off the coast of France, and spend his time writing Discworld novels. Which is exactly what he does. Which proves the whole business true. Any questions?
quote:Absolutely!
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Which makes the analogy even better! We look for patterns that have meaning. When we find one, we treasure it.
quote:It is not the existence of the Higgs boson which poses the fine tuning problem. Rather, if the Higgs boson exists as the Standard Model claims, then we get the Hierarchy problem (described in the Wikipedia link in my prior post) and that is a kind of fine tuning problem. My point is that at this stage of discussion we are not looking at random curious events. We are looking at an analysis of nature that has already progressed deeply.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
All that means is we theorised that a certain particle should exist based on our other observations of the universe, and then we finally detected it. It's a fabulous bit of science, but it's not proof of universal "fine tuning" in the way I thought you were using the term.
quote:As mentioned above, that is just demented reasoning.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Surely the standard reply to the fine-tuning problem is as follows. It's only a universe as fine tuned as ours that can possibly give rise to people who can run around going "Wow! Look at how fine tuned the universe is!"
quote:I kill anti-realists on sight. I suggest that you attach significance to patterns indicating my presence in your vicinity. Rapidly.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm just saying that we shouldn't assume that that pattern has any significance beyond that which our pattern recognition gives it.
quote:Because working scientists are cartoonish fictional caricatures? That seems a bit harsh.
Originally posted by IngoB:
To ask a working scientist to accept this as "pure chance" is like asking Scrooge McDuck to pay off the US deficit.
quote:This not denying realism, ie, saying that the data that make up the pattern do not exist. It is saying that the pattern need not have significance.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I kill anti-realists on sight. I suggest that you attach significance to patterns indicating my presence in your vicinity. Rapidly.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm just saying that we shouldn't assume that that pattern has any significance beyond that which our pattern recognition gives it.
quote:I like and agree with nearly all your posts but this one isn't worthy of you.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh my goodness. The shirt I pulled out of the cupboard this morning more or less at random fits me PERFECTLY. It's INCREDIBLE!
quote:Really?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I like and agree with nearly all your posts but this one isn't worthy of you.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh my goodness. The shirt I pulled out of the cupboard this morning more or less at random fits me PERFECTLY. It's INCREDIBLE!
I am not an expert, though i try to keep up - I don't think you've read enough about this subject.
quote:Yes, we are. But my point is that we're saying "oh, how remarkably unlikely it was that the universe could have produced us!", and attaching some significance to the fact that it did. It's as if we think the universe was somehow trying to produce us.
Originally posted by IngoB:
My point is that at this stage of discussion we are not looking at random curious events. We are looking at an analysis of nature that has already progressed deeply.
quote:The "known rules" didn't exist before the creation of the universe. They are our attempt to rationalise the way the universe works. They are us observing patterns in reality, if you will.
Basically, working from the "known rules",
quote:Why does that surprise you? To me it's obvious that the universe operates to an inestimable level of precision, because that's what real things do. All of this adjustment of "free" parameters is just us trying to make our calculations fit reality, not reality trying to fit our calculations.
one finds that two conceptionally independent parts of the theory must cancel each other out precisely, to which end one has to adjust a "free" parameter of the theory to a precision of one in 10^16 (or something like that).
quote:It depends what you mean by "pure chance". The universe exists the way it exists. That's fact. And, amazingly, the more accurately we measure it the more accurately "fine tuned" we discover it to be! Is that "pure chance", or is that simply a predictable outcome of our increasing ability to observe things with extreme precision?
To ask a working scientist to accept this as "pure chance" is like asking Scrooge McDuck to pay off the US deficit. It's just not going to happen.
quote:Eh? I'm not denying reality, I'm disputing your analysis of it. Specifically, I'm disputing the significance you place upon the patterns you observe.
quote:I kill anti-realists on sight. I suggest that you attach significance to patterns indicating my presence in your vicinity. Rapidly.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm just saying that we shouldn't assume that that pattern has any significance beyond that which our pattern recognition gives it.
quote:There's nothing "as if" about that for me... but that just provides motivation for me to make my argument, it is not my argument here.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's as if we think the universe was somehow trying to produce us.
quote:And what I am trying to tell you is that you are engaging in special pleading there. You are not walking through the world expecting everything to be random fluctuations. Wherever science has looked, we have found deep regularities. And where there appears to be true randomness, say in evolution or quantum mechanics, this randomness is in some sense serving the regularities. There really is nothing natural about assuming that two unrelated parts of a theory cancel out perfectly by tuning parameters to 1 in 10^16. Stuff like that screams for an explanation, because all prior experience and understanding suggests that accidents do not happen, at least not in this way.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If you deal five cards at random, you will have dealt five cards. That's all. The likelihood of them being any particular hand is exactly the same for all possible hands. It's only when you start pre-assigning significance to certain hands that a royal flush becomes more remarkable than an eight-high.
quote:Yes, it does scream for an explanation. And that is your special pleading.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Wherever science has looked, we have found deep regularities. And where there appears to be true randomness, say in evolution or quantum mechanics, this randomness is in some sense serving the regularities. There really is nothing natural about assuming that two unrelated parts of a theory cancel out perfectly by tuning parameters to 1 in 10^16. Stuff like that screams for an explanation, because all prior experience and understanding suggests that accidents do not happen, at least not in this way.
quote:No, I'm not. Because the hand has already been dealt. I'm certainly not saying that the cards, once dealt, can magically change into other cards - that would be crazy.
Originally posted by IngoB:
You are not walking through the world expecting everything to be random fluctuations.
quote:Of course we have! The hand doesn't change once dealt!
Wherever science has looked, we have found deep regularities.
quote:But what is the accident, exactly? We small creatures create crazy theories about the vast universe in which we live, and as we get better and better at doing so we find that our theories seem to come together in minute perfection. But that's just because we're getting better and more accurate at creating theories - it says a lot about us, but not much about the universe.
There really is nothing natural about assuming that two unrelated parts of a theory cancel out perfectly by tuning parameters to 1 in 10^16. Stuff like that screams for an explanation, because all prior experience and understanding suggests that accidents do not happen, at least not in this way.
quote:Not really, it's just an answer to those who say that the massive improbability of the universe being in exactly the right state to produce us means there must have been a Creator.
The claim that our fine-tuned existence (if it turns out to be fine-tuned) is like numbers drawn in a lottery is itself a deep statement about the universe, for which no evidence exists.
quote:If the living room is the only one that has ever existed, and the molecules and atoms have never been observed to be anywhere else (despite the theoretical possibility that they could be), then I'd say that's probably the normal run of things. Sure, it's theoretically improbable, but I'll take observation over theory any time
For example, say I show you a picture of a living room which is filled with the normal collection of molecules and atoms which we would expect to see in its air. But all of them are packed extremely tightly into one corner of the room, leaving the rest in a vacuum. What is your natural reaction?
quote:Your shirt fits because you bought it.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Really?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I like and agree with nearly all your posts but this one isn't worthy of you.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh my goodness. The shirt I pulled out of the cupboard this morning more or less at random fits me PERFECTLY. It's INCREDIBLE!
I am not an expert, though i try to keep up - I don't think you've read enough about this subject.
I thought the connection between "my shirt fits me perfectly" and "my universe fits me perfectly" was rather obvious in the thread's context.
The key word, of course, being 'my'.
quote:But the point is exactly the same, leo, the point being that the selection has already been made before the moment of my new, exciting observation. Of course the universe we're in is going to be one we CAN be in. Otherwise we wouldn't be in it. And of course the shirt I pull out of my cupboard will be suitable for me, otherwise it wouldn't be in the cupboard.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Your shirt fits because you bought it.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Really?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I like and agree with nearly all your posts but this one isn't worthy of you.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh my goodness. The shirt I pulled out of the cupboard this morning more or less at random fits me PERFECTLY. It's INCREDIBLE!
I am not an expert, though i try to keep up - I don't think you've read enough about this subject.
I thought the connection between "my shirt fits me perfectly" and "my universe fits me perfectly" was rather obvious in the thread's context.
The key word, of course, being 'my'.
That is not the same as saying that the shirt started to evolve, before your existence, so that it would fit you.
quote:Not at all. Taking three royal flushes out of a deck of cards still leaves 37 other cards in the deck.
Originally posted by HCH:
Comment on a side concept: If three out of four players have royal flushes, the fourth player presumably also has one.
quote:Or being young! If he'd been a bit older he would've been much more excited about the mobile phone or the PC or the flush toilet....
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:Being pretty doesn't make you right.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Prof Brian Cox (pbuh) said it's the most significant discovery in his lifetime, he's very excited.
quote:This is hardly an inescapable conclusion, even if you were not mixing levels of description - which you are: even if we accept that quantum mechanics has a truly random element, that does not tell us at all that Planck's constant has acquired its value randomly.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's an inescapable conclusion that the universe in which we live is full of remarkable coincidences right down to the subatomic level.
quote:It is not that simple. To return to my example: practically all random distributions of air molecules in a closed room will lead to one specific macroscopic state of the room up to negligible fluctuations: the same temperature and pressure throughout, and invariably that particular temperature and pressure. There is only an infinitesimally small fraction of distributions which differ drastically, e.g., the one where all molecules are squeezed into a corner of the room. It is for this reason that we can and do confidently use the ideal gas law (or more sophisticated macroscopic descriptions): while there is a chance that we are utterly mistaken in applying this macroscopic law, the chance of that is so ridiculously tiny that for all intents and purposes it is insane to worry about it. With regards to the fine-tuning problems we are in the situation that (1) we think that we understand the system, and (2) it appears to be arranged in a ridiculously improbable way. Practically all other arrangements which we see as just as probable based on our understanding of the system consistently lead to an outcome that we do not observe. It is as if we get to see one snap shot of the room, with all air molecules cramped into one corner of the room, while being fully aware just how ridiculously unlikely that is considering key macroscopic features. "WTF?" really is the natural reaction to this.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What we can't tell is if those coincidences are specially designed or simply one iteration of a wide set of values for h, c etc.
quote:Nope. It says a lot about the universe, since our theories are not crazy at all, we are getting better and better at them and it is wondrous that they come together in minute perfection. While I agree that humans have plenty of limitations, I do believe that human understanding is - or at least can be - an accurate reflection of how the universe in fact exists. It is not that I'm optimistic that we will understand all there is, but I'm indeed optimistic that what we think we understand in some sense we really do understand. It's not just a bunch of made-up stories.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But what is the accident, exactly? We small creatures create crazy theories about the vast universe in which we live, and as we get better and better at doing so we find that our theories seem to come together in minute perfection. But that's just because we're getting better and more accurate at creating theories - it says a lot about us, but not much about the universe.
quote:Well, I have never said that this will provide proof in an absolute sense. There is an infinitesimal probability for this to happen even if all is entirely random, so that it has happened cannot rule out absolute randomness. But I think it is non-rational (not irrational) to insist on such absolute randomness.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Not really, it's just an answer to those who say that the massive improbability of the universe being in exactly the right state to produce us means there must have been a Creator.
quote:The judgement that this is incredibly improbable is based on observation. If you want to stick to the analogy, then you have been witnessing enough of molecular motion to infer that the state you are observing is truly exceptional in a macroscopic sense. Fine-tuning problems concern natural laws established by the efforts of many researchers using countless observations. They are not pulled out of thin air.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If the living room is the only one that has ever existed, and the molecules and atoms have never been observed to be anywhere else (despite the theoretical possibility that they could be), then I'd say that's probably the normal run of things. Sure, it's theoretically improbable, but I'll take observation over theory any time
quote:No it's not, and that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is our theories are our way of trying to understand what already exists, and as such as we get better at measuring, the more accurate (and thus apparently "fine-tuned") the universe will appear to be.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I do believe that human understanding is - or at least can be - an accurate reflection of how the universe in fact exists. It is not that I'm optimistic that we will understand all there is, but I'm indeed optimistic that what we think we understand in some sense we really do understand. It's not just a bunch of made-up stories.
quote:Sometimes things just are the way they are.
But I think it is non-rational (not irrational) to insist on such absolute randomness.
quote:It's not, though. We have never once observed a universe where the Planck constant is different. We can theorise about such a universe, but that's not the same thing at all.
The judgement that this is incredibly improbable is based on observation.
quote:If you think it's so clear-cut that alternative states of our universe could exist, then please provide examples. But bear in mind that saying something like "what if the Planck constant was different" doesn't count, because the Planck constant (or any other fundamental physical constant) was created by us as a means of explaining what already exists. There's no evidence whatsoever that it could be different. To me, asking what would happen if such constants were different is like asking "what if blue was red?".
If you want to stick to the analogy, then you have been witnessing enough of molecular motion to infer that the state you are observing is truly exceptional in a macroscopic sense. Fine-tuning problems concern natural laws established by the efforts of many researchers using countless observations. They are not pulled out of thin air.
quote:If it could be proved that there wasn't a problem with the observation itself, then yes I would probably see it as a (very strange) natural phenomenon.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm wondering. Suppose that our telescopes would find a galaxy at billions lightyears of distance, and within one arm of this galaxy, there would be a grid of 300x100 lightyears, where the stars are neatly aligned to form the words 'Marvin the Martian is a cool guy'.
What would Marvin's reaction to this be? "This arrangement of stars is just as likely as any other arrangement?" "There's nothing improbable about this, the hand has already been dealt?"
quote:None. You can't prove God through scientific observation, you can only believe in Him through faith.
So, let's go for a minute to the hypothetical case that the Universe is created by an intelligent being. What would be sufficient proof for Marvin the Martian that it was? (Short of God appearing before him and saying that He did it.)
quote:Your moving away from the premise a bit by referring to other languages and paleidolia. To make my example more clear: the stars are arranged in a grid that spells this sentence exactly, in a 8x8 font (like the ones we used in 80s home computers), accurate to the last millimeter. There's no interpretation here, the stars write exactly that, and in English.
Marvin the Martian:
Just because we as a species see the shapes of bulls in the stars and faces on Mars doesn't really mean anything.
quote:I agree. That's why my example is hypothetical. Suppose that our Universe is created by an intelligent being (not necessarily God). Would anythong prove to you that it was?
Marvin the Martian: You can't prove God through scientific observation, you can only believe in Him through faith.
quote:What's so special about English, or this specific sentence, or an 8x8 font?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
To make my example more clear: the stars are arranged in a grid that spells this sentence exactly, in a 8x8 font (like the ones we used in 80s home computers), accurate to the last millimeter. There's no interpretation here, the stars write exactly that, and in English.
quote:I thought I'd already answered that. No.
Suppose that our Universe is created by an intelligent being (not necessarily God). Would anythong prove to you that it was?
quote:Indeed, it is not the same thing. But reason is not really constrained by observation in that sense. It would make science rather boring if it was merely an organized catalogue of prior observations. It is a major point of science that we gain understanding beyond what has been observed. Otherwise for example we could never predict anything.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
We have never once observed a universe where the Planck constant is different. We can theorise about such a universe, but that's not the same thing at all.
quote:Hence obviously saying "what if the Planck constant was different" counts just as much as saying "what if the Planck constant is 6.62606957×10^−34 Js", which is what we currently base our predictions on. In making models (laws) of the world, we are what-if-ing their parameters (constants). That's precisely why we then try to measure them! We do not need to measure the square root of two if it occurs in our theories, we know what that is. We must measure the Planck constant precisely because it could have other values than the one we find.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If you think it's so clear-cut that alternative states of our universe could exist, then please provide examples. But bear in mind that saying something like "what if the Planck constant was different" doesn't count, because the Planck constant (or any other fundamental physical constant) was created by us as a means of explaining what already exists.
quote:Excellent example. What distinguishes blue from red is simply the frequency with which the electromagnetic waves oscillates. That's a parameter. And if we have a parameter, then we can change it. Unless we see a good reason why we can't do this. Not only is it perfectly valid to ask what if blue was red, i.e., what if the frequency of light was two-thirds of what we observe? We can go even further, and predict the existence of infrared, with even lower frequencies than red. Or violet and ultraviolet light with even higher frequencies than blue. We may even daringly think of X-rays and microwaves. All just because we have a model (electromagnetic waves) with a parameter (frequency). And the one thing every scientist who sees a parameter immediately thinks is "What if this has a different value?"
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There's no evidence whatsoever that it could be different. To me, asking what would happen if such constants were different is like asking "what if blue was red?".
quote:OK, let's use that example. My body mass affects my body position when I run (model 1), and it is determined by my food intake and metabolism (model 2). Two different models, one parameter.
Originally posted by IngoB:
So for example, I may consider your body mass to be a parameter of my Newton mechanics model with which I calculate your position when running. But this parameter "body mass" is then a variable in a different model that considers your metabolism and food intake.
quote:That's pretty much what I'm saying, yes. Not that I'm confident we'll ever be clever enough to actually work it out, of course, but I'm sure it's possible for a sufficiently advanced being. Just like measuring the diameter of the planet to the nearest angstrom would be possible to a being that had sufficiently advanced measuring equipment.
At this point in time, many scientists still hope that eventually all will be explained in terms of one "theory of everything" that needs very few "truly fundamental constants" - or even better none at all!
quote:Granted.
Hence obviously saying "what if the Planck constant was different" counts just as much as saying "what if the Planck constant is 6.62606957×10^−34 Js", which is what we currently base our predictions on.
quote:Could it? I mean, it only has existence as a way to make our models work - it's the ultimate fudge, a way to say "my model doesn't work properly, but if I arbitrarily multiply by this number it's close enough".
In making models (laws) of the world, we are what-if-ing their parameters (constants). That's precisely why we then try to measure them! We do not need to measure the square root of two if it occurs in our theories, we know what that is. We must measure the Planck constant precisely because it could have other values than the one we find.
quote:I anticipated the comeback, though. I originally typed it as "square circle", but you'd doubtless have brought up non-euclidian geometry if I had
And before you complain, yes, I know that you meant this as an absurd question.
.quote:The fundamental constants aren't like that though, they're not simply one value along a known continuum. They are what they are.
But my point is that you are being unfair. Even if we do never observe any light but blue, because there only ever is one flash of light and it happens to be blue, it remains reasonable to ask "what if that flash was red instead?" At least that is reasonable if we have come to an understanding of the actual flash of light in terms of electromagnetic waves of a certain frequency.
quote:That's not what the fine-tuning problem is like. Or more precisely, nobody has been able to come up with a good reason why it should be like that in this case. Or even more precisely, some people have come up with a totally speculative reason why it could be like that in this case, but it now looks like this reason is going to get killed by recent data. The fine-tuning problem in this case consists in different processes cancelling each other out exactly although nobody understands why they would. We just don't have the equivalent to "but it is the same mass in the two models, since it is the same person, isn't it?" at hand. It is precisely the lack of such an explanation which drives this discussion.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
When those two scientists share their results, they will find that this parameter "body mass" that they have both independently calculated happens to be exactly the same in both their models! Oh, what were the odds! This must mean something!
quote:Interesting. What would be a "natural" reason why you would expect there to be a parameter-free, unifying theory of everything?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Not that I'm confident we'll ever be clever enough to actually work it out, of course, but I'm sure it's possible for a sufficiently advanced being. Just like measuring the diameter of the planet to the nearest angstrom would be possible to a being that had sufficiently advanced measuring equipment.
quote:That's precisely why it could have some other value. As long as it is a "fudge", there is no reason why it would have to have any particular value, and so we have to measure it. Of course, in term of observed reality it then does have one specific value (if our model is any good). But nothing in the model itself tells me that this specific value must be, so it is entirely reasonable to ask what the impact of some other value would be.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I mean, it only has existence as a way to make our models work - it's the ultimate fudge, a way to say "my model doesn't work properly, but if I arbitrarily multiply by this number it's close enough".
quote:Everything is what it is. That is what "is" means. Still, the question "Why is it is as it is?" can have a meaningful answer.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The fundamental constants aren't like that though, they're not simply one value along a known continuum. They are what they are.
quote:People who couldn't even derive the Heisenberg uncertainty principle from Schroedinger's equation making ex-cathedra pronouncements about Quantum Mechanics.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Sorry, what precisely is the supposed DH here? Fine-tuning? Identified as DH according to which of the
quote:Indeed, there is a lump of metal, in Paris, I believe, that happens to weigh *precisely* 1 kilogram. Precisely!
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A rock weighs what it weighs. We can measure it to the nearest kilogram or to the nearest microgram, but it's still the same rock and it's still the same weight. The fact that the rock happens to be exactly the weight we measure it to be doesn't mean it was deliberately created to be exactly that weight.
quote:Alright, let me try something else. From your screen name I understand that you appreciate science fiction, so maybe this will help.
Marvin the Martian: I thought I'd already answered that. No.
quote:So, if we knew nothing about the kilogram, but found out that all over the world in many national scientific institutes there are these spheres of metal that happen to weigh exactly the same, up to the very limits of measurement technology (*), we would be justified in assuming that this is not an accident - because that would be so incredibly unlikely - but rather that this has been intentionally made to be so by some agent, probably an international organization?
Originally posted by orfeo:
Indeed, there is a lump of metal, in Paris, I believe, that happens to weigh *precisely* 1 kilogram. Precisely! Seems remarkable until you realise the kilogram was defined as the mass of this lump of metal...
quote:But I'm with IngoB: suppose that we'd visit a lot of planets, and on every planet we'd find a rock that weighs exactly 1 kg. Exact to 20 number after the decimal point. Surely we'd suspect that something is going on here.
mousethief: All such analogies fail because we know the kilogram was invented by a cognitive agent.
quote:Wow. This was kind of... Gnosticism combined with The Matrix. Nice!
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Alright, let me try something else. From your screen name I understand that you appreciate science fiction, so maybe this will help.
Marvin the Martian: I thought I'd already answered that. No.
Marvin, I'm actually not supposed to tell you this, but you were born in another universe. A universe that is really nice, without pain, sorrow, hunger... Also, all beings in your universe are very powerful. However, there is one setback. In your universe, there is a race called the Vortians. Normally they're really nice, but when you get in trouble with them, they can get really crossed.
You got in trouble with them. To punish you, they created another universe -this universe- with all its pain, sorrow and hunger, and they banished you here. They wiped all your memories of your earlier existance, and they put you here to suffer and ultimately die.
First, the Vortians said to themselves: "We have to be careful. We have to make sure that we don't put anything in that universe that's improbable, or Marvin will be on to us." But one of them said, "Nah, that won't be necessary. Marvin will never be convinced that he lives in a constructed universe, no matter what we do."
So, they decided to play with this a little. In the next years of your life, Marvin, you will see a number of things, in increasing improbability. You'll see your name written in the stars. You'll see a room with all air molecules at one side. You'll see dancing unicorns moving synchronously to form a perfect dodecahedron.
None of this will convince you that you live in a constructed universe. You'll always answer with things like:
"This arrangement is just as likely as any other."
"There's nothing improbable with this, the hand has already been dealt."
"This is all paleidolia. What's so special about these letters?"
"Wouldn't it be a greater wonder that humans thought of an animal -a unicorn- that exactly matches the image I'm seeing now?"
And every time you say something like this, the Vortians will be laughing their three-buttocked asses off.
What you're telling me, is that the Vortians will always succeed. No matter what they do, you'll never suspect that you're living in a constructed universe.
quote:But we haven't visited a lot of planets. You're saying in certain circumstances we would draw such-and-such conclusions. That's interesting but immaterial. We're not in those circumstances and cannot be given our current technology.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:But I'm with IngoB: suppose that we'd visit a lot of planets, and on every planet we'd find a rock that weighs exactly 1 kg. Exact to 20 number after the decimal point. Surely we'd suspect that something is going on here.
mousethief: All such analogies fail because we know the kilogram was invented by a cognitive agent.
quote:Alright, we're getting closer now. I'm not trying to answer the question "Is this universe created by God?" The conclusion I want to draw is an answer to the question: "Is there any way the universe could be, so that we would draw the conclusion that it was created by an intelligent being?"
mousethief: But we haven't visited a lot of planets. You're saying in certain circumstances we would draw such-and-such conclusions. That's interesting but immaterial. We're not in those circumstances and cannot be given our current technology.
quote:The thing is: in Marvin's reasoning, no situation, however designed, would make it look to him like the Universe was created by an intelligent being. He said so here.
mousethief: You might as well ask, if you find yourself in a situation that was designed to make it look like there was a God, wouldn't it be reasonable to think there is a God? Um, yeah. So what?
quote:One of my favorite words is pareidolia (the ususal spelling- though I think it's sometimes written your way). Thanks for using it.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
paleidolia
quote:Oops, my mistake
Yorick: One of my favorite words is pareidolia (the ususal spelling- though I think it's sometimes written your way). Thanks for using it.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
At least the way I spelled it looks like pareidolia, and there's no coincidence about that
quote:It's the same universe, isn't it? Things run according to the same basic physical processes across the whole thing. The same forces act on all models.
Originally posted by IngoB:
We just don't have the equivalent to "but it is the same mass in the two models, since it is the same person, isn't it?" at hand. It is precisely the lack of such an explanation which drives this discussion.
quote:Is not one of the options "we simply aren't capable of working this out"? Or are we as a species being so arrogant that we assume if we can't see it it doesn't exist?
Obviously, what most scientists, including yours truly, expect is that there is some "natural law type reason" for this. We are not just assuming instantly "it must be God". That's not at all what I'm trying to sell here. What I'm talking about is the "all else fails" scenario. What if we really cannot come up with anything resembling a normal physical theory that would explain this? What are the options then, and how would scientists typically rate them?
quote:As you say later, everything is as it is. All our models, all our calculations, are just our attempts to analyse and explain it. And if we were ever able to perfectly explain it, we wouldn't need the fudges.
Interesting. What would be a "natural" reason why you would expect there to be a parameter-free, unifying theory of everything?
quote:If it were some other value, then one of the other parameters in the model would have to change to make the model fit reality. And as we can actually measure those other parameters we know that's not possible.
But nothing in the model itself tells me that this specific value must be, so it is entirely reasonable to ask what the impact of some other value would be.
quote:But all of them require temporary fundamental changes to the basic laws of physics. As opposed to observing stuff that happens all the time.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Marvin's answer to this question is "No", and I disagree with him. There are some ways that the universe could hypothetically be, that would lead us to the undeniable conclusion: "This isn't natural. There's something going on here."
quote:But maybe, just maybe there might --and I stress again: might-- be something about this Higgs boson that would be faintly equivalent to your Desiderate-singing elephant. It's not just Ingo saying that, I've read it on other sites as well.
Marvin the Martian: I could proclaim that I would consider God's hand in creation proved if an Asian elephant jumped through my office window and recited the Desiderata, if you like. But what would that prove? It's a stupid, never-going-to-happen scenario that says nothing about the universe we actually live in. And on science threads I prefer to talk about real things.
quote:Why thank you. It's quite humbling to know that at least one person thinks I, a mere bachelor of biochemistry, can hold my own in a physics debate against someone who not only holds multiple degrees in the subject but actually does it for a job! In theory I shouldn't be able to hold a candle to his understanding of these issues - wait, does that mean the theory is wrong, or that there's another Hand in all this?
Originally posted by Yorick:
And my thanks to everyone for making an effort with their posts on this thread (especially Marv and IngoB)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Part of the elephant analogy was the fact that we know elephants can't jump high enough to get through this window, are too large to get through it even if they could, and can't speak.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But maybe, just maybe there might --and I stress again: might-- be something about this Higgs boson that would be faintly equivalent to your Desiderate-singing elephant. It's not just Ingo saying that, I've read it on other sites as well.
quote:Hell yeah, it's interesting. But it's the interest that comes from finding out more about how the world really works.
Wouldn't that be interesting?
quote:I think this gets to the heart of it. When you see blue light, you wonder why it’s blue, and there then begins a toppling of speculative dominos. When I see blue light, I think, ‘Oh, look at that lovely blue light’. I don’t particularly worry about why it isn’t red.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Even if we do never observe any light but blue, because there only ever is one flash of light and it happens to be blue, it remains reasonable to ask "what if that flash was red instead?" … we see the clear possibility of red light, even if there never was such a thing or ever will be. Still the model does not say why that flash was blue. It says it could have been red. So why was it blue? There must be some other reason here that I can find, which determines the frequency.
quote:Brownian motion.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And if we can't currently explain why the molecules never bunch up like that despite it being theoretically possible, that's because our theories are incomplete.
quote:Any fule kno Indian elephants speak Hindi
I could proclaim that I would consider God's hand in creation proved if an Asian elephant jumped through my office window and recited the Desiderata, if you like. But what would that prove? It's a stupid, never-going-to-happen scenario
quote:More or less. It gives some evidence to support the Standard Model of particle physics, although there are other problems with this model as well.
Marvin the Martian: I was led to understand that it isn't proving that (...) it's proving correct one particular theory about reality.
quote:With this I definitely agree.
Marvin the Martian: Hell yeah, it's interesting. But it's the interest that comes from finding out more about how the world really works.
quote:
Balaam: Any fule kno Indian elephants speak Hindi
Fortunately, my experience is that there are a lot of Indian scientists in the field of Participle Physics, so they could translate.quote:Bullshit! The point of the fine-tuning argument is simply that the observation of any incredibly unlikely arrangement in nature suggests that intentional action has been involved, rather than the mere workings of chance. It is a type of design argument. Whether you think this kind of argument has any merit or not, it is essentially independent of the type of arrangement, as long as that arrangement is incredibly unlikely. There is absolutely no a priori reason why it cannot be applied to "universal constants". All this changes is the type of intentional agent that will be inferred by virtue of the argument. In the case of kilogram spheres, we can infer the existence of an international scientific organisation. In the case of universal constants, we can (perhaps) infer the existence of God. There may be something wrong with this type of argument in general, or with the argument as made in a particular case. But what is definitely not wrong is that it can be targeted at all sorts of arrangements and hence all sorts of agents.
Originally posted by mousethief:
All such analogies fail because we know the kilogram was invented by a cognitive agent. To use them as analagous to the universal constants is to presuppose that they are the same sort of thing, which is to say it is circular. In putting them forth as similar, we are smuggling in the conclusion namely that the world was created by an intelligent agent. If it wasn't then they're not similar at all.
quote:Perhaps you have not been reading this thread. Please do so. Then you will realize that a major part of the discussion that has so far happened precisely concerned the question whether we have visited lots of planets and found exactly one kilogram rocks in all of them - analogically speaking - or not. I have argued, fairly convincingly in my opinion, that the current state of scientific play indeed is equivalent to this having happened. I have not argued that this proves God, simply because I think we have not sufficiently excluded alternative explanations yet to make this the most reasonable conclusion. But the hierarchy problem of the Higgs mass is very real indeed, it is not a figment of imagination and it is accessible, and in the process of being accessed, with current technology.
Originally posted by mousethief:
But we haven't visited a lot of planets. You're saying in certain circumstances we would draw such-and-such conclusions. That's interesting but immaterial. We're not in those circumstances and cannot be given our current technology.
quote:So what? That doesn't make the Hodgkin-Huxley model of action potential generation look anything like the Lagrangian density of quantum chromodynamics. Neither does it imply any explicit connections between the entities in these theories, between the manner one calculates with them, between the experimental approaches to them ... Sure, at some totally abstract and ridiculously remote level they have something to do with each other by virtue of talking about the same universe. But we are here not talking at all about such an abstruse connection. We are talking about something very concrete happening in one and the same "conceptual space" of science, which appears incredibly unlikely and hence demands some kind of explanation within that same "conceptual space". Assume we can describe the neuronal firing of the neurons in your brain with a suitable modified Hodgkin-Huxley theory operating on a massive directed graph. If now all 10^10 or so neurons in your cortex suddenly decide to synchronously fire, with their interspike intervals encoding a Shakespeare sonnet, then it is entirely valid to say "WTF is going on here?" in terms of Hodgkin-Huxley alone, without any reference to quantum chromodynamics.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's the same universe, isn't it? Things run according to the same basic physical processes across the whole thing. The same forces act on all models.
quote:I can't speak for our species, but I sure am personally arrogant enough to assume that we, collectively, are capable of working out the core physical principles of the universe. I guess that attitude is an occupational hazard...
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is not one of the options "we simply aren't capable of working this out"? Or are we as a species being so arrogant that we assume if we can't see it it doesn't exist?
quote:Again, what makes you say this? Or in other words, from whence comes the judgement that a model with parameters describing only a part of the universe is a "fudge"? I'm trying to get you to see that there are some very deep assumptions about the structure of the world that we all tend to make. It's just that with scientist they come to the fore.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And if we were ever able to perfectly explain it, we wouldn't need the fudges.
quote:That's a pointless comment. If the parameter was different, reality would be, too. We are not talking about the actual world here, but about virtual ones. Those that we can consider in terms of the models we construct.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If it were some other value, then one of the other parameters in the model would have to change to make the model fit reality. And as we can actually measure those other parameters we know that's not possible.
quote:No, Marvin, the point is that what we have found is mind-blowingly bizarre and does require some hard examinations of the data and/or our models. This has in fact happened, OK? By the best lights of current science, we are looking at something specific and are going "WTF? No way." That is very real. Now, scientists are not going into panic mode about this. Almost everyone in the field currently assumes that eventually we will understand this, in terms of some better model. Though unfortunately our best shot at this, which was highly speculative, is currently being killed by incoming data. But while we think that eventually this fine-tuning will "go away", somehow, we don't know that it will. And anyhow, at least this gives us a motivation to discuss what it would mean if some fine-tuning didn't.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I mean, yes in a universe where gas molecules invariably spread out and fill a room finding a room where they're all (apparently naturally) bunched up in one corner would be mind-blowingly bizarre and would require some hard examinations of the room and/or our models. But that doesn't actually happen outside of our own imaginings. It's not a real situation. And if we can't currently explain why the molecules never bunch up like that despite it being theoretically possible, that's because our theories are incomplete.
quote:Well, I am a scientist.
Originally posted by Yorick:
I think this gets to the heart of it. When you see blue light, you wonder why it’s blue, and there then begins a toppling of speculative dominos. When I see blue light, I think, ‘Oh, look at that lovely blue light’. I don’t particularly worry about why it isn’t red.
quote:Sure. But while "I don't give a shit." ends all manner of arguments, it does not prove them wrong.
Originally posted by Yorick:
For some people, I think God scratches the ‘why’ itch. That’s it, really.
quote:I was.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Sure, at some totally abstract and ridiculously remote level they have something to do with each other by virtue of talking about the same universe. But we are here not talking at all about such an abstruse connection.
quote:It's only so unlikely if it's actually possible for other states to exist. Not theoretically possible, but actually possible.
We are talking about something very concrete happening in one and the same "conceptual space" of science, which appears incredibly unlikely and hence demands some kind of explanation within that same "conceptual space".
quote:Oh come now, that's hardly fair. I might be holding my own about physics but I've got no chance if you start bringing neuroscience into the mix!
Assume we can describe the neuronal firing of the neurons in your brain with a suitable modified Hodgkin-Huxley theory operating on a massive directed graph. If now all 10^10 or so neurons in your cortex suddenly decide to synchronously fire, with their interspike intervals encoding a Shakespeare sonnet, then it is entirely valid to say "WTF is going on here?" in terms of Hodgkin-Huxley alone, without any reference to quantum chromodynamics.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:In my current job I report on student numbers. Now, the data is often imperfect, with missing or inconsistent data, and because of that I occasionally have to add little dummy bits of data into the model in order to get the calculations to add up to what I know is the right answer (because the overall number of students is a known fact).
quote:Again, what makes you say this? Or in other words, from whence comes the judgement that a model with parameters describing only a part of the universe is a "fudge"?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And if we were ever able to perfectly explain it, we wouldn't need the fudges.
quote:Yes, I know. That's part of what I've been saying. We theorise about all these purely virtual worlds that are completely different to our own, and then we say "how incredible it is that our world, out of all these possibilities, is the one that exists". And we never actually stop to wonder whether those possibilities - which we created as thought experiments - were actually possible in the first place.
We are not talking about the actual world here, but about virtual ones. Those that we can consider in terms of the models we construct.
quote:Are we? LeRoc's earlier link to an interview with Stephen Wolfram suggests more of an "oh, we were right. That's nice" response.
No, Marvin, the point is that what we have found is mind-blowingly bizarre and does require some hard examinations of the data and/or our models. This has in fact happened, OK? By the best lights of current science, we are looking at something specific and are going "WTF? No way."
quote:So the question about the Higgs particle was to answer the question, "Is the Standard Model correct." Now that something has been found in the area the Higggs is supposed to be in it looks like the Standard Model is correct.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
LeRoc's earlier link to an interview with Stephen Wolfram suggests more of an "oh, we were right. That's nice" response.
quote:The way I understand it, the existence of the Higgs boson implies that the Standard Model has some strange properties. I don't know whether they constitute a DSE, but I'm guessing they could.
Balaam: So the question about the Higgs particle was to answer the question, "Is the Standard Model correct."
quote:Short answer: it doesn't. This is one of the obvious flaws of the Standard Model: it doesn't include gravity, and there's no obvious way of including gravity in it.
Balaam: So the next question is how does gravity fit in with the Standard Model? A question asked in the Wolfram interview LeRoc linked to. The existance, or non-existance of the Graviton would be a more important discovery than that of the Higgs Boson, wouldn't it?
quote:Whilst I generally avoid the
Originally posted by IngoB:
Fine-tuning (if there is any...) may not be a serious challenge to the atheism of most atheists. But it sure is to the atheism of scientists, as is evident by the invention of the multiverse.
quote:The nickname "God particle" for the Higgs Boson makes it seem that somehow finding smaller and smaller particles will somehow prove or disprove the existence of God when it isn't going to make one bit of difference either way.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The antithesis to materialism is that God IS love, love thinking all this, no matter what it looks like. Because it couldn't look any other way.
