| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Greg" |
| Date: |
02 Feb 2007 06:57:22 PM |
| Object: |
Fine tuning |
People talk of balance or fine tuning in the universe, but I ask if
you were to see a ball balanced on a sharp point would'nt you assume
it were attached. Most people would (we assume intention). It is not
a great example, although it could be an optical illusion, like the
moon balanced on a church spire (I did not specify context.) My point
is that you cannot assume what the framework is. Information and
framework are inextricably intertwinned.
.
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Fine tuning |
14 Feb 2007 08:17:36 PM |
|
|
On 2 Feb 2007 16:57:22 -0800, "Greg" <imutate@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
alt.atheism
People talk of balance or fine tuning in the universe, but I ask if
you were to see a ball balanced on a sharp point would'nt you assume
it were attached. Most people would (we assume intention). It is not
a great example, although it could be an optical illusion, like the
moon balanced on a church spire (I did not specify context.) My point
is that you cannot assume what the framework is. Information and
framework are inextricably intertwinned.
No matter how you mount it superstition remains *****.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Fine tuning |
02 Feb 2007 08:47:28 PM |
|
|
On 2 Feb 2007 16:57:22 -0800, "Greg" <imutate@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <1170464242.274012.124380@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
People talk of balance or fine tuning in the universe,
Which "People"?
Straw men cannot talk, you know.
but I ask if
you were to see a ball balanced on a sharp point would'nt you assume
it were attached. Most people would (we assume intention).
How do you know?
Done a surbey?
It is not
a great example, although it could be an optical illusion, like the
moon balanced on a church spire (I did not specify context.) My point
is that you cannot assume what the framework is.
Can't I?
Says who?
What are your qualifications to instruct me in such an imperious tone?
Information and
framework are inextricably intertwinned.
You should be writing for Hallmark cards.
They like pompous sounding but meaningless drivel.
I take it that are another Christian imbecile?
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: Fine tuning |
03 Feb 2007 08:43:51 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote after much deliberation:
On 2 Feb 2007 16:57:22 -0800, "Greg" <imutate@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <1170464242.274012.124380@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
People talk of balance or fine tuning in the universe,
Which "People"?
Straw men cannot talk, you know.
but I ask if
you were to see a ball balanced on a sharp point would'nt you assume
it were attached. Most people would (we assume intention).
How do you know?
Done a surbey?
I prefer a sorbet ... lol
It is not
a great example, although it could be an optical illusion, like the
moon balanced on a church spire (I did not specify context.) My point
is that you cannot assume what the framework is.
Can't I?
Says who?
What are your qualifications to instruct me in such an imperious tone?
Information and
framework are inextricably intertwinned.
You should be writing for Hallmark cards.
They like pompous sounding but meaningless drivel.
I take it that are another Christian imbecile?
--
Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg" |
|
| Title: Re: Fine tuning |
03 Feb 2007 09:49:16 AM |
|
|
Hey folks, don't go on an internet newsgroup if you want sensible
debate.. and don't talk physics to theists.
Here is something that everyone should check out..
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=false+arguments&meta=
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Fine tuning |
03 Feb 2007 04:14:09 PM |
|
|
On 3 Feb 2007 07:49:16 -0800, "Greg" <imutate@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <1170517756.620291.184110@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Hey folks, don't go on an internet newsgroup if you want sensible
debate.. and don't talk physics to theists.
And you have demonstrated elsewhere that *you* should not talk physics
to qualified physicists.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Fine tuning |
03 Feb 2007 04:12:49 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 07:43:51 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.19cf7d72deb7c866.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray wrote after much deliberation:
On 2 Feb 2007 16:57:22 -0800, "Greg" <imutate@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <1170464242.274012.124380@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
People talk of balance or fine tuning in the universe,
Which "People"?
Straw men cannot talk, you know.
but I ask if
you were to see a ball balanced on a sharp point would'nt you assume
it were attached. Most people would (we assume intention).
How do you know?
Done a surbey?
I prefer a sorbet ... lol
Lucy! Are you laughin' at my Cuban accent?
It is not
a great example, although it could be an optical illusion, like the
moon balanced on a church spire (I did not specify context.) My point
is that you cannot assume what the framework is.
Can't I?
Says who?
What are your qualifications to instruct me in such an imperious tone?
Information and
framework are inextricably intertwinned.
You should be writing for Hallmark cards.
They like pompous sounding but meaningless drivel.
I take it that are another Christian imbecile?
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greg" |
|
| Title: Re: Fine tuning |
02 Feb 2007 10:30:57 PM |
|
|
On 3 Feb, 02:47, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 2 Feb 2007 16:57:22 -0800, "Greg" <imut...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <1170464242.274012.124...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
People talk of balance or fine tuning in the universe,
Which "People"?
Straw men cannot talk, you know.
but I ask if
you were to see a ball balanced on a sharp point would'nt you assume
it were attached. Most people would (we assume intention).
How do you know?
Done a surbey?
Well it could be a spinning ball. I meant a stationary ball.
It is not
a great example, although it could be an optical illusion, like the
moon balanced on a church spire (I did not specify context.) My point
is that you cannot assume what the framework is.
Can't I?
Says who?
What are your qualifications to instruct me in such an imperious tone?
Point taken (although I've got two degrees in Scientific disciplines)
I think you took that the worng way.
My point is that you cannot rule out that there is a more structured
abstract reason why it is a specific way.
By this I mean algebraically structured (it could be tomes of non
trivial but nonetheless elegant and consistent algebra.)
Information and
framework are inextricably intertwinned.
You should be writing for Hallmark cards.
I've come across them before, I know they use Management Science to
maximise the useage of their paper. Other than that I don't know
about them, I've not looked at their cards for years. What sort of
cards do they publish ?
They like pompous sounding but meaningless drivel.
I take it that are another Christian imbecile?
--
Hmm, no actually I am an an agnostic and atheist (at least in the
Christian sense.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Fine tuning |
03 Feb 2007 04:02:54 AM |
|
|
On 2 Feb 2007 20:30:57 -0800, "Greg" <imutate@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <1170477057.686587.278130@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
On 3 Feb, 02:47, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 2 Feb 2007 16:57:22 -0800, "Greg" <imut...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <1170464242.274012.124...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
People talk of balance or fine tuning in the universe,
Which "People"?
Straw men cannot talk, you know.
I note with some curiosity your distinct lack of response to this
probing query.
but I ask if
you were to see a ball balanced on a sharp point would'nt you assume
it were attached. Most people would (we assume intention).
How do you know?
Done a surbey?
Well it could be a spinning ball. I meant a stationary ball.
What a load of balls!
It is not
a great example, although it could be an optical illusion, like the
moon balanced on a church spire (I did not specify context.) My point
is that you cannot assume what the framework is.
Can't I?
Says who?
What are your qualifications to instruct me in such an imperious tone?
Point taken (although I've got two degrees in Scientific disciplines)
What "degrees"?
At which institution(s)?
You appear to be conversing with at least three working qualified
Quantum Physicists here, (who have yet to show their hands...)
Please answer the above questions here:
1) Degree 1 was awarded in:
____________________
in the faculty of:
____________________
At the Univerisity of:
____________________
2) Degree 2 was awarded in:
____________________
in the faculty of:
____________________
At the Univerisity of:
____________________
I think you took that the worng way.
Possibly.
Do go on.
My point is that you cannot rule out that there is a more structured
abstract reason why it is a specific way.
Neither of your degrees was in English Grammar, I assume.
Otherwise you should be seeking an immediate refund.
That made no sense at all.
By this I mean algebraically structured (it could be tomes of non
trivial but nonetheless elegant and consistent algebra.)
You are talking to a qualified mathematician here, and even I cannot
make head nor tail of what you are on about.
And I don't for a moment think that it is "above my head".
If you are on any prescription medication, please take the prescribed
dose well before posting in future.
Information and
framework are inextricably intertwinned.
You should be writing for Hallmark cards.
I've come across them before, I know they use Management Science to
maximise the useage of their paper. Other than that I don't know
about them, I've not looked at their cards for years. What sort of
cards do they publish ?
You only to have read my following paragraph for an accurate
description.
I am getting the distinct impression that you are more than a trifle
dim.
I smell troll.
They like pompous sounding but meaningless drivel.
I take it that are another Christian imbecile?
--
Hmm, no actually I am an an agnostic and atheist (at least in the
Christian sense.)
What??
So you are *not* an atheist in the Thor sense??
What *are* you dribbling on about man?
If you choose to reply, please aim for a minimal level of coherency,
say that of a sane 15 year old.
(By the "I Mutate" part of your obviously fraudulent email address, I
am leaning toward the impression that you are a thoroughly annoying
parasitic troll with nothing better to do than annoy the adults.
You could correct this impression, should you choose.
This thread will self-destruct in five posts.)
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ernobe" |
|
| Title: Re: Fine tuning |
03 Feb 2007 10:20:27 PM |
|
|
On Feb 2, 6:57 pm, "Greg" <imut...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
People talk of balance or fine tuning in the universe, but I ask if
you were to see a ball balanced on a sharp point would'nt you assume
it were attached. Most people would (we assume intention). It is not
a great example, although it could be an optical illusion, like the
moon balanced on a church spire (I did not specify context.) My point
is that you cannot assume what the framework is.
Even if one does assume that the ball was attached to the point, the
purpose is to infer from the evidence what the cause of its attachment
is. Such an assumption is just a means to an end, that of
comprehension, and not and end in itself. Comprehension itself is not
for getting a more accurate perception than an optical illusion, but
to surround the object entirely from all possible angles. When people
talk about balance or fine-tuning in the universe, they don't mean an
exact perception of reality that can be measured against a framework,
but rather that it is itself the agent of balance and fine-tuning,
thanks to an Intelligence far superior to it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg" |
|
| Title: Re: Fine tuning |
05 Feb 2007 08:10:19 PM |
|
|
Hey, I'm not a quantum physicist, so I will not get into the
symmetry / multiverse / fuzzy quantum world thing.
Here is the answer
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Triple_Alpha_Process#The_Fine_Tuning_Argument
According to the expert quoted on that page, the fine tuning is
between 1 and 25%, so it is not atall fine, in a linear sense.
What exactly is claimed by the apologetics to be finely tuned ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "ernobe" |
|
| Title: Re: Fine tuning |
06 Feb 2007 09:17:38 PM |
|
|
On Feb 5, 8:10 pm, "Greg" <imut...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Hey, I'm not a quantum physicist, so I will not get into the
symmetry / multiverse / fuzzy quantum world thing.
Here is the answerhttp://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Triple_Alpha_Process#The_Fi...
According to the expert quoted on that page, the fine tuning is
between 1 and 25%, so it is not atall fine, in a linear sense.
What exactly is claimed by the apologetics to be finely tuned ?
There would be no apologetics if the apologetics knew exactly what is
fine tuned.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greg" |
|
| Title: Re: Fine tuning |
05 Feb 2007 07:48:43 PM |
|
|
On 4 Feb, 04:20, "ernobe" <ern...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Feb 2, 6:57 pm, "Greg" <imut...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Even if one does assume that the ball was attached to the point, the
purpose is to infer from the evidence what the cause of its attachment
is. Such an assumption is just a means to an end, that of
comprehension, and not and end in itself. Comprehension itself is not
for getting a more accurate perception than an optical illusion, but
to surround the object entirely from all possible angles. When people
talk about balance or fine-tuning in the universe, they don't mean an
exact perception of reality that can be measured against a framework,
but rather that it is itself the agent of balance and fine-tuning,
thanks to an Intelligence far superior to it.
As I understand it, all this stuff comes under the subject of the
Anthropic principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
The anthropic principle has been stated in different ways, but I see
the strong anthropic principle is used by theists to claim the
existence of some specific intention.
On the surface this principle looks plausible, but on closer
examination it seems to ignore many other possibilities.
It also is not a good argument to claim about the special conditions
in this solar system when there are billions of other stars that
probably do not have a solar system.
So what else is exactly fine tuned ?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ernobe" |
|
| Title: Re: Fine tuning |
03 Feb 2007 10:10:10 PM |
|
|
On Feb 2, 6:57 pm, "Greg" <imut...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
People talk of balance or fine tuning in the universe, but I ask if
you were to see a ball balanced on a sharp point would'nt you assume
it were attached. Most people would (we assume intention). It is not
a great example, although it could be an optical illusion, like the
moon balanced on a church spire (I did not specify context.) My point
is that you cannot assume what the framework is. Information and
framework are inextricably intertwinned.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: Fine tuning |
02 Feb 2007 07:44:33 PM |
|
|
What is your point??? What does this prove???
"Greg" <imutate@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1170464242.274012.124380@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
People talk of balance or fine tuning in the universe, but I ask if
you were to see a ball balanced on a sharp point would'nt you assume
it were attached. Most people would (we assume intention). It is not
a great example, although it could be an optical illusion, like the
moon balanced on a church spire (I did not specify context.) My point
is that you cannot assume what the framework is. Information and
framework are inextricably intertwinned.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg" |
|
| Title: Re: Fine tuning |
02 Feb 2007 08:33:33 PM |
|
|
On 3 Feb, 01:44, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
What is your point??? What does this prove???
Oh sorry, yes, my point is that this "fine tuning" does not prove
anything, it just means we can't yet get close to a simplified answer
as to why some physical constants are the way they are. Actually this
in itself sounds ridiculous, surely Physicists can explain roughly why
all physical constants are the values they find they are. I guess the
issue is one of accuracy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Fine tuning |
14 Feb 2007 08:18:32 PM |
|
|
On 2 Feb 2007 18:33:33 -0800, "Greg" <imutate@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
alt.atheism
On 3 Feb, 01:44, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
What is your point??? What does this prove???
Oh sorry, yes, my point is that this "fine tuning" does not prove
anything, it just means we can't yet get close to a simplified answer
as to why some physical constants are the way they are. Actually this
in itself sounds ridiculous, surely Physicists can explain roughly why
all physical constants are the values they find they are. I guess the
issue is one of accuracy.
Actually, it's one of sanity. Which does not include you.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Fine tuning |
03 Feb 2007 04:03:50 AM |
|
|
On 2 Feb 2007 18:33:33 -0800, "Greg" <imutate@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <1170470013.238585.146420@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
On 3 Feb, 01:44, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
What is your point??? What does this prove???
Oh sorry, yes, my point is that this "fine tuning" does not prove
anything, it just means we can't yet get close to a simplified answer
as to why some physical constants are the way they are. Actually this
in itself sounds ridiculous, surely Physicists can explain roughly why
all physical constants are the values they find they are. I guess the
issue is one of accuracy.
I think this issue is entirely one of coherency: yours.
Get some.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
