How Fine-Tuned Is the Universe?

Propose a formal or informal debate or discussion in this forum. Declare a challenge/invitation or respond to one.
Post Reply
User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

How Fine-Tuned Is the Universe?

Post by lpetrich » Sun May 31, 2009 7:20 pm

I propose a formal debate about this question:

Is the Universe very fine-tuned for allowing us to come into existence and for sustaining our existence?

I will argue the negative, that our Universe is not particularly fine-tuned for us, for these reasons:
  1. Most of our Universe is unsuitable for us.
  2. The range of physical parameters suitable for us is much larger than what some fine-tuning advocates think.
  3. Our Universe could be part of a multiverse of bubble Universes, each with its own macroscopic-limit physics.
I will expand on these reasons in the debate.

Does anyone here wish to argue the affirmative?

Valheru
Posts: 6995
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 7:46 am

Post by Valheru » Mon Jun 01, 2009 6:19 am

There's no tuning involved, whether it's coarse or fine. It just is.

The fact that most of the universe is unsuitable for us as human beings, is irrelevant, I think. You could argue that the universe is "fine tuned" to produce stars, and planets, and specifically the earth which brought us into being and sustains us.

User avatar
DMB
Posts: 41484
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: Mostly Switzerland

Post by DMB » Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:24 pm

Valheru, this thread is meant to be only for proposing an Exclusive Engagement and agreeing to the proposal. If anyone takes up lpetrich's offer, a peanut gallery will be created where everyone else can add comments.

Valheru
Posts: 6995
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 7:46 am

Post by Valheru » Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:48 am

Ya, sorry, I just saw it under new posts and fired away.

george thindwa
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:29 am

Fine Turning and the Universe

Post by george thindwa » Thu Oct 28, 2010 10:32 am

To me this is important as there is a Pastor here in Malawi who is adamant about fine tuning and would be keen to watch the debate. George Thindwa

Valheru
Posts: 6995
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 7:46 am

Post by Valheru » Thu Oct 28, 2010 10:49 am

George thindwa becomes better at Threadomancy! (98%)

:)

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Thu Oct 28, 2010 11:25 am

george thindwa, I don't know anyone here who would be willing to debate fine tuning with me. But if you can find someone willing to join this place and debate me, I'd be interested.

StarChild
Posts: 445
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:29 pm

Post by StarChild » Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:30 pm

If nobody comes forward, I might take up the cause. I really don't believe it, but it might be nice experience.

User avatar
SRU1X
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: UK

Post by SRU1X » Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:17 am

[quote=""StarChild""]If nobody comes forward, I might take up the cause. I really don't believe it, but it might be nice experience.[/quote]

I'd like to see this debate but it doesn't look like anyone else has dared to step up to the plate. Is your offer still open? You should be praised for your willingness to defend something you don't believe in. There's nothing quite like playing the devil's advocate to get our beliefs in order.

Valheru
Posts: 6995
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 7:46 am

Post by Valheru » Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:55 am

This I wanna see!

StarChild
Posts: 445
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:29 pm

Post by StarChild » Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:59 pm

It looks like FUBG wants to take this up.

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Sat Nov 06, 2010 3:18 am

Fat Ugly Bald Guy, it looks like you'd be interested. How does what you propose differ from my OP?

If you have a position that has some well-defined difference, we could then work out some debate or discussion parameters and start.

User avatar
Jobar
Posts: 26251
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Georgia

Post by Jobar » Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:26 pm

This forum is for challenges to formal debates and discussions, and setting those up; it isn't the proper venue for ongoing discussions about specific debate topics. If anyone wants to take up lpetrich's proposal, fine. But if people want to talk more about fine tuning, we'll move this discussion to LU&E.

Angra Mainyu
Posts: 996
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 4:36 pm
Contact:

Post by Angra Mainyu » Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:39 pm

I would suggest clarifying the concept of "fine tuning" before having a debate. :)

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Tue Nov 09, 2010 2:00 am

if you people want to have a thread about it, then you can start one in LU&E. Perhaps some of the posts here could be moved to such a thread.

I'd started this thread because I'm interested in having a formal debate or 1-on-1 discussion with an advocate of fine tuning.

I think that before such a debate, we'd need to clarify what we are claiming is or is not fine tuned, and what qualifies as fine tuning.

User avatar
Schneibster
Posts: 4440
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:57 am
Location: Monterey

Post by Schneibster » Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:42 am

[quote=""lpetrich""]I propose a formal debate about this question:

Is the Universe very fine-tuned for allowing us to come into existence and for sustaining our existence?

I will argue the negative, that our Universe is not particularly fine-tuned for us, for these reasons:
  1. Most of our Universe is unsuitable for us.
  2. The range of physical parameters suitable for us is much larger than what some fine-tuning advocates think.
  3. Our Universe could be part of a multiverse of bubble Universes, each with its own macroscopic-limit physics.
I will expand on these reasons in the debate.

Does anyone here wish to argue the affirmative?[/quote]I considered this, but I have the following problem: your third assertion is one I would use to assert that in fact our universe's fine tuning is an inevitable consequence of the large number of these bubbles in the universe. So I'm unclear on whether our positions are opposed or not.

User avatar
Schneibster
Posts: 4440
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:57 am
Location: Monterey

Post by Schneibster » Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:22 am

Perhaps I should have said "local fine tuning." Local of course == our surrounding hundred billion ly or so.

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:21 am

So I could propose splitting the subject into two closely-related ones:
  1. Does our observable Universe, as per Schneibster's definition, have fine tuning?
  2. What is a good explanation for whatever fine tuning it may have?

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:52 am

Posts about fine tuning itself moved from here to Life, the Universe, & Everything: Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Us?

This is about setting up a formal debate or an informal, exclusive-engagement discussion about that subject.

User avatar
Schneibster
Posts: 4440
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:57 am
Location: Monterey

Post by Schneibster » Sat Dec 25, 2010 11:39 pm

[quote=""lpetrich""]So I could propose splitting the subject into two closely-related ones:
  1. Does our observable Universe, as per Schneibster's definition, have fine tuning?
  2. What is a good explanation for whatever fine tuning it may have?
[/quote]If you're game to give this a try, I am. Of course, I've already aired my main argument...

So I see two debates, the second provisional upon the first.

First debate: Is the observable universe fine-tuned, where fine-tuning is defined as the presence of a physical variable that might take on a range of likely values most of which are deadly to life/intelligence, but has taken on an unlikely value that supports life/intelligence?

I am ready when you are.
Last edited by Schneibster on Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. ― Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. ― Common misquote of Santayana

User avatar
Schneibster
Posts: 4440
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:57 am
Location: Monterey

Post by Schneibster » Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:40 pm

I additionally support an opening statement from us each, stating our position and our reasons for holding it, followed by a rebuttal from each of us to the other's statement, followed by a rebuttal of the rebuttal, followed by a closing statement reiterating what we believe we proved, the defects (if any) in our opponent's argument, and the evidence that supports both.

I seriously doubt we will wind up agreeing, Loren; but that's OK. It'll be interesting.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. ― Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. ― Common misquote of Santayana

Post Reply