Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

'Fine tuning' the universe...


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

This colour does not go with that in painting. This taste and that taste need to be at opposite ends of the meal. And so on and on. There is very high (though not perfect) agreement on these relationships. Now we are asked to believe that this agreement on harmony is sustained even though the primary experience of each colour, taste, etc is entirely variable from person to person. My razor says, 'No.'

I'd argue that these things are both subjective and open to external influence, social norms even. We are guided from a early age as to what goes and what doesn't go.

As my old gran used to say " there's no accounting for taste". 

Then again, she also said " blue and green should n'er be seen.." 😀

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has got me thinking and lead me down this weird thought process. Okay, it’s just for fun, but there could be some truth in it, somewhere:

I think, therefore I think I exist. I think I exist because I think. Does thinking that I exist, or not, alter or not the reality of whether or not I exist? I think not, surely I exist or not, whether or not I think it or not.

There are people that I think exist, but I do not know if they think they exist or not. Therefore it matters not to me whether or not they think they exist, I think they exist. So it must matter not to others whether or not I think I exist or not, they will think I exist or not.

If it is you who is to judge if I exist or not, how can that be? You may exist or not. We may both think that we each exist, and also that the other exists, but we still only think that we each exist because the other thinks, as we do, that we each exist and that the other exists. But we both exist or not.

So who then is to judge if we both exist or not? Others may think that we exist or not, but who are they to judge? They may exist or not.

If enough people that I think exist, think that I exist, then that encourages me to think that I exist, and I am therefore encouraged to think that they exist.

We all then believe that we each exist because we think that we exist, and others that we think exist, think that we exist, which encourages us to think that they exist, who in turn are encouraged to think that they exist.

Makes you think. 🤔

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

The Wiki article offers a good overview of the parameters which need to be as they are for life to form. Where it is less successful is in distinguishing between 'being as they are' and 'being fine tuned to be as they are.' There is an enormous difference between the two, that difference being at the origin of this thread.  The key question for me is, 'Is it valid to be surprised that they are as they are?'  Would we not be a sight more surprised if we found that the physical parameters gave clear proof that we do not exist?' :D

As ever, the structure of language pushes our thinking in an anthropomorphic direction. Verbs have subjects. 'To fine tune' must have a finer tuner of some kind. When we can't identify one we sense a void and want to fill it. Perhaps we shouldn't?

Olly

Wikipedia is not a bad *starting* point for such things. And, if I were to read ALL references contained therein?
I may even understand the *higher purpose* of this particular discussion! I am not a particular cynic... I LOVE it
when Amateur Astronomers don't restrict themselves to "Asking questions/Providing answers" on Astronomy! 😎

But, are we notably "pushing back the frontiers"? These days, Theoretical Physicists apparently claim to KNOW
What I should believe... even "Why Folks are FAT"! lol. To me, there is a slightly-concerning control freak aspect.
Some of them claim to be beset by "Imposter syndrome" (qv)? But that is not the *impression* I am getting!  😛

I sense many folks simply decide not to take part in these controversies. There is plenty of FUN Science left!
Hey I read such things with *pantomime* German Accent! I hope German colleagues / friends also chuckle? 😅

sabine.jpg.59f2dab8651e8ea2c28b8d2711bcddec.jpg
 

Edited by Macavity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paul M said:

I'd argue that these things are both subjective and open to external influence, social norms even. We are guided from a early age as to what goes and what doesn't go.

As my old gran used to say " there's no accounting for taste". 

Then again, she also said " blue and green should n'er be seen.." 😀

:D A bit of blue and green can be marvellous, as in Sylvia Plath's poem Daddy.

'... the freakish Atlantic

Where it pours bean green over blue...'

While some aesthetic responses will certainly be learned, others must be intrinsic to the stimulii themselves. The musical scale saw the first discovery of a mathematical order (as opposed to a geometric one) in external world phenomena. There there is the colour wheel with its complementary colours, metrics in poetry and so on.

Olly

Edited by ollypenrice
False click.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

 Would we not be a sight more surprised if we found that the physical parameters gave clear proof that we do not exist?' :D

Olly

At that moment of realising would we just disappear in a puff of blue smoke. 

Jim 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alien 13 said:

I remember shortly after my stroke many years ago that I began to smell colours which lasted for a few years and have wondered if for example an Alien species that processed the EM spectrum as sound or scent etc could develop a greater understanding of the Universe or Math's than us or is visualization on a PC screen or book the only way.. So complex math's without numbers or symbols.

Th mathematics of the universe expressed as the music of the spheres ;) 

Jim 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, saac said:

At that moment of realising would we just disappear in a puff of blue smoke. 

Jim 

Like all the living creatures before us, as is clearly evidenced by their absence...

:Dlly

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Macavity said:

Wikipedia is not a bad *starting* point for such things. And, if I were to read ALL references contained therein?
I may even understand the *higher purpose* of this particular discussion! I am not a particular cynic... I LOVE it
when Amateur Astronomers don't restrict themselves to "Asking questions/Providing answers" on Astronomy! 😎

 

There doesn't need to be a higher purpose other than taking part - it is fun; a  little like our so called "ameateur astronomy"  - personaly I'd never have the brass neck though to call what I do astronomy nor myself an astronomer. Anyway aren't discussions like this one of the great features of SGL- like I said earlier, we should be paying for this. 

Jim 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, saac said:

There doesn't need to be a higher purpose other than taking part - it is fun; a  little like our so called "ameateur astronomy"  - personaly I'd never have the brass neck though to call what I do astronomy nor myself an astronomer. Anyway aren't discussions like this one of the great features of SGL- like I said earlier, we should be paying for this. 

Jim 

As one who wickedly TEMPTS Amateur Astronomers (previously my fellow Physicists!) to *occasionally*
discuss things *outside* their normal Hobby/Work related subjects, I can hardly object... in Theory (sic)? 😈
Re. the general / popular argument re. these issues, I sometimes crave SOME kind of "conclusion"?!? lol

Sometimes in the WIDER world of Internet, I lament the ABSENCE of "quieter", dare I say, erudite voice.
Social Media sides ensures those who can "see both sides of the argument" often get a "good kicking"?
But I am sometimes encouraged that "LIKES" of the more *reasonable* views are surprisingly common. 😉
 

Edited by Macavity
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Macavity said:

As one who wickedly TEMPTS Amateur Astronomers (previously my fellow Physicists!) to *occasionally*
discuss things *outside* their normal Hobby/Work related subjects, I can hardly object... in theory (sic)? 😈
Re. the general / popular argument re. these issues, I sometimes crave SOME kind of "conclusion"?!? lol

Sometimes in the WIDER world of Internet, I lament the ABSENCE of "quieter", dare I say, erudite voice.
Social Media sides ensures those who can "see both sides of the argument" often get a "good kicking"?
But I am sometimes encouraged that "LIKES" of the more *reasonable* views are surprisingly common. 😉
 

I wouldn't be surprised Chris if somewhere out there, world wide web,  there are indeed sites where professional erudite well regulated debate and discussion takes place. Most probably they will be professional sites related to institutions/research (comercial, public) such as CERN,ITER, WHO etc.  I bet participation is by invite only - so I guess we will get bounced at the door :)  tbh I think we are actually well served here, I think we punch above our weight, certainly for misinformation and entertainment!  Often thought that we must surely have amongst our members experts in some fields (past or present). I know we have a few university lecturers (professors) and some retired, and of course your own experience in particle physics.  And of course the gifted and knowledgeable amateurs - tbh some of the knowledge/skill on here re image processing must be field leading. 

Jim 

Edited by saac
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, saac said:

I wouldn't be surprised Chris if somewhere out there, world wide web,  there are indeed sites where professional erudite well regulated debate and discussion takes place. Most probably they will be professional sites related to institutions/research (comercial, public) such as CERN,ITER, WHO etc.  I bet participation is by invite only - so I guess we will get bounced at the door :)  tbh I think we are actually well served here, I think we punch above our weight, certainly for misinformation and entertainment!  Often thought that we must surely have amongst our members experts in some fields (past or present). I know we have a few university lecturers (professors) and some retired, and of course your own experience in particle physics.  And of course the gifted and knowledgeable amateurs - tbh some of the knowledge/skill on here re image processing must be field leading. 

 

 I think one should not read *too* much into my "occasional antipathy" towards the Public face of Science! 😉
Perhaps "quirky" personalities / elitist attitudes of SOME scientists "resonate" more with ME, than many here?
For me, this resides in certain areas of "Theoretical Physics", that command Public Attention at the moment!

I still think of myself as the "Ultimate Scientific Democratiser"! I love everyone - From CERN Nobel laureate,
to the guy who swept the Lab Floor! Idem Amateur Astronomers - On whom I consistently heap praise. lol
If someone is (secretly!) a "Doctor" or "Professor", my genuine admiration. Even if I'm not TOO over-awed? 😛

I guess I struggle with the general TENOR of contemporary debate in Theoretical Physics... Just to clarify.
Maybe I watch TOO much on this subject these days? Anyway, back to my *Outraged* Television Program! 😉

Edited by Macavity
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Macavity said:

I still think of myself as the "Ultimate Scientific Democratiser"! I love everyone - From CERN Nobel laureate,
to the guy who swept the Lab Floor! Idem Amateur Astronomers - On whom I consistently heap praise. lol
If someone is (secretly!) a "Doctor" or "Professor", my genuine admiration. Even if I'm not TOO over-awed? 😛
 

For me the attraction is listening to somebody who can genuinely speak with authority, somebody who is at the top of their game. I guess for that reason I avoid all the usual social media platforms, I think alternative agendas are often pursued there.

Jim 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, andrew s said:

I have a simple rule. I respect and enjoy those who put the subject first and themselves second.

The beauty is in the topic no matter what that might be not the presenter. 

Regards Andrew 

 

Exactly, all we can do is read the book, the beauty is already there. Funny, I always describe Physics as "the beautiful subject". The kids at school think I'm nuts!

Jim

Edited by saac
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, saac said:

For me the attraction is listening to somebody who can genuinely speak with authority, somebody who is at the top of their game. I guess for that reason I avoid all the usual social media platforms, I think alternative agendas are often pursued there.

Jim 

And that’s why I enjoy Ted Talks so much, brilliant speakers, even though I view it on a social media platform, YouTube.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heheh - it seems like I agree with ALL the "Above Posters"! Sometimes, I feel that all my
"Loves" are being purloined by "Crazies"? lol. Science... Astronomy... Recently my remaining
love... MUSIC has become a "divided community"! Innocent Review = Corporate Shill? 😅

I ENVY Teachers... They see KIDS that have my (still "fairly" innocent?) Love of Science? 🙂
But then, I hope there is a basic desire to actually *do* science, rather than "talk about it"
N.B. I have nothing against *Theoretical Physics* (discussion) It is a tad HARD though! 🙃

Edited by Macavity
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When in a HOLE, stop digging? This is something of a "hot potato" topic tho? 😅
It's inevitable posts get missed in the heat of discussion... Lost on previous page?
Avoiding the controversy / cross-fire... I again "read up" *elsewhere* on a topic...
Part of the controversy is the <ahem> inference of (very) Fine Tuned Universe? 😏

I can forgive folks for not having read up to the END of the paper, I cited before.
http://phyweb.lbl.gov/~rncahn/www/rmp-18.pdf - But I sense it is quite relevant?
Clearly, by tuning *some* of the parameters of the Standard Model, the universe
(as we know it!) would not exist... or be totally hostile towards life! But then, there
are other parameters that seem to matter rather LESS... or even hardly at ALL? 😎

W-mass, "Top" Mass? Higgs? Fermi Const? The idea of a "Smaller/Hotter Sun",
is not terrible? We may not have "Le meilleur monde possible" - Voltair (Page 9)
But it's better than it MIGHT have been. But: What determines the parameters... 🙂

P.S. For "Headbangers", I tried to remember exactly what Fermi's Constant was:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/681166/what-exactly-is-the-fermi-constant-what-is-its-value-and-what-is-the-differe
But anyone who can write: "I would personally avoid the meretricious laconism
(Wikepedia is edited by a sedulously pedantic mob)
- Perhaps gets my vote?!? 🤣

Edited by Macavity
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And another thing! lol. Nah... I did a bit of searching re. "Anthropic Principle".
Although familiar with the general idea, I doubt I could quote it accurately! 😏

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/01/26/how-the-anthropic-principle-became-the-most-abused-idea-in-science/
I rather liked the above?!? Firstly he quotes the definitions... "weak & strong".
But then, he bravely goes on to suggest that the Anthropic Principle is often
misinterpreted... to support "illogical, non-scientific statements" (+examples) 😛

Finally, he has a "good go" at "Barlow & Tippler"(?) over:

  • The Universe, as it exists, was designed with the goal of generating and sustaining observers
  • Observers are necessary to bring the universe into being

Quote: "If the last one sounds a lot like bad interpretation of the multiverse, it's because all of
Barlow and Tipler's scenarios are based on bad interpretations of a self-evident principle
". 🙃

Hey, "I'm saying nothing"! I don't have the money to pay up, if I'm sued re. loss of Book Sale revenues! 😅
But, I am intrigued. If the above is HUGELY wrong, a gentle (Twitter-like) "nudge" in the right direction?

Edited by Macavity
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.