One of the most severe challenges for inflation arises from the need for fine tuning in inflationary theories. In new inflation, the slow-roll conditions must be satisfied for inflation to occur. The slow-roll conditions say that the inflation potential must be flat (compared to the large vacuum energy) and that the inflation particles
cont.....must have a small mass. In order for the new inflation theory of Linde, Albrecht and Steinhardt to be successful, therefore, it seemed that the universe must have a scalar field with an especially flat potential and special initial conditions
. Liddle and Lyth (2000).
Penrose cites just how special the initial conditions had to be in order for the universe to come about, and again its the same exponential ratio cited before.
Water cooling systems are placed in computers all the time and the tube in your trachea is water tight. You first complained that you can choke, so it has to be air tight, which also means it has to be water tight, and now you say its not water tight. Which is it? You cant have it both ways.
I have gone out of my way to respond to every question even quoting you to make sure you understand what I was responding to, so please give me the same courtesy. So far your argument has been based on, you dont like the way the trachea is designed so therefore design is out of the question or because you dont understand it. You didn't even realize that people could live and thrive in extremely harsh conditions like freezing cold or extreme heat.
@benthemiester Because you are desperately trying to change the nature of good design to a matter of opinion I feel pretty safe in assume that you have NEVER designed a complex system of any type. Again, answer this simple question, Why would a designer choose a system that is more prone to malfunction, over a system that is less prone to malfunction? ANSWER THIS QUESTION PLEASE SIR!
I mentioned the Bible because you brought up an infinite intelligence which again ID does not, and water cooling systems are used in computers all the time and sometime accidents occurs which can kill your system, but again as in humans, a little water down the pipe is not fatal.
This seems to indicate something very special, and that is life as we know it is human life here on earth. So the fact that these non religious men which base this proposition on empirical observable evidence would say such a thing, indicates how special we really are. See Rodger Penrose fine tuning and entropy or the Privileged Planet.
@benthemiester Sir, you can't have it both ways...the universe is designed for life, but the vast majority cannot support life as we know it, So now you're insinuating that something set up this solar system to support life, and that this thing did it in a way that looks completely indistinguishable from chance...interesting argument...
@gsusreloded cont..... This is absurd. Please provide references for that statement, as I have provided citing Davies and Penrose. If you like, I can provide additional citations. I see a double standard here. You wrote in your profile that "I just want to correct those to foolishly attack science in an attempt to prove Gods existence" Here It is you who is attacking an empirical scientific observation because it doesn't conform to your world view.
@gsusreloded cont.... This is absurd. Please provide references for that statement, as I have provided citing Davies and Penrose. If you like, I can provide additional citations. I see a double standard here. You wrote in your profile that "I just want to correct those to foolishly attack science in an attempt to prove Gods existence" Here It is you who is attacking an empirical scientific observation because it doesn't conform to your world view.
@gsusreloded cont....extreme cold or heat. Yet eskimos and desert nomads have been doing it for thousands of years. Your credibility is at question right now. You have said many things that are just false or show a lack of research on your part. I am not sure where your getting this stuff from but if the universe is 12-14 billion years old then it can only be 12-14 billion light years across. I ask you again how can a universe that is only 12-14 billion years old span 100 billion light years.
@gsusreloded cont.... He calculated the chance of these exponential low probabilities at less than 1 in ten to ten to the 123rd power. If these ratios of the cosmological constants were off just by a tiny margin, not only life, but matter itself would not even be able to form. You can make what you will of this empirical observation or write it off as an exponential amount of cosmic coincidences if you wish, but you believe that the universe spans 100 billion years and that humans cannot live
@gsusreloded I said that according to Paul Davies most physicist & cosmologist believe the universe is fine tuned and in several respects fine tuned for life. I also said Rodger Penrose agrees........
I made no claim to who designed the universe because it was not asked. I mentioned this observation as well as biology because you spoke of why things appear to be the way they seemingly are, and I agree to a certain point, but neo Darwinism is based on extrapolations and inference, not on empirical science. You should watch my post video "Do we need a new theory of evolution?"
I actually agree with your definition of evolution, however it is the assumptions of the neo Darwinian synthesis prokaryote to man evolution that I and others have an issue with. In another words the modern synthesis as taught. Darwin cannot be credited for Mendel's work who by the way did not agree with Darwin's theory.....
I am not sure why you would think our bodies are supposed to be perfect or that only perfection is an attribute of intelligent design. In fact ID makes no claim as to who the designer is, or was, or how many there were or are. As I said before the body is exquisitely put together and is capable of extremely amazing things.
@benthemiester this claim is false per the discovery institute...with very little digging you can find that out, ID is a political strategy (Kitzmiller vs Dover)
cont..... Anyone who has ever watched an Olympic event has probably considered this observation. Again in my opinion saying that something is not intelligently designed because you would have not to do it that way is an argument of ignorance. The same goes for saying that the eye is wired backwards when we now know that it is wired exactly the way it has to be. My proposition has nothing to do with imagination, and scientific theories should not be based on what one can imagine,
@benthemiester You obviously dont understand, I see that you couldn't defend this claim, so you attempt to say that it is opinion. But why chance something that you dont have to in a design? Just answer that question...
cont..... but what the observable evidence shows, and what better explains this evidence based on its predictability criteria, especially in the historical sciences. How do you know what an infinite designer would or would not do? Could it be that you cant imagine what an infinitely powerful designer would or wouldn't do, so therefore by default your claim has to be correct? You might want to rethink this proposition of yours. What evidence do you have that we are all guaranteed to choke?
cont..... Again if you chew your food properly and don't stuff your face, you should not have a problem. Maybe this is away of preventing gluttony which can be harmful. You have no way of knowing that your alternative design is superior and you provide no evidence that you are even technically capable of design beyond merely stating or imagining it. I suggest to you that you try to design a functional superior human body. Or even a mediocre body, or even a very simple life form for that matter.
@benthemiester But you keep avoiding this very simple question.Why would a designer chance it if they didn't have to. Its like putting a water cooling system in a computer, and the tube that you use isn't water tight so the water has a chance to SPILL on the circuit board! No one would ever do that! So why would you cross an air tube and a digestion tube?! Especially when you dont have to? All of these simple anecdotes that you use to understand all of these complex concept but you can't this?
@gsusreloded cont..... and that not chewing and shoving food in your mouth is unhealthy. Humans have been living and thriving with this design since humans have been around. Again this is an argument from ignorance. Water spilling on a circuit board is fatal to a computer system. Coughing when something accidentally goes down the wrong pipe is not, and teaches you to drink & or eat more slowly which again, is beneficial for health. This is called a false analogy.
@gsusreloded If you actually read my response, I said that economy may be the reason that systems are intertwined as we see it all the time in designed systems, as well as a way of preventing chronic gluttony. Medical science has confirmed that chewing properly and eating small portions are a benefit,....
cont..... When you can. I will have to concede your points. Your question of why the designer would make it look like common decent is based on the fact that we all have free will. We are not robots. What looks to you like common descent looks to others like common design. Its just like BB King once said….. It doesn't matter if your old lady is 300 pounds on her feet, or 99 pounds dripping wet. If she's your old lady and you dig her, then she's your pretty little thing.
@benthemiester but it doesn't have to look that way,why would it do that? you mean to tell me that this designer is tricksy and WANTS to fool people, again we're talking about the designers intentions,and it thoughts. But after all of this, WE STILL HAVEN'T ACTUALLY ATTAINED A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS! LOL We're talking about the designers intentions, something we can know nothing about and still doesn't explain anything? lol mental gymnastics
cont..... (One of my heroes by the way) Personal perspective is a part of our free will. Let me give you a different take. Almost everyone agrees that biology shows the appearance of design. Even Richard Dawkins says that " Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}. Dawkins explanation is that it is an illusion.
cont..... Paul Davies states "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life" Nobel Laureate Rodger Penrose who is also a non religious man states the same, and has calculated the universe coming into existence as we know it on its own has calculated this probability to less than 1 10^10(123 in contrast there 1 10^ 80 electrons in the known universe,
@benthemiester So you said my argument was from ignorance, but this argument says,"If things were different than they would be different." lol Be careful my friend, I DID go to school for physics so you entering dangers territory here...
cont..... and these observations are based on empirical science, (physic and laws of probabilities) So ask yourself the same question concern why things appear to be the way they are concerning these examples and which everyone agrees on. You admit that much of what you speak of is based on your ignorance by admitting that "I don't understand that" fair enough, no one knows everything, but again it is an argument of ignorance. As for parts breaking down and (economy)
@benthemiester So you are ACTUALLY trying to claim that this universe was made by something intelligent for the purposes of creating life BUT literally very close to %100 of cannot be used by life as we know it!? Close to %100 of all of the life that HAS EVER lived on this planet would die ANY WHERE else in this universe which spans an estimated 100billion light years? Is this what you are actually saying? LMAO
@gsusreloded "Close to %100 of all of the life that HAS EVER lived on this planet would die ANY WHERE else in this universe which spans an estimated 100billion light years? Is this what you are actually saying? LMAO?"
You say that physics is your field, but I dont think you can say the same for cosmology. How can a universe that is 12-14 billion years old span 100 billion light years? Maybe you used the acronym "LMAO" a little to soon my friend. Now thats priceless man.
@gsusreloded "Close to %100 of all of the life that HAS EVER lived on this planet would die ANY WHERE else in this universe which spans an estimated 100billion light years? Is this what you are actually saying? LMAO?"
You say that physics is your field, but I dont think you can say the same for cosmology. How can a universe that is 12-14 billion years old span 100 billion light years? Maybe you used the acronym "LMAO" a little to soon my friend. Now thats priceless man.
@benthemiester welcome to the theory of an expanding universe aka big bang theory. 12-14 billion years old doesn't mean that the size of the universe cannot be more than 12-14 billion light years of diameter. Nothing can travel faster than light, yes, but this is true only within the universe.
And I hate the way youtube handle comments, your conversation interested me and I can't even tell the chronological order :-/.
cont..... which is a word that may answer some of your other questions, but back to the point, even Rolls Royces and Ferrari's breakdown. In the end, if all the supposed flaws were non existent one could still complain as to why we cant run as fast as cheetahs, or be as strong as gorillas. If we could run one hundred miles an hour, one could still complain as to why we cant run two hundred miles an hour or that we're not as powerful as elephants. People can thrive in all types of conditions
cont..... from the freezing north pole and Himalayas, to the arid deserts of Africa and Arabia and have for a very long time. Some people live on the ocean all there lives on boats Having to cultivate land is really not an argument against anything. The ocean itself is beneficial for life and we are not dependent on drinking ocean water, although it can be done using simple technologies. Drinkable water is on the earths surface so Im not sure what your point is there.
cont.....Viruses and parasites make less sense to a neo Darwinian paradigm. Keeping yourself clean and not sleeping around can lessen the chances of getting these viruses and again, no one ever claimed we live in a perfect world. I know we are speaking of ID and (I am not using the story of creationism to make my case, the same way you are not using atheism to make your case) but since you brought it up, even the Bible doesn't claim that we live in a perfect world but a fallen one.
well said: there are so many flaws in our "intelligent" design. The flaws in our eyes must be compensated by our brain, our wrists are too weak to allow more mobility of our arm, our digestive system is prone to make knots because of our recent passage from quadrupedal to bipedal locomotion, and so on and so forth. No intelligent designer would make so many mistakes.
cont...Concerning the inflationary model
FINE TUNING AN INFLATION
Fine-tuning problem
One of the most severe challenges for inflation arises from the need for fine tuning in inflationary theories. In new inflation, the slow-roll conditions must be satisfied for inflation to occur. The slow-roll conditions say that the inflation potential must be flat (compared to the large vacuum energy) and that the inflation particles
benthemiester 5 months ago
cont.....must have a small mass. In order for the new inflation theory of Linde, Albrecht and Steinhardt to be successful, therefore, it seemed that the universe must have a scalar field with an especially flat potential and special initial conditions
. Liddle and Lyth (2000).
Penrose cites just how special the initial conditions had to be in order for the universe to come about, and again its the same exponential ratio cited before.
benthemiester 5 months ago
Water cooling systems are placed in computers all the time and the tube in your trachea is water tight. You first complained that you can choke, so it has to be air tight, which also means it has to be water tight, and now you say its not water tight. Which is it? You cant have it both ways.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester never mind about the computer example...I think that it just confused you more.
gsusreloded 5 months ago
I have gone out of my way to respond to every question even quoting you to make sure you understand what I was responding to, so please give me the same courtesy. So far your argument has been based on, you dont like the way the trachea is designed so therefore design is out of the question or because you dont understand it. You didn't even realize that people could live and thrive in extremely harsh conditions like freezing cold or extreme heat.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester Because you are desperately trying to change the nature of good design to a matter of opinion I feel pretty safe in assume that you have NEVER designed a complex system of any type. Again, answer this simple question, Why would a designer choose a system that is more prone to malfunction, over a system that is less prone to malfunction? ANSWER THIS QUESTION PLEASE SIR!
gsusreloded 5 months ago
I mentioned the Bible because you brought up an infinite intelligence which again ID does not, and water cooling systems are used in computers all the time and sometime accidents occurs which can kill your system, but again as in humans, a little water down the pipe is not fatal.
benthemiester 5 months ago
"%100 of cannot be used by life as we know it!"
This seems to indicate something very special, and that is life as we know it is human life here on earth. So the fact that these non religious men which base this proposition on empirical observable evidence would say such a thing, indicates how special we really are. See Rodger Penrose fine tuning and entropy or the Privileged Planet.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester Sir, you can't have it both ways...the universe is designed for life, but the vast majority cannot support life as we know it, So now you're insinuating that something set up this solar system to support life, and that this thing did it in a way that looks completely indistinguishable from chance...interesting argument...
gsusreloded 5 months ago
@gsusreloded cont..... This is absurd. Please provide references for that statement, as I have provided citing Davies and Penrose. If you like, I can provide additional citations. I see a double standard here. You wrote in your profile that "I just want to correct those to foolishly attack science in an attempt to prove Gods existence" Here It is you who is attacking an empirical scientific observation because it doesn't conform to your world view.
benthemiester 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gsusreloded cont.... This is absurd. Please provide references for that statement, as I have provided citing Davies and Penrose. If you like, I can provide additional citations. I see a double standard here. You wrote in your profile that "I just want to correct those to foolishly attack science in an attempt to prove Gods existence" Here It is you who is attacking an empirical scientific observation because it doesn't conform to your world view.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@gsusreloded cont....extreme cold or heat. Yet eskimos and desert nomads have been doing it for thousands of years. Your credibility is at question right now. You have said many things that are just false or show a lack of research on your part. I am not sure where your getting this stuff from but if the universe is 12-14 billion years old then it can only be 12-14 billion light years across. I ask you again how can a universe that is only 12-14 billion years old span 100 billion light years.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@gsusreloded cont.... He calculated the chance of these exponential low probabilities at less than 1 in ten to ten to the 123rd power. If these ratios of the cosmological constants were off just by a tiny margin, not only life, but matter itself would not even be able to form. You can make what you will of this empirical observation or write it off as an exponential amount of cosmic coincidences if you wish, but you believe that the universe spans 100 billion years and that humans cannot live
benthemiester 5 months ago
@gsusreloded I said that according to Paul Davies most physicist & cosmologist believe the universe is fine tuned and in several respects fine tuned for life. I also said Rodger Penrose agrees........
benthemiester 5 months ago
I made no claim to who designed the universe because it was not asked. I mentioned this observation as well as biology because you spoke of why things appear to be the way they seemingly are, and I agree to a certain point, but neo Darwinism is based on extrapolations and inference, not on empirical science. You should watch my post video "Do we need a new theory of evolution?"
benthemiester 5 months ago
I actually agree with your definition of evolution, however it is the assumptions of the neo Darwinian synthesis prokaryote to man evolution that I and others have an issue with. In another words the modern synthesis as taught. Darwin cannot be credited for Mendel's work who by the way did not agree with Darwin's theory.....
benthemiester 5 months ago
cont.....
I am not sure why you would think our bodies are supposed to be perfect or that only perfection is an attribute of intelligent design. In fact ID makes no claim as to who the designer is, or was, or how many there were or are. As I said before the body is exquisitely put together and is capable of extremely amazing things.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester this claim is false per the discovery institute...with very little digging you can find that out, ID is a political strategy (Kitzmiller vs Dover)
gsusreloded 5 months ago
cont..... Anyone who has ever watched an Olympic event has probably considered this observation. Again in my opinion saying that something is not intelligently designed because you would have not to do it that way is an argument of ignorance. The same goes for saying that the eye is wired backwards when we now know that it is wired exactly the way it has to be. My proposition has nothing to do with imagination, and scientific theories should not be based on what one can imagine,
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester You obviously dont understand, I see that you couldn't defend this claim, so you attempt to say that it is opinion. But why chance something that you dont have to in a design? Just answer that question...
gsusreloded 5 months ago
cont..... but what the observable evidence shows, and what better explains this evidence based on its predictability criteria, especially in the historical sciences. How do you know what an infinite designer would or would not do? Could it be that you cant imagine what an infinitely powerful designer would or wouldn't do, so therefore by default your claim has to be correct? You might want to rethink this proposition of yours. What evidence do you have that we are all guaranteed to choke?
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester This is an flat out stupid question, not to mention intellectually dishonest...you're starting to bore me.
gsusreloded 5 months ago
cont..... Again if you chew your food properly and don't stuff your face, you should not have a problem. Maybe this is away of preventing gluttony which can be harmful. You have no way of knowing that your alternative design is superior and you provide no evidence that you are even technically capable of design beyond merely stating or imagining it. I suggest to you that you try to design a functional superior human body. Or even a mediocre body, or even a very simple life form for that matter.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester But you keep avoiding this very simple question.Why would a designer chance it if they didn't have to. Its like putting a water cooling system in a computer, and the tube that you use isn't water tight so the water has a chance to SPILL on the circuit board! No one would ever do that! So why would you cross an air tube and a digestion tube?! Especially when you dont have to? All of these simple anecdotes that you use to understand all of these complex concept but you can't this?
gsusreloded 5 months ago
@gsusreloded cont..... and that not chewing and shoving food in your mouth is unhealthy. Humans have been living and thriving with this design since humans have been around. Again this is an argument from ignorance. Water spilling on a circuit board is fatal to a computer system. Coughing when something accidentally goes down the wrong pipe is not, and teaches you to drink & or eat more slowly which again, is beneficial for health. This is called a false analogy.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@gsusreloded If you actually read my response, I said that economy may be the reason that systems are intertwined as we see it all the time in designed systems, as well as a way of preventing chronic gluttony. Medical science has confirmed that chewing properly and eating small portions are a benefit,....
benthemiester 5 months ago
cont..... When you can. I will have to concede your points. Your question of why the designer would make it look like common decent is based on the fact that we all have free will. We are not robots. What looks to you like common descent looks to others like common design. Its just like BB King once said….. It doesn't matter if your old lady is 300 pounds on her feet, or 99 pounds dripping wet. If she's your old lady and you dig her, then she's your pretty little thing.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester but it doesn't have to look that way,why would it do that? you mean to tell me that this designer is tricksy and WANTS to fool people, again we're talking about the designers intentions,and it thoughts. But after all of this, WE STILL HAVEN'T ACTUALLY ATTAINED A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS! LOL We're talking about the designers intentions, something we can know nothing about and still doesn't explain anything? lol mental gymnastics
gsusreloded 5 months ago
cont..... (One of my heroes by the way) Personal perspective is a part of our free will. Let me give you a different take. Almost everyone agrees that biology shows the appearance of design. Even Richard Dawkins says that " Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}. Dawkins explanation is that it is an illusion.
benthemiester 5 months ago
cont..... Paul Davies states "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life" Nobel Laureate Rodger Penrose who is also a non religious man states the same, and has calculated the universe coming into existence as we know it on its own has calculated this probability to less than 1 10^10(123 in contrast there 1 10^ 80 electrons in the known universe,
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester So you said my argument was from ignorance, but this argument says,"If things were different than they would be different." lol Be careful my friend, I DID go to school for physics so you entering dangers territory here...
gsusreloded 5 months ago
cont..... and these observations are based on empirical science, (physic and laws of probabilities) So ask yourself the same question concern why things appear to be the way they are concerning these examples and which everyone agrees on. You admit that much of what you speak of is based on your ignorance by admitting that "I don't understand that" fair enough, no one knows everything, but again it is an argument of ignorance. As for parts breaking down and (economy)
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester So you are ACTUALLY trying to claim that this universe was made by something intelligent for the purposes of creating life BUT literally very close to %100 of cannot be used by life as we know it!? Close to %100 of all of the life that HAS EVER lived on this planet would die ANY WHERE else in this universe which spans an estimated 100billion light years? Is this what you are actually saying? LMAO
gsusreloded 5 months ago
@gsusreloded "Close to %100 of all of the life that HAS EVER lived on this planet would die ANY WHERE else in this universe which spans an estimated 100billion light years? Is this what you are actually saying? LMAO?"
You say that physics is your field, but I dont think you can say the same for cosmology. How can a universe that is 12-14 billion years old span 100 billion light years? Maybe you used the acronym "LMAO" a little to soon my friend. Now thats priceless man.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@gsusreloded "Close to %100 of all of the life that HAS EVER lived on this planet would die ANY WHERE else in this universe which spans an estimated 100billion light years? Is this what you are actually saying? LMAO?"
You say that physics is your field, but I dont think you can say the same for cosmology. How can a universe that is 12-14 billion years old span 100 billion light years? Maybe you used the acronym "LMAO" a little to soon my friend. Now thats priceless man.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester welcome to the theory of an expanding universe aka big bang theory. 12-14 billion years old doesn't mean that the size of the universe cannot be more than 12-14 billion light years of diameter. Nothing can travel faster than light, yes, but this is true only within the universe.
And I hate the way youtube handle comments, your conversation interested me and I can't even tell the chronological order :-/.
assalane 5 months ago
cont..... which is a word that may answer some of your other questions, but back to the point, even Rolls Royces and Ferrari's breakdown. In the end, if all the supposed flaws were non existent one could still complain as to why we cant run as fast as cheetahs, or be as strong as gorillas. If we could run one hundred miles an hour, one could still complain as to why we cant run two hundred miles an hour or that we're not as powerful as elephants. People can thrive in all types of conditions
benthemiester 5 months ago
cont..... from the freezing north pole and Himalayas, to the arid deserts of Africa and Arabia and have for a very long time. Some people live on the ocean all there lives on boats Having to cultivate land is really not an argument against anything. The ocean itself is beneficial for life and we are not dependent on drinking ocean water, although it can be done using simple technologies. Drinkable water is on the earths surface so Im not sure what your point is there.
benthemiester 5 months ago
cont.....Viruses and parasites make less sense to a neo Darwinian paradigm. Keeping yourself clean and not sleeping around can lessen the chances of getting these viruses and again, no one ever claimed we live in a perfect world. I know we are speaking of ID and (I am not using the story of creationism to make my case, the same way you are not using atheism to make your case) but since you brought it up, even the Bible doesn't claim that we live in a perfect world but a fallen one.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester the bible you say...but I thought the ID makes no mention of a designer? curious...
gsusreloded 5 months ago
well said: there are so many flaws in our "intelligent" design. The flaws in our eyes must be compensated by our brain, our wrists are too weak to allow more mobility of our arm, our digestive system is prone to make knots because of our recent passage from quadrupedal to bipedal locomotion, and so on and so forth. No intelligent designer would make so many mistakes.
assalane 5 months ago