- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: First it was birds. Now they tell us the Universe isn't real
Posted on 6/11/26 at 1:08 am to GRTiger
Posted on 6/11/26 at 1:08 am to GRTiger
Here are just a few examples:
The cosmological constant: perhaps the most dramatic fine tuning; if it were even slightly larger, the universe would have expanded too rapidly for galaxies and stars to form. If it were slightly smaller, the universe would collapse back onto itself. The degree of fine-tuning is often cited as 1 part in 10^120. To give that number some scale, there are about 10^80 atoms in the observable universe.
The strength of gravity: if stronger, stars would burn out too quickly; if weaker, they wouldn’t ignite at all.
The strength of the strong nuclear force: a small change would prevent stable nuclei from forming, eliminating chemistry entirely
The electromagnetic force: its precise ratio to gravity is critical for stellar physics and atomic structure
The weak nuclear force: governs radioactive decay and supernova dynamics; fine-tuned for the distribution of heavy elements necessary for life
The extremely low entropy initial state: the initial low-entropy condition of the universe is improbably fine-tuned to a staggering degree
The ratio of matter to antimatter:
a tiny asymmetry allowed matter to survive annihilation; without it, the universe would be pure radiation.
The density parameter: the ratio of actual to critical density; had to be extraordinarily close to 1 in the early universe for a life-permitting cosmos
The amplitude of primordial density fluctuations: too smooth and no galaxies form; too lumpy and only black holes form.
Carbon resonance (the Hoyle resonance): Fred Hoyle’s prediction that carbon-12 must have an energy resonance level at a precise value for stellar nucleosynthesis to produce sufficient carbon.
The ratio of matter and space that are directly used to support life is inconsequential and a nonsense counter argument to the incredible fine tuning of the universe. It is all incredibly ordered, not just the pockets that contain life. And the areas that don’t contain life indirectly support the development of advanced biological life forms. For example, the universe needs stars, supernovae, and neutron star mergers to form higher atomic numbers atoms. A planet like earth doesn’t just self generate out of nothing.
The cosmological constant: perhaps the most dramatic fine tuning; if it were even slightly larger, the universe would have expanded too rapidly for galaxies and stars to form. If it were slightly smaller, the universe would collapse back onto itself. The degree of fine-tuning is often cited as 1 part in 10^120. To give that number some scale, there are about 10^80 atoms in the observable universe.
The strength of gravity: if stronger, stars would burn out too quickly; if weaker, they wouldn’t ignite at all.
The strength of the strong nuclear force: a small change would prevent stable nuclei from forming, eliminating chemistry entirely
The electromagnetic force: its precise ratio to gravity is critical for stellar physics and atomic structure
The weak nuclear force: governs radioactive decay and supernova dynamics; fine-tuned for the distribution of heavy elements necessary for life
The extremely low entropy initial state: the initial low-entropy condition of the universe is improbably fine-tuned to a staggering degree
The ratio of matter to antimatter:
a tiny asymmetry allowed matter to survive annihilation; without it, the universe would be pure radiation.
The density parameter: the ratio of actual to critical density; had to be extraordinarily close to 1 in the early universe for a life-permitting cosmos
The amplitude of primordial density fluctuations: too smooth and no galaxies form; too lumpy and only black holes form.
Carbon resonance (the Hoyle resonance): Fred Hoyle’s prediction that carbon-12 must have an energy resonance level at a precise value for stellar nucleosynthesis to produce sufficient carbon.
The ratio of matter and space that are directly used to support life is inconsequential and a nonsense counter argument to the incredible fine tuning of the universe. It is all incredibly ordered, not just the pockets that contain life. And the areas that don’t contain life indirectly support the development of advanced biological life forms. For example, the universe needs stars, supernovae, and neutron star mergers to form higher atomic numbers atoms. A planet like earth doesn’t just self generate out of nothing.
This post was edited on 6/11/26 at 1:10 am
1
Posted on 6/11/26 at 1:26 am to StrongOffer
quote:
It’s the only way they can go because the more you study science, the more it’s obvious the universe was intelligently designed. And they can’t admit that.
Every living thing was intelligently designed to suffer and die? Mammals, Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians, Fish, Arthropods, etc.
Complex embryonic development is prone to misreads in the genetic code, resulting in developmental anomalies or congenital defects.
There is no dignity in dying.
Posted on 6/11/26 at 1:35 am to Synoptic
quote:
A planet like earth doesn’t just self generate out of nothing.
So does Earth need other galaxies besides the Milky Way to support life?
Or do the other galaxies exist to support other life in extremely rare miraculous conditions?
Posted on 6/11/26 at 2:05 am to Joseph2001Dirte
What the earth needs to exist is an incredibly fine tuned, homogeneous, low entropy universe like the one we have. A universe like this is necessarily vast. The vastness of the universe and the low-entropy state are interconnected features. A homogeneous (smooth) universe with uniform matter/energy density starts out with extremely low gravitational entropy. If you have a vast expanse of nearly uniform gas, there are relatively few ways to configure it before it collapses under gravity to form stars and galaxies. As gravity pulls the matter into clumpy, structured objects, the gravitational entropy increases.
The vastness of this homogeneous state is often attributed to a rapid period of exponential expansion in the early universe, known as cosmic inflation. Inflation takes a small, smooth, low-entropy patch of space and stretches it to a massive, macroscopic scale, which sets the stage for a gigantic universe that starts its thermodynamic evolution with plenty of room to grow and create complex structures.
So the earth may not “need” other galaxies in a direct causal sense, but the earth does need a low entropy homogeneous universe, and that type of universe would be vast and contain many galaxies.
The vastness of this homogeneous state is often attributed to a rapid period of exponential expansion in the early universe, known as cosmic inflation. Inflation takes a small, smooth, low-entropy patch of space and stretches it to a massive, macroscopic scale, which sets the stage for a gigantic universe that starts its thermodynamic evolution with plenty of room to grow and create complex structures.
So the earth may not “need” other galaxies in a direct causal sense, but the earth does need a low entropy homogeneous universe, and that type of universe would be vast and contain many galaxies.
Posted on 6/11/26 at 3:10 am to Jim Rockford
Narrated and almost certainly written by AI. Or did "he" only remember how to pronounce "quasar" the second time?
Posted on 6/11/26 at 3:47 am to StrongOffer
quote:
It’s the only way they can go because the more you study science, the more it’s obvious the universe was intelligently designed. And they can’t admit that.
Good one
Posted on 6/11/26 at 3:54 am to UFFan
quote:
Tigerdroppings isn’t real
Posted on 6/11/26 at 7:33 am to PurpleSingularity
quote:It’s fine to disagree, but this isn’t a flat-Earth-level discussion. Questions around cosmological fine-tuning, origin of life, and biological information have been debated by serious scientists and philosophers. One can reject intelligent design, but pretending only idiots find the argument interesting is not a serious response.
You are an idiot, congratulations.
Posted on 6/11/26 at 7:47 am to Joseph2001Dirte
quote:You're more addressing "everything is perfectly designed", not fine-tuning. Suffering and death raise serious theological questions, but don't erase why the universe has life-permitting laws/constants in the first place.
Every living thing was intelligently designed to suffer and die?
Posted on 6/11/26 at 9:12 am to Jim Rockford
Is there anything more practical that these smart people can concern themselves with?
Posted on 6/11/26 at 9:53 am to Joseph2001Dirte
quote:That’s an opinion. Even stars die. How is that an argument that the universe is random? 2nd law of thermodynamics: order can’t come from chaos unless there is an outside energy added.
There is no dignity in dying.
I’ve had this debate more than once on here and don’t really feel like going through all the scientific arguments again. But on a high level, the fact that the universe is intelligible is concrete evidence that it was intelligently designed. There are rules to the natural order.
Posted on 6/11/26 at 2:23 pm to StrongOffer
quote:What exactly do you mean by “order can’t come from chaos”? The second law of thermodynamics does not mean “order can never form naturally.”
That’s an opinion. Even stars die. How is that an argument that the universe is random? 2nd law of thermodynamics: order can’t come from chaos unless there is an outside energy added.
I’ve had this debate more than once on here and don’t really feel like going through all the scientific arguments again. But on a high level, the fact that the universe is intelligible is concrete evidence that it was intelligently designed. There are rules to the natural order.
The law actually contends that in a closed system, the total amount of disorder tends to increase over time. Closed system. Earth is not a closed system. Earth is constantly being blasted with energy from the sun. So local order can form here while the total entropy of the broader system still increases.
That happens constantly.
Put water in a freezer and it forms ice crystals. That is order forming from scattered water molecules. No one thinks the freezer intelligently designed every ice cube. Energy was moved around, heat was removed, and the molecules arranged according to natural laws.
Leave saltwater sitting and salt crystals can form. Again, ordered structure. Not magic. Not a violation of thermodynamics.
So the second law does not say “order cannot come from chaos.” It says you do not get a net decrease in entropy in a closed system.
That means the thermodynamics argument does not get you to intelligent design. At most, it gets you to “energy is involved.” But energy is not intelligence. The sun adds energy to Earth every day.
So are you arguing that natural order cannot arise without energy, or that it cannot arise without intelligence? Those are very different claims.
If you only mean energy is required, then sure. But energy is not intelligence. The sun adds energy to Earth every day.
If you mean intelligence is required, where is the step in your argument that gets you from “the universe follows rules” to “the rules were created by a mind”?
Why does “reality is mathematically describable” automatically mean “reality was intelligently designed”? Couldn’t that also be a necessary feature of any stable universe, or simply the only kind of universe conscious beings could find themselves in?
In other words, I’m not asking whether you believe the universe was designed. I’m asking what part of your argument proves it.
Because “there are rules”, by itself, only asserts there are rules. It does not prove a rule-maker.
Posted on 6/11/26 at 2:30 pm to Jim Rockford
Scientist: The universe is not real. We are all living in a simulation.
Me: But, how did the simulation come to be? Does something control it?
Scientist: Well, it would most likely be created and controlled by some all powerful, omniscient, omnipresent being of some sort.
Me; Like, a god?
Scientist: Yes.
Me: Do you believe in God?
Scientist: Why no, I'm atheist and believe in science.
Me: But, how did the simulation come to be? Does something control it?
Scientist: Well, it would most likely be created and controlled by some all powerful, omniscient, omnipresent being of some sort.
Me; Like, a god?
Scientist: Yes.
Me: Do you believe in God?
Scientist: Why no, I'm atheist and believe in science.
Posted on 6/11/26 at 2:42 pm to wareaglepete
quote:Who says this?
Well, it would most likely be created and controlled by some all powerful, omniscient, omnipresent being of some sort.
That is not the common simulation argument.
Posted on 6/11/26 at 2:44 pm to northshorebamaman
So, is it like the Big Bang, the simulation just sprung into existence? Not being silly, what is the common argument?
Posted on 6/11/26 at 2:55 pm to wareaglepete
quote:No, the common simulation argument is not that the simulation “sprang into existence.”
So, is it like the Big Bang, the simulation just sprung into existence? Not being silly, what is the common argument?
The common argument is that there would be a base reality outside the simulation. In that base reality, some advanced civilization, future humans, aliens, posthumans, whatever, could theoretically have enough computing power to run ancestor simulations.
So yes, the simulation would have a cause. It would have hardware or some equivalent substrate outside our reality. It would have a simulator or simulators.
But that does not get you to an omniscient, omnipresent, all-powerful God. It only gets you to something outside the simulation with more control over it than we have from inside it.
Also, the Big Bang is not “the universe sprang into existence.” The Big Bang model describes the expansion of the universe. It is not, by itself, a claim that reality popped out of absolute nothing.
So the common argument is: base reality exists, advanced beings may run simulations, and we might be inside one. Not “simulation therefore God.”
Posted on 6/11/26 at 3:01 pm to northshorebamaman
Am I the only one in the simulation? Or is everyone in it. If it is just me and the simulation is limited to what I have in my view or area of perception, I could see that. But if it is our whole world and universe simulation and everyone is in it, would they have near enough computing power to build something like that?
On the Big Bang, if it is just the expansion of an dense singularity that was already there, where did that thing come from?
On the Big Bang, if it is just the expansion of an dense singularity that was already there, where did that thing come from?
This post was edited on 6/11/26 at 3:02 pm
Posted on 6/11/26 at 3:21 pm to wareaglepete
The honest answer is that those are all unknowns inside the simulation argument.
It could be only “me.” It could be everyone. It could be a full universe simulation. It could be limited rendering, where only what is being observed gets fully processed, like a video game not rendering the whole map at maximum detail when nobody is there. It could be something totally different.
But from inside the simulation, we would not have a clean way to know which version it is. We could speculate, but we could not step outside the system and inspect the hardware.
The only thing I can know with direct certainty is that I am conscious. I experience something. Beyond that, I infer other minds and an external world because that is the best working explanation, but those are still inferences.
As for the Big Bang, the common misunderstanding is that it means “nothing exploded into everything.” That is not what the model says. It says the observable universe was once in an extremely hot, dense state and has been expanding and cooling ever since.
Where did that state come from? Unknown.
It could be only “me.” It could be everyone. It could be a full universe simulation. It could be limited rendering, where only what is being observed gets fully processed, like a video game not rendering the whole map at maximum detail when nobody is there. It could be something totally different.
But from inside the simulation, we would not have a clean way to know which version it is. We could speculate, but we could not step outside the system and inspect the hardware.
The only thing I can know with direct certainty is that I am conscious. I experience something. Beyond that, I infer other minds and an external world because that is the best working explanation, but those are still inferences.
As for the Big Bang, the common misunderstanding is that it means “nothing exploded into everything.” That is not what the model says. It says the observable universe was once in an extremely hot, dense state and has been expanding and cooling ever since.
Where did that state come from? Unknown.
Posted on 6/11/26 at 4:05 pm to RoyalWe
quote:
One can reject intelligent design, but pretending only idiots find the argument interesting is not a serious response.
It’s a serious discussion when framed as awe, mystery, or philosophical curiosity about the cosmos. Cosmological fine-tuning, the origin of life, and biological complexity are legitimate subjects of debate.
But the anthropic principle or fine-tuning argument does not naturally lead to the specific claims of the Abrahamic religions….which was the direction the poster intended to point to. It may point some people toward deism, theism, simulation theory, multiverse speculation, etc. So one can respect the intellectual question while still rejecting the leap from “the universe appears finely tuned” to “therefore a particular Bronze Age ancient religious tradition is true.
Posted on 6/11/26 at 4:17 pm to PurpleSingularity
I don't disagree with that distinction. However, I don't see anyone making that claim. Maybe I missed it.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News