The Higgs Boson aka "The God Particle", and the problem of unnatural fine tuning.

a reply to: GetHyped

Pot meet kettle

a reply to: jaws1975

No, not really. Show me a single rigorously scientific source that equates god with nature or the placebo effect in any measurable way and I'll concede.

a reply to: GetHyped

Come on bro, that's like the DEA saying that marijuana has medicinal properties.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: dragonridr

He's just one of the people who discovered it.

Look, if you Google Higgs Boson, unnaturalness and fine tuning, the relevant articles show up, like this one

www.quantamagazine.org...

which is advocating for the multiverse theory to try to explain it, along with the unnatural fine tuning of the Cosmological Constant.

The only problem with it as far as I can tell, is that every other universe that did not produce this one, must somehow also form a type of arrow that produced this one, or the sum total of what couldn't produce this universe, made this one possible. I think it's an absurd hypothesis to avoid the other possibility which is the more obvious one, that the fine tuning represents an intelligent subtraction or correction (fine tuning) in order so that this life would be possible.

If it wasn't stable, then we wouldn't be here.

EXCELLENT POST!

The only evidence that exists, is the universe was fined tuned by intelligence. There's no evidence that these values can naturally occur. This is why you have things like the vacuum catastrophe and the axis of evil in Cosmology.

The problem occurs because Science has discovered certain observed features of the universe. They then come up with theories that naturally explain how these features arise. But, when they look at the data, they find values that couldn't have naturally produced the observed features. This data is fined tuned to a very high degree and there's no evidence that a multiverse or 10^500 false vacua can give you these values in any natural way.





If you ask me, randomness doesn't exist. This is because at the heart of randomness is an underlying mechanism of rules and data that allow randomness to occur.

For instance, look at a game of Poker. The hands you will get dealt are random but the outcomes that can occur are not random. These outcomes are determined by rules put in place by intelligence. So you can play a game of poker and people will be dealt hands randomly but you can only get 2,598,960 possible outcomes with different meanings determined by the underlying mechanism or rules put in place by intelligence.

Intelligence or what I call the underlying mechanism is the source of all randomness that looks so beautiful to us. Einstein and many other Scientist talked about this beauty and order.

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science." - Albert Einstein

"Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune intoned in the distance by an invisible player." - Albert Einstein

This invisible player is the underlying mechanism that governs all things.

Just look around. Everything has an underlying mechanism from the car driving on the highway to a plant growing in the garden. You may randomly pick which highway to drive on or where to go on vacation but the car you're driving and the highway your taking has an underlying mechanism of rules and data that was put in place by intelligence. It's exactly what we see with the universe and everything in it.

So even with a multiverse, you can't explain how these values naturally occur. This is why things like string theory have so many problems. In one theory, it's 10^500 false vacua and in another it's 10^1000 and yet another it might be infinite. The trouble is showing how these constants occured naturally and produced the features we see in our universe. They just can't do it and even if there were a multiverse, where's the evidence that all of these different values can occur?

The only evidence we have is that an Intelligent Mind is the underlying mechanism behind all things.

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: GetHyped

Come on bro, that's like the DEA saying that marijuana has medicinal properties.

No, not really. This is the SciTec forum afterall, so claims are expected to be backed up by evidence, as "mainstream" as it may be, If you wish to make wild, unsubstantiated claims the the Skunk Works forum is more appropriate.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: imitator

If an equation doesn't work, it means our model is wrong.

So your saying the speed of light is wrong...... I guess your in the wrong forum too!

a reply to: imitator

Can you point me to the post where I said the speed of light was wrong?

a reply to: imitator

Edit: the infamous ATS double post

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Ah, the classic answer of a beliver to any question which exceeds his knowledge:

God did it!



What is wrong with simply saying that you/we don't know (yet)?

It was the best explanation, via an intelligent subtraction, for which I followed up with the supporting hypothesis and a better description of "God".

The problem with the atheist is that he/she is predisposed with strong bias to exclude that possibility. Even when there's evidence, much like many of the scientists, you'll look for an alternative hypothesis, even if that hypothesis (multi-worlds strong anthropic principal) were to preclude any further description.

The unnatural fine tuning problem leads either to a proposition that's absurd and meaningless and that cannot be tested, or to a new paradigm and an expanded understanding, as per Haisch and Laszlo.

Your problem is that the moment you saw that (God did it) your mind snapped shut and you didn't proceed any further to see what was meant or implied by that.

As I made mention in another post, this is the very cutting edge of modern science and it's gone straight into this "predicament" the only resolution of which will result in a dramatic shift in our understanding of the nature of the universe and our place in it, which for all you know could be breathtaking in it's implications.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Let's see the scientific evidence for god, then.

a reply to: GetHyped

I was previously talking about fundamental constants being different, speed of light being one of them.... your defending a model that doesn't work. If an equation doesn't work, it means our model is wrong. Nothing more to it than that.

That's like saying the speed of light is incorrect or some correspondent constant related to it.

Right? : P

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Can I ask why you glossed over the other four hypotheses and jump straight to the supernatural conjecture?

Fun fact, the God particle was originally called the god-damned particle because it was so God damned hard to find. Obviously they shortened it to a more publicly acceptable version. Just some FYI incase you were getting any misleading ideas about the name.

I'm aware of where the name God particle came from, yes.

I explained the problems with the other hypothesis, as far as I understand it, but that's worth talking about.

Bottom line, the best explanation that many of the scientists have come up with (except people like Haisch and Lasszlo and others), who desperately wish to avoid the implications of unnatural fine tuning is an appeal to the multiverse within the context of the strong anthropic principal.

In a follow up post (don't have the time to get into it right now), I would like to discuss the problem with the multiverse strong anthropic principal as the alternative explanation and why that represents in so many ways (an infinite number of ways) the end of scientific inquiry in this matter.

However, when the idea of intelligence by a Godhead, as I offered in my follow up post, is considered, it's possible to continue to extrapolate what that might mean or signify as it relates to our understanding of the nature of reality and our own place in it.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Let's see the scientific evidence for god, then.

That's the point man. That's what we're looking at and considering here, among other things.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Can I ask why you glossed over the other four hypotheses and jump straight to the supernatural conjecture?

Fun fact, the God particle was originally called the god-damned particle because it was so God damned hard to find. Obviously they shortened it to a more publicly acceptable version. Just some FYI incase you were getting any misleading ideas about the name.

I'm aware of where the name God particle came from, yes.

I explained the problems with the other hypothesis, as far as I understand it, but that's worth talking about.

Bottom line, the best explanation that many of the scientists have come up with (except people like Haisch and Lasszlo and others), who desperately wish to avoid the implications of unnatural fine tuning is an appeal to the multiverse within the context of the strong anthropic principal.

In a follow up post (don't have the time to get into it right now), I would like to discuss the problem with the multiverse strong anthropic principal as the alternative explanation and why that represents in so many ways (an infinite number of ways) the end of scientific inquiry in this matter.

However, when the idea of intelligence by a Godhead, as I offered in my follow up post, is considered, it's possible to continue to extrapolate what that might mean or signify as it relates to our understanding of the nature of reality and our own place in it.

You didn't explain anything except we are skipping straight to God did it because of reasons. I would like to see these reasons in greater detail. from where I'm sitting it looks like a cheap attempt to wedge human ego into the cosmic equation.

a reply to: neoholographic

EXCELLENT contribution on your part!

I just finished watching the first of the two videos, very interesting! thank you!

What I would like to see us tackle in this thread, not because I am predisposed to "God did it" or the evidence that the fine tuning reveals super-intelligent design, is this alternative hypothesis regarding the multiverse with strong anthropic principal. I feel that when people grasp the nature of the absurdity of that explanation/hypothesis, then they might come to see how and why the resolution to the predicament that modern science is now in, involves the idea of intelligent design and thus an intelligent designer who intended for us to be a witness and participant, by anticipation, from a first cause.

It goes even deeper though than some sort of separate God figure when we consider the deeper implications of quantum physics involving the inextricable connection between the observer and the observed whereby, even though this designer must have preceded us (we didn't do it), "He/She" cannot be said to be separate from or apart from us, at the most fundamental level. To be is to be perceived. We are an intended and integral aspect of the Godhead, in particular via our ability to choose as consciously aware observers. We simply cannot stand apart from the phenomenon of the occurrence of life as some sort of "thing". Our own awareness and freedom to choose is woven right into the very heart of it.

What this brings to my mind is the idea that the ancients, and various sages and teachers, including Jesus, appear to have had a better understanding as to our true nature and our relation to this being/intelligence, as if we were made in the image of God, and by that I don't simply mean the sacred geometry of our physiological form (phi ratio) but moreso, our self-aware consciousness imbedded within a self-aware consciousness. In this way the human being could be said to stand next to the Godhead as it were where it may be said that, in order for this experience of mutuality to be possible, "it pleased your father to share His kingdom with all His children".

There are just so many astonishing implications that are made available to us to consider and ponder when we do not have a strong apriori bias against the possibility and the implications of the involvement of an intelligent designer who's act of creation with an intent to make possible a shared experience could be thought of in terms such as love and generosity.

If science and scientists can get their head out of their ass and integrate this finding in further and future lines of inquiry according to the new, emerging paradigm, then our old Newtonian, materialist monist worldview will pass away to be replaced by something of great mystery, and by mystery I don't mean not knowing, but a new way of seeing and of being and becoming.

If the latest science is pointing a sturdy (or a shaking) finger in this direction who would have a problem with that, except the atheists who are unwilling to be open-minded and to consider the most reasonable explanation no matter what are its implications.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Yes. It is intelligent. It responds to the environment--and to people. As a child, my favorite bedtime passtime was to make the energy switch colors and watch it all flow around the room. It would actually make pictures for me, back then. Like really complex ones of castles and things. It was beautiful. Now, I don't really try to interact with it, but I still see it all of the time, in the background. Now, it doesn't make pictures for me, but it always 'dances'. It seems to give off it's own light, that isn't really light (it reminds me of sparkles or glitter, shimmering constantly), and it's like all colors at once but like no colors at all. However it can take on distinct colors in the dark. I've been able to make it change from red, green, to blue. Blue is the most-difficult shade to make it turn to--red is the most-common. (All I do is consciously think something like 'change to blue' or just 'blue' and I repeat it mentally until it works.) Sometimes it doesn't work and it stays whatever color it was (usually red)It does also seem to move with the wind/air, sometimes. It comes off of everything. But the properties of it change when it's radiating off of, say, a tree--versus like a table or something. It looks a lot more vibrant and alive when it's coming out of things that are living--and more subdued/sluggish in flow (or vibration) and not as shining when it's coming off of objects. My theory is that this could be what people are talking about when they talk about auras. You can manipulate it or draw it into yourself to make yourself appear stronger/bigger/etc. It's energy--and we are all made up of it.

I have seen an eye doctor--my eyes are very healthy. They are football-shaped, though. And slightly larger than is usual. And I have a slight astigmatism. I wear glasses--but I had 20/20 vision as a little kid (until I went too close to the T.V.to examine the pixels--because they reminded me of the energy, funnily enough). I can see the energy the same with glasses on or off. I see it with my eyes closed. I thought everyone saw it. I can tune it out, or focus in on it.

Abilities/being sensitive run in my family. I've spoken to the eye doctor about it, and he actually laughed and said that there was nothing wrong with my eyes that would make me see anything like it, but it sounded like energy to him. He's a pretty cool eye doctor. I also go to the eye doctor once a year--and nothing has ever changed (besides my vision getting a bit worse, as is normal for people who need glasses).

So yes, I think I see them as a result of my innate ability to do so. Why I have this ability, I have no clue. It looks pretty neat, though. I think God gave me the blessing of Discernment of spirits, tbh. So, on that note I'm sure it will make sense to me one day.

You're welcome. Hope I answered your questions!

a reply to: TzarChasm

I think it's you who are too heavily biased when you read that. I should haven't used that phrase, but instead posited an intelligent fine-tuner.

The "problem" is that an intelligent fine-tuner is the only reasonable hypothesis remaining, when the other (multiverse with strong anthropic principal) is revealed to be absurd and meaningless.

Absent a strong bias preventing the contemplation of what are the implications of this finding, there is no other recourse or fallback position.

This does not require an entire description of the nature of the Godhead, but only that we begin to grapple with the implications and significance of intelligent fine-tuning, which will dramatically reshape our view of the cosmos and our place within it (by intent or purposefully made by intelligent design).

You are assuming too much with a very strong atheist bias or predisposition to avoid at all cost where the evidence leads, which really isn't very scientifically minded.

More evidence of God from another example of fine tuning.

Love it when science proves God, from the super fine tuned forces of the big bang to the smashing of particles to study the Higgs Boson.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Agreed. New Atheists are very religious in their hatred of religion. It's very ironic

a reply to: rukia

To be honest though I'm not too enamored with doctrinal and literalist interpretations of the Bible and the various filters that have been applied to it, or the control mechanisms leveraged from it to try to intimidate converts and allow adherents to feel that they are right, relative to other's wrong, and take comfort in being part of an exclusive club to the exclusion of others (that's not real love).

To help remove the strong bias, although with some atheists it will not and cannot ever be removed, sadly, I feel that a new lens and a new scientific paradigm needs to be employed whereby we might come to see that much of what we find in the Bible, aside from an apparently greater degree of intervention in the affairs of man, is man's own attempt to better understand and relate to the divine power/source, based on a rich and very deep understanding that seems to predate or to inform those writers, like Moses for example who was indoctrinated into the ancient Egyptian mystery schools.

So instead of throwing the Bible away or burning it as just a bunch of fairy tale nonsense created by superstitious, primitive man, it could serve as one source among others, to try to re-examine the old paradigms for clues to the basis and nature of ancient wisdom teaching, the fundamental precepts of which appear to be in increasing alignment with the findings and discovery of modern science ie: placing mankind, as if solipsistically, at the center of it all and part of some grand cosmic drama, involving everything from God to various agents and powers and principalities and here I am reminded of Lot's encounter with the 3 "Lords" who "beamed down" to do a reconnaissance of Sodom and Gomorrah. These were not angels but flesh and blood "men", if the story is to be believed or accepted as historical fact.

I see the Bible as a type of drama play. That said, it also appears to have contained imbedded within it, a type of superdeterministic integrity in regards to authentic prophecy or simply put, promise keeping, where God's "word" is His bond, and His ways, however difficult to fathom or scrutinize, leave a clear and unmistakable trail, like fingerprints of divine genius left behind for our own future discovery, in some cases, held in reserve for future scientific discovery playing the tape back ie: Revelation containing only slightly veiled allegory to things that might only be understood in light of modern day science and cosmology.

But alas, that's another topic. (sorry for straying)

Point being, what did the ancients really seem to KNOW about man's place in the grand scheme of things, which they also arrived at by their observation of and participation in, the observable world of their own understanding?

Wouldn't it be interesting and rather ironic, if after all our searching we at last return to the place where we first started, when looking up at the stars and charting their course, and, from within an almost identical frame of reference (just a matter of scale), come to know that same place as if for the first time..?