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

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
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.

It's interesting how you suggest I am too biased in my assessments and then follow that suggestion by confirming your own bias. Which is okay I'm sure you're not trying to hide it. Although I do object to calling the rest of your list of theories absurd, especially since the Higgs boson particle doesn't invalidate any of them. More to the point the Higgs boson doesn't really answer the intelligent design question either. It just confuses the matter by using intelligent design to answer another question without answering the intelligent design question using the particle. Instead of 'here is how the Higgs boson particle proves or suggest fine tuning' it just uses the Higgs boson to springboard intelligent design into the arena. We found a particle that we associate with God - no we made a discovery that forces us to adjust our understanding of physics . This is an important distinction to make in order to curtail assumption and bias . Let's explain how the Higgs boson is indicative of fine-tuning and then explore the intelligent design aspect of it. That approach might better equip us for addressing the question of who and where and how and why, since these are useful questions to answer when dealing with a superhuman agency. Unless we're not talking about superhuman agencies?

originally posted by: neoholographic

bumping this to ensure wider consumption and contemplation, and comprehension.

Thanks again neoholographic for this valuable contribution to the discussion at hand.

a reply to: rukia

These are really interesting questions and they should be given the credit they deserve.

Adding god as an answer when you don't understand things is disrespectful to science and religion.

All the evidence and theories put out there by science point to ignorance on the subject so far.

Yet all the stoners, hippies and religious nuts claim this ignorance as proof.

It's really very frustrating.

a reply to: TzarChasm

The same thing applies equally to the other constants, in particular, the cosmological constant (degree of fine-tuning).

Please watch the two videos another member posted that I just bumped forward before I saw your post (above). Then you'll be fully up to speed on the issue and how intractable it is.

I don't think that you're grasping the idea here of the true nature of the predicament, which, to avoid the implication of a fine-tuner, superintelligent creative agent, simply MUST evoke the strong anthropic principal, with universes (that don't posses these constants) continually bifurcating until at last, a purely chance, random flux in the zero point field or quantum energy vacuum field gives us the universe we conveniently inhabit by pure chance/coincidence with the constants, all of them, only appearing to be fine tuned as an illusion, due exclusively to our fundamental bias as subjective observers according to the strong anthropic principal ie: it just is, and well, if it were otherwise, by even the slightest degree, we wouldn't be here to measure it, thus rendering the very examination and questioning of it (fine tuning) a moot and meaningless and hopeless question or line of inquiry ie: end of science. In other words, to avoid the fine-tuner by Intelligence (capital I) hypothesis, any scientist or atheist must commit what amounts to intellectual suicide or try to hide in a foxhole that isn't bounded by reason and logic.

It's like a type of playful joke. That's how I interpret the predicament. If my intuition is right, the "how" cannot and will never be solved mathematically, but can be understood and appreciated (to an ever greater degree), according to a whole myriad of implications and other lines of inquiry that logically and rationally stem from and arise out of the recognition of it, once integrated as a fact of life because it forces the question of "why?" once intent and purpose and intelligence becomes the new accepted fact and the very basis for our own existence. It alters the frame of reference by which future inquiry is then made, and instead of making an appeal to the multiverse hypothesis to evade or avoid it's implications, the predicament is faced head-on, until it's no longer a "predicament" or a unresolvable quandary as evidenced in and by our own experience, which has just been made immeasurably richer and more significant, as a result.

In other words the type of rational and reasoning and frame of reference that went into the inquiry, when faced with the predicament, is forced to shift in an appeal to a different type of reasoning, call it supra-rational or ultra-reasonable, no matter how "crazy", unthinkable, or contrary to common sense notions that it may appear to be according to the old paradigm.

It's butts up directly against our own faculty of reason and traditional scientific inquiry, but it's not entirely outside the realm of what can be known in the knowledge of experience or in what some sages and enlightened folks have called the humor of true understanding.

If you fancy your faculty of reason to be rather Spock-like, then you're SOL, but if you're open-minded and willing to consider all possibilities and follow the evidence where it leads, it's only the beginning of a new way of seeing and relating including the re-recognition of one's own place as an integral part of a cosmological unity that had us in mind right from the very beginning.

Would Spock himself not raise an eyebrow or allow the merest hint of a wry grin to touch his lips at the prospect of a new paradigm at the end of more traditional modalities of reason and logic, say in the old Newtonian, materialist monist worldview wherein we can stand apart from it all and from ourselves and simply presume that it's an impersonal thing or vast collection of things yet lacking in intelligence and creative intent and design, when all the evidence in front of us is pointing in the other direction?

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
If my intuition is right...

Sorry to cut your quote short but you've written a lot to say you have a hunch.

The problem here is that according to the people that understand it far better than we do, we shouldn't really trust our intuition so I would question that straight away.

It may even be that we are incapable of ever understanding.

Until someone has a hunch that relies on a more convincing argument than "maybe it's this" it looks like we will remain ignorant.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

That's up to you.

Me I was merely trying to wrestle with the implications of it, and see what seems to arise for me as a rational and reasonable, scientifically minded person on the basis of reason and logic, and yes, intuition. A certain sense of humor, mirth and playfulness is what arose, or some sort of grand joke lurking or waiting in the wings, a joke at the expense of our human ignorance of scientist, religious and atheist alike.

How you respond to the findings and what they imply, are entirely up to you, but as a reasonable, rational and scientifically minded person, why opt for ignorance at the final fork in the road where the most reasonable conclusion includes an Intelligent creative design or purpose with intent and by anticipation.

If the evidence points directly and inexorably to Intelligent Design then I'm not about to thrust my head in the sand because I have some anti-religious bias against the idea of a creator God of infinite intelligence.

The Cosmological Constant (just how "fine-tuned" is it?)

youtu.be...

originally posted by: rukia
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!

Amazing testimony of your interaction throughout your life with intelligent light. That's very unique and extremely interesting. Thanks for your testimony. I believe you.

It's as if you have and have always had a playful relationship with this light. I would imagine that you're not the only one to experience this, particularly among children but for most I think such experiences if when they happen at all are forgotten in the mists of childhood memories only vaguely recollected. You are very fortunate to have such a touchstone in playing with "it" as if with a friend. I loved how you previously recounted that as a child, it would paint pictures for you of castles and cities and whatnot, as if entertaining you, but I get that it was visual, and not simply vivid memory or even photographic memory playing on a screen in your mind.

That's quite extraordinary!

Question: You've verified that it was intelligent as per my last question, but did you ever find that it had a playful sense of humor and mirth and charm that was not your own or part of your own character, as if leading you by the hand instead of just responding to your desire for it to turn another color. Did it initiate? And did it perchance play any practical jokes on you and show you things about your own character, like a playful teacher?

Thank you.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Ok, show us the goods, then.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Krauss goes into it a little here...
www.youtube.com...

I've read a lot of your stuff and it's all vague airy fairy stuff.
The God you suggest could just as easily be replaced by a magical chicken.

I would love to see proof, my eternal soul would be grateful. However as it stands I'm going to stay ignorant and hellbound until I can find a convincing argument.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Ok, show us the goods, then.

Fine-tuning it itself the evidence. Watch those two vids to come up to speed on what we're really talking about here.

But since that's less tangible, the idea of the unnatural fine-tuning of the cosmological constant and the Higgs particle operating as an intelligent selection bias in favor of life as we know it, and you want something a little more in your face then here, check this out

triple posted..dang!

delete

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

check this out

Can you provide some explanation of what we are looking at?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

as it stands I'm going to stay ignorant

And that too is a choice, which is fine. That we can view it in different ways with different lenses and filters and biases or lack of them, that's really part of the beauty and wonder of it all. There's something for everyone.

To each their own as they say.

I was hoping that the detractors and the naysayers might at least acknowledge the true nature of this new predicament or fix that we're in at the leading edge of modern scientific inquiry - unnatural fine tuning.

Intelligence is the most logical conclusion.

That doesn't mean you have to accept it or "grok" it. Carry on, and all the best!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

check this out

Can you provide some explanation of what we are looking at?

Earth-moon relative geometry when both objects are placed side by side, where the pyramid or triangle shares the same phi ration proportion to that of the Great Pyramid of Giza. The "squaring of the circle" (a high complex geometrical transformation) is approximate, but close enough to make the visual a salient observation worthy of note (instead of saying that it's just not there because it's only an approximation).

It shows apparent design, as opposed to chance coincidence via random occurrences in the distribution and organization of matter no matter how cataclysmic those processes and forces may have been.

At best, if not an intelligent designer, it reveals a type of sacred geometry embedded into the Earth-moon-sun configuraton, where I add the sun because of the way the moon mimics the sun in different ways and again by sheer "coincidence" appears to an earth-based observer, and measurer, to be the same visible diameter in the sky the result of which we have solar eclipses even unto perfect eclipses of the sun.

So it's an attempted illustration of something we can see, distinctly, which is suggestive that the "chance occurrence" or random occurrence paradigm and worldview might not be the best way to approach what we see, and have come to know about the fine-tuning problem as well.

So I was offering a visual illustration to reveal the design elements at the macro, visible level, instead of the invisible domain of various fields, particles and constants that underpin our reality at all levels including by extension, cosmologically, all the way to the configuration of the earth, moon, sun, planets and stars. Hhmph, wasn't there a time long ago in some past Golden Age when that very same framework formed the whole basis of their sacred sciences, but with man included and not set apart from it all..?

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

The "squaring of the circle" (a high complex geometrical transformation)

No. It is not highly complex. It is quite simply, creating a square which has an area equal to a given circle. Is that what is being demonstrated here? The square does not seem to have the same area as the circle. Would you like me to do the math or can you handle it?

This all seems like deja vu. Are you going to start talking about the pyramids next?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Phage

And the triangle?

And no, that doesn't mean that I'm going to start talking about pyramids, no.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork
What about the triangle?

a reply to: Phage

Relative proportion to the pyramid and thus to the phi ratio.