Origins Thread

[Tiger]

I think it's rather obvious why you described him as a theoretical physicist, or "a high priest of theoretical physics" as you put it

I learnt that from your flat-earth cousins

James, you've given some classically crap replies in your time here, however that one is a doozy.

Trying to completely ignore the reality that he is very much a theoretical scientist and is a director of a centre of theoretical science at a major university and writes books on theoretical science is amusingly pathetic, even for you.

Brian Greene is a theoretical physicist, by his own admission. As he puts it in his book The Elegant Universe: "I am a theoretical physicist. That means I work with pencil and paper, developing mathematical equations that describe the physical universe.” So we know up front that he's dealing not in empirical certainties, but in abstract models and speculative frameworks.

And yet, when presented with the deep enigma of fine-tuning—the precision of physical constants that permit the very existence of matter, structure, and consciousness—Greene doesn’t engage the question. He performs an evasive maneuver. Rather than account for this cosmos, this world, this life, he distracts with a conjured fog of alternate realities and speculative parameter spaces. His answer? If we changed many constants at once, we might still get “something”—a different kind of being in a different kind of universe, who might wonder the same thing.

This isn’t a reply. It’s a diversion. A shaman’s smoke trick that’s meant to impress the docile faithful of academic orthodoxy. Greene’s multiverse musings are not derived from evidence; they are sewn from the same cloth as myth, but lacking even myth’s honesty about its own purpose.

In the sacred temple of “science,” where men like Greene wear their credentials like vestments, this sleight of hand is enough to satisfy the acolytes. But the rest of us are not bound by such rituals. We ask the one question he dares not face: why does this universe, with its precise and narrow life-permitting constants, exist at all?

The truth is, Greene has no answer. And instead of admitting it, he cloaks the silence in equations, hoping no one notices that the emperor has no theory.

 

[Nyob]

James, you've given some classically crap replies in your time here, however that one is a doozy.

Trying to completely ignore the reality that he is very much a theoretical scientist and is a director of a centre of theoretical science at a major university and writes books on theoretical science is amusingly pathetic, even for you.

What you're ignoring is that he is a professor of physics and mathematics.. skipping to the "high priest of scientism part" (and I know why)

By the way, would you consider theology to be theoretical?

And I find it amusing that you're slagging off scientists using religious metaphors

Brian Greene is a theoretical physicist, by his own admission. As he puts it in his book The Elegant Universe: "I am a theoretical physicist. That means I work with pencil and paper, developing mathematical equations that describe the physical universe.” So we know up front that he's dealing not in empirical certainties, but in abstract models and speculative frameworks.

And yet, when presented with the deep enigma of fine-tuning—the precision of physical constants that permit the very existence of matter, structure, and consciousness

For whom?

What Greene said is that there could be many permutations of "fine tuning" that allow for such things (prove him wrong), so what does that say about "fine tuning" itself?

—Greene doesn’t engage the question. He performs an evasive maneuver. Rather than account for this cosmos, this world, this life, he distracts with a conjured fog of alternate realities and speculative parameter spaces. His answer? If we changed many constants at once, we might still get “something”—a different kind of being in a different kind of universe, who might wonder the same thing.

This isn’t a reply. It’s a diversion. A shaman’s smoke trick that’s meant to impress the docile faithful of academic orthodoxy. Greene’s multiverse musings are not derived from evidence; they are sewn from the same cloth as myth, but lacking even myth’s honesty about its own purpose.

In the sacred temple of “science,” where men like Greene wear their credentials like vestments, this sleight of hand is enough to satisfy the acolytes. But the rest of us are not bound by such rituals. We ask the one question he dares not face: why does this universe, with its precise and narrow life-permitting constants, exist at all?

The truth is, Greene has no answer. And instead of admitting it, he cloaks the silence in equations, hoping no one notices that the emperor has no theory.

Your answer is that it's my lord and saviour whodunnit. Greene is obviously a much more considered man

 

[Tiger]

What you're ignoring is that he is a professor of physics and mathematics.. skipping to the "high priest of scientism part" (and I know why)

By the way, would you consider theology to be theoretical?

And I find it amusing that you're slagging off scientists using religious metaphors



For whom?

What Greene said is that there could be many permutations of "fine tuning" that allow for such things (prove him wrong), so what does that say about "fine tuning" itself?



Your answer is that it's my lord and saviour whodunnit. Greene is obviously a much more considered man

Wrong as always.

Nobody is ignoring that Brian Greene is a physicist and a mathematician. That’s precisely why his response is so underwhelming. In a conversation explicitly about fine-tuning—one of the most mathematically and physically intriguing puzzles of our universe—Greene chooses not to engage as a physicist or a mathematician. Instead, he sheds the tools of his trade and dives headfirst into the fog of theoretical speculation, offering not equations or models, but pub-talk dressed up in the jargon of "parameter space."

Had he actually brought the rigour of physics or mathematics to bear on the observable universe—had he tried to show how the constants might shift, and what kind of universe would result—then we might have something worth debating. But he doesn’t. He gives us no working model, no testable framework. Just vague gestures at imaginary dials and hypothetical realities, like a man explaining away a miracle by suggesting that if enough alternate universes existed, one of them might have accidentally produced it.

As for the burden of proof—there’s nothing to refute because Greene offers nothing concrete. He doesn’t explain this universe, nor the fine-tuning that sustains it. He simply sidesteps the entire issue with theoretical handwaving. The truth is, for all his credentials, when it comes to the question of why the universe is so precisely ordered, Greene has no answer. And rather than admit that, he spins the yarn of multiverse myth and hopes no one notices he’s evading the very thing he was asked to confront.

 

[Nyob]

What you're ignoring is that he is a professor of physics and mathematics.. skipping to the "high priest of scientism part" (and I know why)

By the way, would you consider theology to be theoretical?

Unanswered

And I find it amusing that you're slagging off scientists using religious metaphors

For whom?

Unanswered

What Greene said is that there could be many permutations of "fine tuning" that allow for such things (prove him wrong), so what does that say about "fine tuning" itself?

Unanswered

Your answer is that it's my lord and saviour whodunnit. Greene is obviously a much more considered man

All of the above unanswered questions are not rhetorical

Why is it that Tiger can never answer a question?

 

[Tiger]

Unanswered



Unanswered


Unanswered


All of the above unanswered questions are not rhetorical

Why is it that Tiger can never answer a question?

Wow, James has once again gifted us with…

You have a neck like a jockey’s bollocks James, and I can tell your ability to engage in meaningful discussion is about as well-formed as a donkey’s arse. Readers may start to think that you are a sock account of mine, created to make me look good.

Let’s break this down piece by piece, since you seem to have missed the core of the discussion in your rush to defend Greene's blundering attempt at answering fine-tuning.

First, your mention of Greene's credentials as a professor of physics and mathematics is irrelevant to the matter at hand. The issue is not his credentials but his evasive, speculative approach when faced with one of the most profound questions in science—the very nature of fine-tuning. The man is all talk and no walk.

Where is his model? Where is the empirical evidence for his musings about multiple permutations of constants? He has none.

On your question about theology being theoretical—let’s not confuse the two, mate. Theologians make metaphysical assertions about divine causes based on revelation, not speculative math. The issue is not whether theology is "theoretical"; the issue is whether Greene is engaging in scientific inquiry or hiding behind a veil of unfounded speculation. His avoidance of addressing the fine-tuning problem is exactly why he’s on shaky ground.

Now, your little jab at "religious metaphors" is weak, and frankly, irrelevant. I’m not invoking metaphors because of some religious agenda. I’m calling it like I see it: Greene’s refusal to engage with observable reality and his reliance on untestable multiverse theories is a smoke screen, pure and simple. That’s the real issue, and no amount of name-calling will change that.

And when you ask "what does that say about fine-tuning itself?" It says this: Greene has no coherent model to explain why these constants are so precisely set. Instead, he just waves his hands around and offers us a speculative dream of alternate universes. He can’t even begin to describe how these changes might occur, let alone prove they could sustain life or consciousness.

As for your closing remark—"my lord and saviour whodunnit"—it’s a tired attempt at a gotcha moment. But here’s the truth: the fine-tuning problem exists, and Greene and you have no answer.

Your boy Greene may wear the badge of theoretical physicist, but when faced with the reality of this universe’s precision, he pulls the ol' bait-and-switch with imaginary worlds. It’s nothing more than intellectual sleight of hand.

 

[Nyob]

For whom?

What Greene said is that there could be many permutations of "fine tuning" that allow for such things (prove him wrong), so what does that say about "fine tuning" itself?

Btw, it's a proven fact that people below a certain IQ simply can't answer "What if?" questions (which is precisely what Daily Dose said Greene did, that and "word salad"), in other words, they can't think abstractly, it's beyond them

 

[Tiger]

Btw, it's a proven fact that people below a certain IQ simply can't answer "What if?" questions (which is precisely what Daily Dose said Greene did, that and "word salad"), in other words, they can't think abstractly, it's beyond them

Says the guy who thinks ‘theoretical science’ is a dirty word or some sort of slur.

You are some spoofer James.

Let’s expose your lowly education shall we James…. Let’s see who can’t answer questions…

James, given that the Standard Model of particle physics relies on more than two dozen fundamental constants whose values appear to be finely-tuned for the existence of complex structures—and given that no current physical theory predicts or necessitates these values from first principles—on what empirical or mathematical basis do you reject the inference that this suggests contingency, rather than necessity, in the fabric of physical law?

And further, if you accept that these values could have been otherwise, then doesn’t invoking a multiverse or probabilistic ensemble of universes without observable evidence merely shift the explanatory burden rather than resolve it?

For what it’s worth, I am happy to give a million euro to anyone who can answer these questions sufficiently.

Can you also answer these questions -

1. The contingency of physical constants — Are they necessarily what they are, or could they have been otherwise?
2. The lack of explanatory power — Does science currently offer a reason for these values, or only descriptions?
3. The move to multiverse — Is this an explanation or just a speculative deflection with no empirical weight

 

[Nyob]

Wow, James has once again gifted us with…

You have a neck like a jockey’s bollocks James, and I can tell your ability to engage in meaningful discussion is about as well-formed as a donkey’s arse. Readers may start to think that you are a sock account of mine, created to make me look good.

Let’s break this down piece by piece, since you seem to have missed the core of the discussion in your rush to defend Greene's blundering attempt at answering fine-tuning.

You still can't understand that Greene was saying that the "fine-tuning" question doesn't require the sort of answer that you're looking for? Incredible

First, your mention of Greene's credentials as a professor of physics and mathematics

Because you tried to erase them

is irrelevant to the matter at hand. The issue is not his credentials but his evasive, speculative approach when faced with one of the most profound questions in science—the very nature of fine-tuning. The man is all talk and no walk.

lol

Where is his model? Where is the empirical evidence for his musings about multiple permutations of constants? He has none.

On your question about theology being theoretical—let’s not confuse the two, mate. Theologians make metaphysical assertions about divine causes based on revelation, not speculative math. The issue is not whether theology is "theoretical"; the issue is whether Greene is engaging in scientific inquiry or hiding behind a veil of unfounded speculation. His avoidance of addressing the fine-tuning problem is exactly why he’s on shaky ground.

Now, your little jab at "religious metaphors" is weak, and frankly, irrelevant. I’m not invoking metaphors because of some religious agenda. I’m calling it like I see it: Greene’s refusal to engage with observable reality and his reliance on untestable multiverse theories is a smoke screen, pure and simple. That’s the real issue, and no amount of name-calling will change that.

And when you ask "what does that say about fine-tuning itself?" It says this: Greene has no coherent model to explain why these constants are so precisely set. Instead, he just waves his hands around and offers us a speculative dream of alternate universes. He can’t even begin to describe how these changes might occur, let alone prove they could sustain life or consciousness.

As for your closing remark—"my lord and saviour whodunnit"—it’s a tired attempt at a gotcha moment. But here’s the truth: the fine-tuning problem exists, and Greene and you have no answer.

Huh?

You just have a casual interest in the "fine-tuning problem", nothing to do with your lord and saviour? Please stop making a fool of yourself, or carry on, I don't mind

Your boy Greene may wear the badge of theoretical physicist, but when faced with the reality of this universe’s precision, he pulls the ol' bait-and-switch with imaginary worlds. It’s nothing more than intellectual sleight of hand.

 

[Nyob]

Says the guy who thinks ‘theoretical science’ is a dirty word or some sort of slur.

It is when you (and your flat-earth cousins) use it, clearly

You are some spoofer James.

Let’s expose your lowly education shall we James…. Let’s see who can’t answer questions…

James, given that the Standard Model of particle physics relies on more than two dozen fundamental constants whose values appear to be finely-tuned for the existence of complex structures—and given that no current physical theory predicts or necessitates these values from first principles—on what empirical or mathematical basis do you reject the inference that this suggests contingency, rather than necessity, in the fabric of physical law?

And further, if you accept that these values could have been otherwise, then doesn’t invoking a multiverse or probabilistic ensemble of universes without observable evidence merely shift the explanatory burden rather than resolve it?

Can you also answer these questions -

1. The contingency of physical constants — Are they necessarily what they are, or could they have been otherwise?
2. The lack of explanatory power — Does science currently offer a reason for these values, or only descriptions?
3. The move to multiverse — Is this an explanation or just a speculative deflection with no empirical weight?

 

[Tiger]

You still can't understand that Greene was saying that the "fine-tuning" question doesn't require the sort of answer that you're looking for? Incredible


Because you tried to erase them


lol



Huh?

You just have a casual interest in the "fine-tuning problem", nothing to do with your lord and saviour? Please stop making a fool of yourself, or carry on, I don't mind

Hi folks, as you can see, unfortunately James can’t read and write, and hasn’t read a single book in several decades, so once again he’s served us with a healthy dose of…

 

[Nyob]

Hi folks, as you can see, unfortunately James can’t read and write, and hasn’t read a single book in several decades, so once again he’s served us with a healthy dose of…

LOL

Standard Tiger tactic, how long have I been this now, anyone who challenges his pomposity is a "spammer", and he really believes it.. to the point that he doesn't even know what a debate is, can't recognise one

 

[Tiger]

LOL

Standard Tiger tactic, how long have I been this now, anyone who challenges his pomposity is a "spammer", and he really believes it.. to the point that he doesn't even know what a debate is, can't recognise one

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, you have a neck like a jockey’s bollox.


You haven't challenged anything I've actually said. A debate involves two sides exchanging arguments — not one side (me) making points about fine-tuning, scientific methodology, and the limits of Greene’s claims, while the other side (you) posts childish sneers, and dodges substance.

Up to now, it's a one-way conversation: I lay out an argument about the speculative nature of Greene’s answers to fine-tuning, and instead of offering a counter-argument — you whinge about tone and try to psychoanalyze me. That’s not a debate; that’s you heckling from the cheap seats.

If you really want to engage at the level you pretend to, here’s a question for you:

Given that small perturbations in the fundamental constants (like the strong nuclear force, gravitational constant, or the cosmological constant) would make atoms, stars, and life as we know it impossible, and given that we have no underlying theory that predicts or necessitates these values from first principles — on what empirical or mathematical grounds do you claim that fine-tuning is illusory rather than an objective feature requiring explanation?

The chances of you answering that question is precisely zero. What you will do instead is deflect by answering with some inane question or pointless remark.

 

[Nyob]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, you have a neck like a jockey’s bollox.


You haven't challenged anything I've actually said. A debate involves two sides exchanging arguments — not one side (me) making points about fine-tuning, scientific methodology, and the limits of Greene’s claims, while the other side (you) posts childish sneers, and dodges substance.

Up to now, it's a one-way conversation: I lay out an argument about the speculative nature of Greene’s answers to fine-tuning, and instead of offering a counter-argument — you whinge about tone and try to psychoanalyze me. That’s not a debate; that’s you heckling from the cheap seats.

Hand waving away what Greene said as "speculative" isn't an argument and I've tried to get you to engage with it, and I've told you that you don't need the multiverse, but it's hopeless

For the benefit of the reader:

Greene said that there could be many permutations and combinations of the parameters that would result in a viable universe (that we couldn't possibly know about) and in each of those various, different universes, there could be an intelligent consciousness thinking - Gees, this place looks perfectly fine tuned (for us)

If you really want to engage at the level you pretend to, here’s a question for you:

Given that small perturbations in the fundamental constants (like the strong nuclear force, gravitational constant, or the cosmological constant) would make atoms, stars, and life as we know it impossible, and given that we have no underlying theory that predicts or necessitates these values from first principles — on what empirical or mathematical grounds do you claim that fine-tuning is illusory rather than an objective feature requiring explanation?

Requires an explanation, why?

Of course, science doesn't explain why a law of nature exists, is what it is, does what it does..

All we can do is to try to better understand it.

Take gravity, Newton really didn't know what it is, so it was for a force that acts instantaneously. Along came Einstein and bettered our understanding with general relativity, a geometric theory of gravity - that propagates at the speed of light and is indeed not a force. Currently we're looking for a (hypothetical) massless particle called the graviton.

 

[Tiger]

Hand waving away what Greene said as "speculative" isn't an argument and I've tried to get you to engage with it, and I've told you that you don't need the multiverse, but it's hopeless

For the benefit of the reader:

Greene said that there could be many permutations and combinations of the parameters that would result in a viable universe (that we couldn't possibly know about) and in each of those various, different universes, there could be an intelligent consciousness thinking - Gees, this place looks perfectly fine tuned

James, are you able to discern the difference between a story and a scientific argument?

I'm identifying Greene’s speculation as speculative because that's exactly what they are. Greene himself admits he has no empirical data, no tested model, no mathematical framework describing how varied parameter combinations could yield viable universes. It’s pure conjecture: a story built on “what ifs,” not on physics. His utterances on changes in our universe giving different outcomes has all the gravitas as some drunk spouting shite on a bar stool somewhere.

You say it’s "hopeless" because you’ve confused assertion with demonstration.

Greene speculates that different sets of physical laws could allow for other forms of life. Fine. But where is the demonstration? Where are the equations? Where is the model predicting the ranges of change that still allow stability, chemistry, consciousness?

Saying "we couldn't possibly know" while claiming "it could still happen" is a textbook case of begging the question. It's not science; it’s metaphysics pretending to be science.

For the benefit of yourself and the reader: an idea without evidence remains an idea, not an answer.

If you’re serious, here's something to engage with:

Can you point to a peer-reviewed mathematical model that demonstrates how multiple simultaneous parameter shifts produce universes permitting complex structure and intelligence, without appealing to pure speculation?

If not, Greene's point remains a story — not an argument.

 

[Tiger]

Requires an explanation, why?

Of course, science doesn't explain why a law of nature exists, is what it is, does what it does..

All we can do is to try to better understand it.

Take gravity, Newton really didn't know what it is, so it was for a force that acts instantaneously. Along came Einstein and bettered our understanding with general relativity, a geometric theory of gravity - that propagates at the speed of light and is indeed not a force. Currently we're looking for a (hypothetical) massless particle called the graviton.

You’ve actually proven my point better than I could have.

You admit that science often describes how nature behaves without touching the question of why its fundamental framework exists in the first place. That’s precisely the heart of the fine-tuning problem.

With fine-tuning, we’re not dealing with an ordinary gap in scientific knowledge (like the search for gravitons).

We are dealing with the observation that tiny changes in the fundamental constants — the strong nuclear force, the cosmological constant, gravity — would make the emergence of any stable, life-supporting structures impossible.

Not just different forms of life — no atoms, no chemistry, no complexity, no observers. Nothing.
This isn’t merely another “unknown” awaiting a deeper model. It’s a flashing neon sign that the parameters underlying the universe are balanced on a razor’s edge in a way that’s wildly improbable if left to chance.

When you respond by saying “science doesn’t need to explain why laws are what they are,” you’re changing the subject. The issue is that these laws, with these exact values, are prerequisites for the existence of any meaningful order at all.

To shrug and say "it just is" isn’t scientific humility — it’s metaphysical evasion.

---

So here’s the challenge:

Can you propose, from first principles, a mathematically grounded theory that naturally leads to the specific set of physical constants we observe — without invoking unobservable realities like multiverses or mere anthropic reasoning — and without assuming the constants as initial inputs?

Until you or Brian Greene can do that, you’re not "explaining" fine-tuning. You’re simply waving it away because the alternative conclusions make you uncomfortable.

 

[Nyob]

James, are you able to discern the difference between a story and a scientific argument?

I'm identifying Greene’s speculation as speculative because that's exactly what they are. Greene himself admits he has no empirical data, no tested model, no mathematical framework describing how varied parameter combinations could yield viable universes. It’s pure conjecture: a story built on “what ifs,” not on physics. His utterances on changes in our universe giving different outcomes has all the gravitas as some drunk spouting shite on a bar stool somewhere.

You say it’s "hopeless" because you’ve confused assertion with demonstration.

Greene speculates that different sets of physical laws could allow for other forms of life. Fine. But where is the demonstration? Where are the equations? Where is the model predicting the ranges of change that still allow stability, chemistry, consciousness?

Saying "we couldn't possibly know" while claiming "it could still happen" is a textbook case of begging the question. It's not science; it’s metaphysics pretending to be science.

For the benefit of yourself and the reader: an idea without evidence remains an idea, not an answer.

If you’re serious, here's something to engage with:

Can you point to a peer-reviewed mathematical model that demonstrates how multiple simultaneous parameter shifts produce universes permitting complex structure and intelligence, without appealing to pure speculation?

If not, Greene's point remains a story — not an argument.

How could we know? R u aware of a "scientific model" that can tell us?

And what if it's true? What does that say about "fine tuning"? (This is your final chance to prove that you can answer a what if question)

 

[Nyob]

You admit that science often describes how nature behaves without touching the question of why its fundamental framework exists in the first place.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MEqMM2Co_9c

 

[Nyob]

Anyone seen Tiger in this thread?

I can't find him anywhere


View: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/WCUKTVbyE-0

 

[Tiger]

Your last two responses were so hopeless I presumed you had simply given up.

 

[Nyob]

Your last two responses were so hopeless I presumed you had simply given up.

lol

 

[Tiger]

lol

Also, a reminder that you still haven’t answered any of my questions as per usual…

this was the last one that you conveniently ignored..


So here’s the challenge:

Can you propose, from first principles, a mathematically grounded theory that naturally leads to the specific set of physical constants we observe — without invoking unobservable realities like multiverses or mere anthropic reasoning — and without assuming the constants as initial inputs?

Until you or Brian Greene can do that, you’re not "explaining" fine-tuning. You’re simply waving it away because the alternative conclusions make you uncomfortable

 

[Nyob]

Also, a reminder that you still haven’t answered any of my questions as per usual…

this was the last one that you conveniently ignored..


So here’s the challenge:

Until you or Brian Greene can do that, you’re not "explaining" fine-tuning. You’re simply waving it away because the alternative conclusions make you uncomfortable

In post #1,042 you posted a (dishonestly) titled video - Why Skeptics Are Changing Their Minds About God (3 Examples!) by Daily Dose that you described as:

This video unpacks Alex O Connor’s recent interview trying to answer questions about the fine tuning of the universe and the poor job his guest does in trying to answer the conundrum

I've tried to get you to engage with what Greene actually said (in the few minutes Daily Dose posted of him talking in his video) but you don't do that

I don't even know what your question means (and neither do you):

Can you propose, from first principles, a mathematically grounded theory that naturally leads to the specific set of physical constants we observe

What do you mean by a "mathematically grounded theory", in this context?

How is fine-tuning (so-called) a "mathematically grounded theory" that "naturally leads to the the specific set of physical constants we observe"?

 

[Tiger]

In post #1,042 you posted a (dishonestly) titled video - Why Skeptics Are Changing Their Minds About God (3 Examples!) by Daily Dose that you described as:

This video unpacks Alex O Connor’s recent interview trying to answer questions about the fine tuning of the universe and the poor job his guest does in trying to answer the conundrum

I've tried to get you to engage with what Greene actually said (in the few minutes Daily Dose posted of him talking in his video) but you don't do that

I don't even know what your question means (and neither do you):

Can you propose, from first principles, a mathematically grounded theory that naturally leads to the specific set of physical constants we observe

What do you mean by a "mathematically grounded theory", in this context?

How is fine-tuning (so-called) a "mathematically grounded theory" that "naturally leads to the the specific set of physical constants we observe"?

You seem confused about where the actual engagement is happening.

I am the one who directly addressed what Brian Greene said: I pointed out that Greene’s suggestion — that "maybe if we changed a lot of parameters at once, we might still get something" — is pure speculation, not scientific reasoning. It has no empirical basis, no mathematical modeling behind it, and no predictive power. It's a string of what-ifs, and nothing more.

You treat what-if scenarios as if they deserve serious intellectual weight. But speculation is cheap.

If I said: “What if there’s a parallel universe made entirely of blue, called the blue-niverse, where everything is just shades of blue?” — should we build a scientific worldview around that too? Should we treat it as a serious counter to observable facts? Of course not. It's bar stool chatter.

Speculative fantasies without evidence or modeling aren't science; they’re science-flavored storytelling.

Second, regarding the constants: they are not modular building blocks that you can just "tweak" freely without catastrophic consequences. The cosmological constant, the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force — these are tightly interwoven with the very existence of complex matter and forces.

Tiny changes in these values would lead either to a sterile, structureless void or a universe collapsing before atoms can form.

This isn't religious ideology — it's physics.

 

[Nyob]

You seem confused about where the actual engagement is happening.

I am the one who directly addressed what Brian Greene said: I pointed out that Greene’s suggestion — that "maybe if we changed a lot of parameters at once, we might still get something" — is pure speculation, not scientific reasoning. It has no empirical basis, no mathematical modeling behind it, and no predictive power. It's a string of what-ifs, and nothing more.

You treat what-if scenarios as if they deserve serious intellectual weight. But speculation is cheap.

If I said: “What if there’s a parallel universe made entirely of blue, called the blue-niverse, where everything is just shades of blue?” — should we build a scientific worldview around that too?

The proof of the existence of God (let alone your God), whatever way you want to try to frame it, is not scientific, Intelligent Design is pseudoscience masquerading as science

You won't answer a single question, or engage in debate, I get that (everyone should by now) but can you please give over with your fucking nonsense

Should we treat it as a serious counter to observable facts? Of course not. It's bar stool chatter.

Speculative fantasies without evidence or modeling aren't science; they’re science-flavored storytelling.

Second, regarding the constants: they are not modular building blocks that you can just "tweak" freely without catastrophic consequences. The cosmological constant, the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force — these are tightly interwoven with the very existence of complex matter and forces.

Tiny changes in these values would lead either to a sterile, structureless void or a universe collapsing before atoms can form.

This isn't religious ideology — it's physics.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Wrong as always.

Are you a flat earther Sir?

 

[Tiger]

Are you a flat earther Sir?

No

 

[Tiger]

The proof of the existence of God (let alone your God), whatever way you want to try to frame it, is not scientific, Intelligent Design is pseudoscience masquerading as science

You won't answer a single question, or engage in debate, I get that (everyone should by now) but can you please give over with your fucking nonsense

James, I’m literally the only person saying anything. It’s a one way discussion.

Once again, you can’t/won’t respond to anything I’ve said. Just a predictable childish retort.

Go read a book.

 

[Nyob]

James, I’m literally the only person saying anything. It’s a one way discussion.

You're literally the only person who's deleting posts (approved by the Admin @Declan)

Can you move this thread from this shit-for-brains blog?

 

[Tiger]

You're literally the only person who's deleting posts (approved by the Admin @Declan)

Can you move this thread from this shit-for-brains blog?

What post was removed?

what was said in the post you spamming git.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

No

Why not Sir?

 

[Nyob]

What post was removed?

what was said in the post you spamming git.

It doesn't matter what post was "removed"

You've made it abundantly clear what you think is "spam", which could be anything, are in a "one-way discussion" etc.

You are a (highly) deluded fuckwit and this thread should not be in your blog

 

[Tiger]

It doesn't matter what post was "removed"

You've made it abundantly clear what you think is "spam", which could be anything, are in a "one-way discussion" etc.

You are a (highly) deluded fuckwit and this thread should not be in your blog

The deleted post was simply you saying JC’s name. It doesn’t even qualify as spam.

In truth 98% of your posts could be deleted as spam. You’re a 50 year old online troll. Let that sink in.

 

[Tiger]

W

Why not Sir?

What do you think about my ‘blueniverse’ theory Myles. Do you think in an infinite amount of universes it could be possible?

 

[Nyob]

You've made it abundantly clear what you think is "spam", which could be anything, are in a "one-way discussion" etc.

In truth 98% of your posts could be deleted as spam. You’re a 50 year old online troll. Let that sink in.

QED

You are a (highly) deluded fuckwit and this thread should not be in your blog

 

[Nyob]

W

What do you think about my ‘blueniverse’ theory Myles. Do you think in an infinite amount of universes it could be possible?

 

[Nyob]

The deleted post was simply you saying JC’s name.

Why do you think I replied with a term of exasperation?

I even tried to engage your question -

What do you mean by a "mathematically grounded theory", in this context?

How is fine-tuning (so-called) a "mathematically grounded theory" that "naturally leads to the the specific set of physical constants we observe"?

But of course, you ignored it.. And started babbling about Greene's "speculation" and what fine-tuning (so-called) is.. for the umpteenth time

 

[Hermit]

No

What do you think about my ‘blueniverse’ theory Myles. Do you think in an infinite amount of universes it could be possible?

C'mon Tiger, stop being coy, I want to know why you're not a flat earther too. I suspect you don't believe the heliocentric paradigm either, maybe you don't want to take on the flat earther label or you want to sit on the fence.

The evolution and globe paradigms go hand in hand. Free yourself of any beliefs in the big bang spaceball cosmology, this nonsense is another Satanic inversion which removes the creator and attributes his creation to nothing and random chance, just like with evolution.

You can read my comments in the flat earth thread for proofs and logical arguments for flat earth, you can go outside and experience the flat earth with your own senses, and you can read the Bible which is very clear that earth was created by God and is flat and stationary. No big bang, no space balls, no bendy space-time, no evolution.

 

[Nyob]

View: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/RHjmt_W1C_k

 

[Tiger]

Why do you think I replied with a term of exasperation?

I even tried to engage your question -

What do you mean by a "mathematically grounded theory", in this context?

How is fine-tuning (so-called) a "mathematically grounded theory" that "naturally leads to the the specific set of physical constants we observe"?

But of course, you ignored it.. And started babbling about Greene's "speculation" and what fine-tuning (so-called) is.. for the umpteenth time

First, let’s define what I mean by a “mathematically grounded theory” in this context:

A mathematically grounded theory is one in which the fundamental constants of nature (e.g., the fine-structure constant, gravitational constant, Higgs vacuum expectation value, etc.) emerge as necessary consequences of deeper physical laws, described by equations with no arbitrary free parameters. That is: the values are derived, not inserted. Such a theory would not merely accommodate the observed constants but predict them uniquely from first principles — just as, say, general relativity predicts the bending of starlight or time dilation.

This is standard language in theoretical physics — it's what physicists aspire to when they speak of a “Theory of Everything.”

Now to clarify your second error:
In terms of fine-tuning, it’s an observation drawn from applying mathematics to physical models — specifically, the observed fact that small deviations in the constants (in many cases, parts per million or less) lead to a universe incompatible with complex structure or life. This is a constraint space problem in physics, not theology.

So when I say that fine-tuning demands explanation, I am not offering a competing theory; I’m pointing out that our current theories do not predict the values of the constants — they must be input by hand — and those inputs appear to lie in an extraordinarily narrow life-permitting range. That’s not dogma. That’s data.

Now, to your charge that I’m “babbling about Greene’s speculation”: no, I’m analyzing Greene’s evasion. He doesn’t present a predictive model. He suggests, without evidence, that if we changed enough constants simultaneously, a viable universe might still result. But this is not a scientific answer; it’s a metaphysical shrug dressed in a lab coat. No model. No math. No testable predictions.

So here’s your challenge — since you claim I didn’t engage:

Can you identify a physical model, with no adjustable parameters, which derives the values of the Standard Model’s constants (e.g., α ≈ 1/137, Λ, GF, etc.) from first principles — and if not, on what scientific basis do you claim the observed fine-tuning is illusory?

That is not “babble.” That’s a precise, legitimate question — one that cuts to the heart of modern theoretical physics.

 

[Tiger]

View: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/RHjmt_W1C_k

More spam.