Anthropic quiz for dishonest and uneducated people

[westprog]

Trying to figure out how many deeply flawed people are on the forum.

[Seismosaurus]

Aren't ALL people deeply flawed?

[westprog]

Aren't ALL people deeply flawed?

That will be the next poll.

[Seismosaurus]

I don't think you need a poll to tell you that perfect people don't exist.

[Beth]

Which answers indicate that a person is deeply flawed?

[porch]

I don't know the answer to the question. I don't know that the question is meaningful at all. That's my stance and I'm sticking to it, even though you leave me no option in your poll.

[fls]

Trying to figure out how many deeply flawed people are on the forum.

Your "all of the above" option demonstrates very nicely the root of the issue. Anyone who is interested in rationality and is able to understand how we distinguish between useful and useless ideas will be reluctant to choose an option which includes both kinds of ideas.

Linda

[Dancing David]

I don't see an option that i would vote for, most of the implied issues can not be answered or tested, they are unknowns.

Now as a response to another insulting thread title, very funny.

[tsig]

Trying to figure out how many deeply flawed people are on the forum.

I can name one.

[Apathia]

I for one am I deeply flawed person.
And
Where is my Planet X option?

On Planet X
The Universe is deeply flawed
In order to support deeply flawed people
Such as me.

There are no Anthrops on Planet X,
I'm not OK
And your're not OK
But that's OK.

[godless dave]

There's no "I don't know option", so I didn't vote.

[Pure_Argent]

I voted for "All of the above are possible". But I'd like to point out that I take "all are possible" to mean "none of them can be conclusively ruled out with the information we have on hand, though some are more likely than others".

[Marduk]

the universe doesn't need a "why" it already has an "is"
;)

[Beerina]

There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the universe being the way it is.

This is technically true, but in a deterministic sense rather than some purely unlikely happenstance. Determinism -> the universe couldn't be otherwise, rather than Dig Deep Enuf And Lo That's Why The Constants Happen To Be Just Like Mama Bear's Porridge.

[fls]

The thread which inspired this thread is here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=153133

Linda

[Soapy Sam]

I think I know how to cook up a decent lamb stew.

I'm not sure I know much about the creation of universes.

Ask me one I can answer.

[westprog]

Your "all of the above" option demonstrates very nicely the root of the issue. Anyone who is interested in rationality and is able to understand how we distinguish between useful and useless ideas will be reluctant to choose an option which includes both kinds of ideas.

Linda

There's no "I don't know option", so I didn't vote.

I voted for "All of the above are possible". But I'd like to point out that I take "all are possible" to mean "none of them can be conclusively ruled out with the information we have on hand, though some are more likely than others".

That's why every poll comes with an attached discussion.

[westprog]

I don't know the answer to the question. I don't know that the question is meaningful at all. That's my stance and I'm sticking to it, even though you leave me no option in your poll.

I'd have thought that #10 was close enough.

[westprog]

I voted for "All of the above are possible". But I'd like to point out that I take "all are possible" to mean "none of them can be conclusively ruled out with the information we have on hand, though some are more likely than others".

I probably should have put "some or all" but too late now. I can't edit a poll after the fact (which is a good thing for obvious reasons). I wasn't, as it happens, trying to sneak the God option in by the back door, and I wouldn't assume that everyone who answered all options possible loses their atheist membership card.

[Marduk]

I probably should have put "some or all" but too late now. I can't edit a poll after the fact (which is a good thing for obvious reasons). I wasn't, as it happens, trying to sneak the God option in by the back door, and I wouldn't assume that everyone who answered all options possible loses their atheist membership card.

not all of us are willing to join clubs who require a strong belief about the existence of God,

;)

[Eyeron]

Many of those I just didn't understand. How is that a flaw in personality?

[Dorfl]

Which one is the "I'm deeply flawed"-option?

[Brian-M]

I couldn't choose between the first two options.

Is physics an aspect of the universe, the way in which the universe behaves, or is it an abstract logic-structure independant of the universe, but to which the universe adheres?

Until the terms "universe" and "physics" are better defined, I can't see how I can honestly choose one over the other.

[Piggy]

I find it impossible to argue against option 1: Our universe just happens to be the way it is.

What are you going to say... that it doesn't happen to be the way it is?

[tsig]

I find it impossible to argue against option 1: Our universe just happens to be the way it is.

What are you going to say... that it doesn't happen to be the way it is?

We are the way we are because the universe is the way it is.

[arthwollipot]

I find it impossible to argue against option 1: Our universe just happens to be the way it is.

What are you going to say... that it doesn't happen to be the way it is?While I can sympathise with that point of view, I feel that the universe is constrained to be the way it is - that this universe couldn't have been anything different. That's why I voted for the second option.

[temporalillusion]

I would vote for option "There is not sufficient information to make a reasonable determination at this time."

[Piggy]

While I can sympathise with that point of view, I feel that the universe is constrained to be the way it is - that this universe couldn't have been anything different. That's why I voted for the second option.

Sounds like putting the cart before the horse to me.

[arthwollipot]

Sounds like putting the cart before the horse to me.Mmm, yeah, possibly. It also doesn't take into account the multiverse hypothesis. I'm not wedded to the idea - I would change my mind given sufficient evidence. But that's my conclusion from my current level of understanding.

[slingblade]

I'm not answering. When someone says he wants to insult me, I figure the work should be all his.

[Shrike]

I voted We live inside a virtual reality simulation just to show how perfect I am.

[Mashuna]

Trying to figure out how many deeply flawed people are on the forum.

I went round and counted, and there are currently 58 deeply flawed people on the forum.

I'm not sure how you expected to get the answer from your poll though.

[westprog]

I went round and counted, and there are currently 58 deeply flawed people on the forum.

I'm not sure how you expected to get the answer from your poll though.

It's via a complex heuristic stochastic monotic process with a certain margin of error.

[Mashuna]

It's via a complex heuristic stochastic monotic process with a certain margin of error.

Hey, picking a number at random was how I got to my total too!

[Marquis de Carabas]

The Universe is the way it is because it was sexually abused during its adolescence. Have some sympathy.

[MG1962]

I had the pleasure of having dinner with British physics and author Stephen Baxter, in his book "Time" there is a sequence where the protagonist passes through a series of uniververses unlike anything we know today. I asked him if those visions he created were based on science or just a fertile imagination

He explained to me that the universe we have today is not a forgone conclussion. If stars had not formed we would be facing a very different reality, and one we would not exist in

[Metullus]

Sounds like putting the cart before the horse to me.My thought as well. I figure that the universe is what it is; physical laws arise out of the is that the universe is.

The premise of the OP and the poll is nonsense. Another immutable law of this universe.

[JoeTheJuggler]

There's no "I don't know option", so I didn't vote.

Ditto.

The answer that best illustrates the skeptical position is, "I don't know."

ETA: And frankly, Westprog, I suspect that nobody here cares who you think is deeply flawed.

[fls]

Ditto.

The answer that best illustrates the skeptical position is, "I don't know."

ETA: And frankly, Westprog, I suspect that nobody here cares who you think is deeply flawed.

Westrprog is playing off the title of the thread which spawned this:

Are FT proponents dishonest or merely uneducated? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=153133)

I'm pretty sure that he's being sarcastic - i.e. people who answer as he would answer shouldn't be considered deeply flawed.

Linda

[JoeTheJuggler]

Westrprog is playing off the title of the thread which spawned this:

Are FT proponents dishonest or merely uneducated? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=153133)

I'm pretty sure that he's being sarcastic - i.e. people who answer as he would answer shouldn't be considered deeply flawed.

Linda

Ah! So since he's sort of equating "dishonest or uneducated" with "deeply flawed"?

That's a strange way to go about arguing that people in favor of FT are neither dishonest nor uneducated!

[fls]

Ah! So since he's sort of equating "dishonest or uneducated" with "deeply flawed"?

That's a strange way to go about arguing that people in favor of FT are neither dishonest nor uneducated!

:)

Linda

[fls]

It is the extra-ordinary which gets selected or saved by its association with irrevocable change. What we see doesn't depend upon the background noise, but upon what happens at the edges. Brownian motion isn't the result of ordinary molecular motion, but the collective result of extraordinary motion. Evolution doesn't select individuals with traits whose survival is indistinguishable from those without the traits.

When we think about it, at the time of the Big Bang, when matter and energy was unified and about to be broken into a bunch of different forces with their own relative strengths, only extraordinary changes would be sufficient to break that symmetry. If the effect of most values is indistinguishable, there wouldn't be a way to save or select one of those values - there wouldn't be any irrevocable change that prevents you from going back. So the values that we do see should be extraordinary. They have to be extraordinary. They have to be found in a position that makes them irrevocably different from most of the other values.

That the universe appears fine-tuned is exactly how we should expect it to look if there was nobody about to fiddle with it.

Linda

[Gate2501]

I figure this is worth a reply, since I was fairly active in that other thread.

1. Our universe just happens to be the way it is -

- True! I just happen to be replying to a post on the Randi.org forums as well. I don't think that this statement has any explanatory value, but it certainly is true.

2. There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the universe being the way it is.-

- Unknown. This statement cannot be evaluated with our current understanding of the universe. This seems like a reverse explanation as well, cart before the horse and all of that.

3. Multiple Universes exist, having all possible combinations of characteristics, and we inevitably find ourselves within a Universe that allows us to exist.-

- Unknown. It is worth pointing out, that it is alright to consider that there might be alternate universes. The fallacious and unreasonable thinking occurs when one decides that there must be alternate universes(or some other wacky phenomenon) to explain apparent fine tuning.

4. A creator designed the Universe with the purpose of supporting complexity and the emergence of Intelligence.-

- Unknown/Absurd. I also can't be 100% certain that Chewbacca doesn't live in my house with me, teleporting about and leaving no trace of his existence. I don't believe that of course, because it is outright stupid. This statement tries to reason from a tautological observation coupled with a rank misunderstanding of probabilities, and adds in a magical being for good measure.

5. There is an underlying principle that constrains the universe to evolve towards life and mind.-

- Unknown/Absurd This is just a more anthropic version of #2. What happens when you apply a new layer of stupid to an already borderline ridiculous notion? It gets even more silly.

6. A closed explanatory or causal loop: "perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist.-

- Unknown/Absurd This is a very clear cut case of putting the cart before the horse. Possibly the most clear cut that I have ever seen without literally putting a cart in front of a horse! I will fix your statement: " Perhaps conscious observers can only observe a universe which allows them to exist. " you can thank me later.

7. We live inside a virtual reality simulation.-

- Unknown Makes a great science fiction plot, if it hadn't already been done to death.

8. All of the above are possible.-

- True! Yep, it's true.

9. None of the above are possible.-

- False Obviously false.

10. The question is irrelevant and indicative of personality disorder

- LOLWAT? :boggled::boggled::boggled:

I didn't vote on your poll, because I feel that both 1 and 8 are true statements. I also wanted more options. :p

It was fun replying all the same!

[Gate2501]

And just to add to my reply, what I said about multiverses goes for the whole poll.

It is fine to think that these things might have happened. It is only absurd to think that something like this MUST have happened, because you observe apparent fine tuning. There are multiple fallacies involved in such a thought process, and it demonstrates not a personality disorder, but an overall lack of critical thinking skills.

[rocketdodger]

It is fine to think that these things might have happened. It is only absurd to think that something like this MUST have happened, because you observe apparent fine tuning. There are multiple fallacies involved in such a thought process, and it demonstrates not a personality disorder, but an overall lack of critical thinking skills.

Or, dishonesty and/or lack of education, as it were.

[westprog]

I didn't vote on your poll, because I feel that both 1 and 8 are true statements. I also wanted more options. :p

It was fun replying all the same!

The least important part of the polls is the actual result. It's a way to stimulate thought, that's all.

[fls]

And just to add to my reply, what I said about multiverses goes for the whole poll.

It is fine to think that these things might have happened. It is only absurd to think that something like this MUST have happened, because you observe apparent fine tuning. There are multiple fallacies involved in such a thought process, and it demonstrates not a personality disorder, but an overall lack of critical thinking skills.

Why are you assuming any of the Design proponents are suggesting that there must be a designer? I object to lumping the Designer in with ideas that actually attempt to explain the universe, but I don't think anyone is saying that to suggest means they think the idea is necessary.

Linda

[Gate2501]

Why are you assuming any of the Design proponents are suggesting that there must be a designer? I object to lumping the Designer in with ideas that actually attempt to explain the universe, but I don't think anyone is saying that to suggest means they think the idea is necessary.

Linda

Well, this thread and that other thread were about fine-tuning proponents in general, not just those of the ID variety. Most proponents of fine-tuning seem to have it in their head that "there MUST be some explanation for this apparent breach of probabilities that has allowed our universe to be so remarkably fine-tuned to support life!". Sure there might be multiverses, or god(s), but these things aren't necessary to explain this apparent fine-tuning, and fine-tuning as a premise in no way warrants these flights of fancy as a conclusion.

I think that many FT proponents make the leap from "might be" to "must be" based on severe case of cart-before-horse-itis. Even for those who do not, they certainly see apparent fine-tuning as evidence to support their conclusions about designers, or multiverses, or simulations, take your pick.

Edit: I suppose it is just as wrong to think that these things "might be" as a result of observing apparent fine tuning as well, if that was your point, I stand corrected.

[tsig]

Mmm, yeah, possibly. It also doesn't take into account the multiverse hypothesis. I'm not wedded to the idea - I would change my mind given sufficient evidence. But that's my conclusion from my current level of understanding.

We're here. There's no particular reason for it. To think there must be a reason is to mistake the universe for a mirror.

[JoeTheJuggler]

To think there must be a reason is to mistake the universe for a mirror.

I'm intrigued and a little baffled by this statement. Can you elaborate?

Actually, maybe I do get it, or at least I'll take a stab. . . .

Are you saying that it would be imposing our human ability or tendency to do things for a reason onto the universe at large?

I certainly agree with that. As an adaptation to living in complex social groups, we evolved a capacity and tendency to infer agency. Since natural selection punishes Type II errors more emphatically than it does Type I errors, many humans have the tendency to infer agency in all sorts of phenomenon--the weather, the crops, disease, and so on.

I think maybe this observation is similar to your observation about requiring a reason for the existence of the universe.

[arthwollipot]

We're here. There's no particular reason for it. To think there must be a reason is to mistake the universe for a mirror.And I agree with that. I voted the way I did not because I think there's a reason that we're here, but that I think that the universe is probably constrained by the laws of physics to be the way it is and not some other way. The universe appears fine-tuned for life because that's the only way that it can be.

Okay, okay, that's a reason, technically. But it's not a purpose, which is what Fine-Tuners want.

[westprog]

And I agree with that. I voted the way I did not because I think there's a reason that we're here, but that I think that the universe is probably constrained by the laws of physics to be the way it is and not some other way. The universe appears fine-tuned for life because that's the only way that it can be.

Okay, okay, that's a reason, technically. But it's not a purpose, which is what Fine-Tuners want.

There seems to be an assumption that the fine-tuning/WAP/SAP debate consists solely of creationists trying to sneak God in by the back door, and that therefore the whole thing should be cast aside. I don't believe that's the case among cosmologists. There may well be a disagreement on the subject, but I don't think that makes every cosmologist who considers that the universe may exhibit the appearance of being fine tuned is looking for a purpose - just a reason. I certainly don't thing that they are all dishonest or uneducated.

The problem with option 1 is that it gives neither purpose nor reason. It leaves the situation entirely unexplained. That may end up being the correct characterisation, but I wouldn't preclude the other possibilities as being worthy of investigation.

[Gate2501]

The problem with option 1 is that it gives neither purpose nor reason. It leaves the situation entirely unexplained. That may end up being the correct characterisation, but I wouldn't preclude the other possibilities as being worthy of investigation.

The issue is not whether these matters are worth investigating, it is the reasoning behind the investigation by fine-tuning proponents. They take something completely benign(apparent fine-tuning), apply backwards reasoning, and decide that we need to investigate the "how and why" of these constants because of apparent fine-tuning.

I have no problem with investigating the constants.

It is absurd however, to investigate them in amazement with respect to apparent fine-tuning.

[fls]

Well, this thread and that other thread were about fine-tuning proponents in general, not just those of the ID variety.

I don't think it was. I think the point of the other thread was that there is room for legitimate scientific debate and speculation about this subject, but that the Goddidit idea does not fit in with the rest, because it ignores or jumps over the debatable part of the idea and instead assumes it. And maybe that's what you meant above - that Design proponents have to start with the idea that a design is present, whereas whether there is any design in the first place is really the issue under debate.

Most proponents of fine-tuning seem to have it in their head that "there MUST be some explanation for this apparent breach of probabilities that has allowed our universe to be so remarkably fine-tuned to support life!".

I think that the legitimate debate part has been grossly misrepresented, though - mostly because it gets brought to our attention through the filters of Creationists. The scientific debate doesn't seem to mention entities with intent. If physicists bring up the possibility, it seems to be in the context of flights of fancy, outside of the scientific domain. I have noticed that some physicists seem inordinately interested in God as some sort of organizing force. They're only human, after all. :)

Sure there might be multiverses, or god(s), but these things aren't necessary to explain this apparent fine-tuning, and fine-tuning as a premise in no way warrants these flights of fancy as a conclusion.

Well, I'm still wondering why anyone thinks fine-tuning is unexpected. If one applies their reasoning to life forms, FT proponents should be dumbfounded that there is variety to life instead of a multitude of indistinguishable life forms. We expect fine-tuning in everything else we see, so why wouldn't we expect the same in those initial moments after the Big Bang?

I think that many FT proponents make the leap from "might be" to "must be" based on severe case of cart-before-horse-itis. Even for those who do not, they certainly see apparent fine-tuning as evidence to support their conclusions about designers, or multiverses, or simulations, take your pick.

Edit: I suppose it is just as wrong to think that these things "might be" as a result of observing apparent fine tuning as well, if that was your point, I stand corrected.

I think you're right, if you are talking about mixing up ideas which address whether unexpected fine-tuning is present with ideas which might explain the presence of unexpected fine-tuning.

Linda

[sphenisc]

I find it impossible to argue against option 1: Our universe just happens to be the way it is.

What are you going to say... that it doesn't happen to be the way it is?

I figure this is worth a reply, since I was fairly active in that other thread.

1. Our universe just happens to be the way it is -

- True! I just happen to be replying to a post on the Randi.org forums as well. I don't think that this statement has any explanatory value, but it certainly is true.
..

Both posters ignore the difference between "just happen" and "happen". Piggy misses it out completely and Gate provides a reason for replying and then says it just happened.

Is this a coincidence or local usage or something else?

[fls]

There seems to be an assumption that the fine-tuning/WAP/SAP debate consists solely of creationists trying to sneak God in by the back door, and that therefore the whole thing should be cast aside. I don't believe that's the case among cosmologists. There may well be a disagreement on the subject, but I don't think that makes every cosmologist who considers that the universe may exhibit the appearance of being fine tuned is looking for a purpose - just a reason. I certainly don't thing that they are all dishonest or uneducated.

But it is really just about sneaking God in by the back door. Because there is no reason to include God in any list of ideas. God would only be relevant after the debate has ended and unexpected fine-tuning has been established. And even at that point, there's no reason to include God in any list of explanations, as God does not even provide an explanation, let alone a useful explanation, of unexpected fine-tuning.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5087135#post5087135
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5088710#post5088710

The complaint isn't about speculating on the origins of the universe. The complaint is about pretending that including God on that list implies that the idea is roughly equivalent in validity to other ideas.

If there were no pre-existing idea of God, then the presence of unexpected fine-tuning would not suggest it.

Linda

[westprog]

But it is really just about sneaking God in by the back door. Because there is no reason to include God in any list of ideas. God would only be relevant after the debate has ended and unexpected fine-tuning has been established. And even at that point, there's no reason to include God in any list of explanations, as God does not even provide an explanation, let alone a useful explanation, of unexpected fine-tuning.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5087135#post5087135
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5088710#post5088710

The complaint isn't about speculating on the origins of the universe. The complaint is about pretending that including God on that list implies that the idea is roughly equivalent in validity to other ideas.

If there were no pre-existing idea of God, then the presence of unexpected fine-tuning would not suggest it.

Linda

But the list doesn't include any mention of God, and it is not necessary to assume that if the universe were created, that God did it. Indeed, it's perfectly possible to consider that the universe was created by beings in an omniverse, and to consider, or not, that the omniverse was created by God.

Obviously beings that can create a universe are fairly technically advanced, but there's no need to consider them godlike. It would be merely perverse to exclude the option that the universe is designed as something people should be permitted to consider (though it's notable that only one person so far has chosen this option).

As to precisely why I included the option - I copied the list from the Wikipaedia article on the anthropic principle. It's not totally comprehensive, but it includes all the main options which the cosmologists interested in the subject have been considering.

[westprog]

Both posters ignore the difference between "just happen" and "happen". Piggy misses it out completely and Gate provides a reason for replying and then says it just happened.

Is this a coincidence or local usage or something else?

The difference is important. It's possible to state about any phenomenon that it "just happens", but this is not an approach that can lead to any further understanding. It has no predictive value. It would be possible to apply the principle to any physical phenomenon, and this was almost what happened to Galileo. He was told that the universe was just the way it was and to leave off speculating.

[fls]

But the list doesn't include any mention of God, and it is not necessary to assume that if the universe were created, that God did it. Indeed, it's perfectly possible to consider that the universe was created by beings in an omniverse, and to consider, or not, that the omniverse was created by God.

Oh right. We're all supposed to pretend that you aren't actually talking about God.

Obviously beings that can create a universe are fairly technically advanced, but there's no need to consider them godlike. It would be merely perverse to exclude the option that the universe is designed as something people should be permitted to consider (though it's notable that only one person so far has chosen this option).

This only works if you wish to assume characteristics which are unnecessary. And why would you want to do that? We have no independent knowledge of fairly technically advanced beings to which we can try and pin universe creation (along with their other skills). And there is no way to infer intent from the observations at hand.

As to precisely why I included the option - I copied the list from the Wikipaedia article on the anthropic principle. It's not totally comprehensive, but it includes all the main options which the cosmologists interested in the subject have been considering.

I realize that you didn't come up with the idea of trying to find a gap for God.

Linda

[Gate2501]

The difference is important. It's possible to state about any phenomenon that it "just happens", but this is not an approach that can lead to any further understanding. It has no predictive value. It would be possible to apply the principle to any physical phenomenon, and this was almost what happened to Galileo. He was told that the universe was just the way it was and to leave off speculating.

Ohhhh, so your first option is meant to read like: "There is no reason why the universe is the way it is"?

I am just as troubled as you are by the AP cutting off the need for further exploration of the constants. I think that we definitely should explore how they formed to the fullest extent, but we shouldn't use bunk anthropic reasoning as a basis to postulate wacky theories about God(s).

[Gate2501]

Both posters ignore the difference between "just happen" and "happen". Piggy misses it out completely and Gate provides a reason for replying and then says it just happened.

Is this a coincidence or local usage or something else?

"Just happens" and "happens" have always struck me as basically the same thing, I see the important difference here now.

I am not saying that there definitely is no reason for the constants being what they are, I am simply stating that we cannot use fine-tuning to discern any sort of reason, or reasons.

I would change my answer to number 1 to "Unknown". I guess I could safely vote for 8.

Edit: I would vote for 8 if it read " All of the above are possible, however, it is completely ridiculous to arrive at any of these options as a conclusion drawn from apparent fine tuning. "

[rocketdodger]

But the list doesn't include any mention of God, and it is not necessary to assume that if the universe were created, that God did it.

Right.

Except that the OP was made by you, and all the regular members here know you are a theist who tries to covertly wedge God into arguments that "weren't supposed to be about god."

So forgive us for assuming you have God in the back of your head despite your assurances to the contrary.

[fls]

The difference is important. It's possible to state about any phenomenon that it "just happens", but this is not an approach that can lead to any further understanding. It has no predictive value. It would be possible to apply the principle to any physical phenomenon, and this was almost what happened to Galileo. He was told that the universe was just the way it was and to leave off speculating.

Exactly!!!!

Which is why saying that there "just happens" to be a creator whose intentions would be to create a world that "just happens" to be exactly the sort of world we live in is not an approach which can lead to any further understanding or have any predictive value.

Your first and fourth options just happen to be identical.

Linda

[westprog]

Exactly!!!!

Which is why saying that there "just happens" to be a creator whose intentions would be to create a world that "just happens" to be exactly the sort of world we live in is not an approach which can lead to any further understanding or have any predictive value.

Your first and fourth options just happen to be identical.

Linda

The anthropic principle has been used to make predictions already.

Fred Hoyle and Carbon (http://www.mannkal.org/downloads/environment/fredhoyleoncarbondioxide(rk).pdf)

Finding a way to test the different hypotheses is obviously going to be difficult, but not impossible - except for #1, which will pass every possible test.

[westprog]

Right.

Except that the OP was made by you, and all the regular members here know you are a theist who tries to covertly wedge God into arguments that "weren't supposed to be about god."

So forgive us for assuming you have God in the back of your head despite your assurances to the contrary.

And you are motivated by the necessity to keep God out of the picture at all costs. So what?

It doesn't matter what I think about the problem of cosmological fine tuning. It matters what Roger Penrose, for example, thinks about it, because he understands the science. But then he disagrees with you about consciousness, so we can disregard what he says.

[westprog]

Oh right. We're all supposed to pretend that you aren't actually talking about God.



Since I literally cut and pasted each of the initial options from the wikipaedia article, what I mean by it is neither here nor there. It's what scientists consider that matters.

I've already explained that it's quite possible to have creator(s) and God, or creators and no God, or even God as the creator. Since some physicists think that a black hole is all one needs to kick of a universe, the creators might be not much more advanced than us.

This only works if you wish to assume characteristics which are unnecessary. And why would you want to do that? We have no independent knowledge of fairly technically advanced beings to which we can try and pin universe creation (along with their other skills). And there is no way to infer intent from the observations at hand.



Well, are we supposed to rule out one possible explanation simply because it's unproven? All the possible options are unproven. None of them are in principle unprovable. We try to find out more about the universe in order to


I realize that you didn't come up with the idea of trying to find a gap for God.

Linda

If you are going to fall into the trap of trying to figure out what I really mean by it all, then no wonder the arguments go in circles.

I tend to assume that people mean what they say, and work on that basis. If they don't mean it, then they'll indicate as much eventually.

[fls]

The anthropic principle has been used to make predictions already.

Fred Hoyle and Carbon (http://www.mannkal.org/downloads/environment/fredhoyleoncarbondioxide(rk).pdf)

Finding a way to test the different hypotheses is obviously going to be difficult, but not impossible - except for #1, which will pass every possible test.

And #4 of course, since it will "just happen" to do whatever it is that you "just happen" to want it to do.

Linda

[westprog]

It is the extra-ordinary which gets selected or saved by its association with irrevocable change. What we see doesn't depend upon the background noise, but upon what happens at the edges. Brownian motion isn't the result of ordinary molecular motion, but the collective result of extraordinary motion. Evolution doesn't select individuals with traits whose survival is indistinguishable from those without the traits.

When we think about it, at the time of the Big Bang, when matter and energy was unified and about to be broken into a bunch of different forces with their own relative strengths, only extraordinary changes would be sufficient to break that symmetry. If the effect of most values is indistinguishable, there wouldn't be a way to save or select one of those values - there wouldn't be any irrevocable change that prevents you from going back. So the values that we do see should be extraordinary. They have to be extraordinary. They have to be found in a position that makes them irrevocably different from most of the other values.

That the universe appears fine-tuned is exactly how we should expect it to look if there was nobody about to fiddle with it.

Linda

I'm not aware of a physical theory that corresponds with the above, but I'd like to see a reference if there is.

[westprog]

And #4 of course, since it will "just happen" to do whatever it is that you "just happen" to want it to do.

Linda

Making precise predictions on the basis that the universe was created in some sense so that we might exist is not easy, but it's certainly not impossible in principle.

[rocketdodger]

And you are motivated by the necessity to keep God out of the picture at all costs. So what?

See, that is where you are completely wrong.

I am motivated by the necessity to keep things that are not in the picture out of the picture at all costs.

Which makes sense to me -- if there is zero evidence of X, then why on Earth would a rational agent even consider the existence of X?

[rocketdodger]

Making precise predictions on the basis that the universe was created in some sense so that we might exist is not easy, but it's certainly not impossible in principle.

ORLY?

Would you care to offer anything resembling an argument?

[Gate2501]

Making precise predictions on the basis that the universe was created in some sense so that we might exist is not easy, but it's certainly not impossible in principle.

My bold.

This is a fallacious premise, or basis, for making any predictions. That is my entire gripe with fine-tuning. You absolutely can still make predictions from a fallacious premise, especially one like this which is logically equivalent in every measurable way to a universe which was NOT created in some sense so that we might exist. To borrow a bit from what Hans said in the thread that started all of this:

A(1): The universe was created with life in mind.
would certainly lead to
B: Living beings observe a universe which exhibits apparent fine-tuning.

The problem with fine-tuning, is that:

A(2): The universe was not created with life in mind.
also leads to
B: Living beings observe a universe which exhibits apparent fine-tuning.

You can arrive at point B, from either A1, or A2. A2 is clearly more parsimonious. This however, is not the only problem with fine-tuning. You can arrive at B from A(x), but you cannot arrive at A(x) from B! To do so is to commit an obvious fallacy.

[fls]

Making precise predictions on the basis that the universe was created in some sense so that we might exist is not easy, but it's certainly not impossible in principle.

It's exquisitely easy. One simply figures out what it takes so that we might exist (the difficult part), and the creator "just happens" to have intended to do that. After all, how would you know that the creator didn't intend for carbon nuclei to have that specific amount of energy?

Linda

[fls]

Since I literally cut and pasted each of the initial options from the wikipaedia article, what I mean by it is neither here nor there. It's what scientists consider that matters.

Yes, scientists are aware that there is an idea kicking around out there about something called God. We don't really live in an ivory tower, you know.

I've already explained that it's quite possible to have creator(s) and God, or creators and no God, or even God as the creator. Since some physicists think that a black hole is all one needs to kick of a universe, the creators might be not much more advanced than us.

Thank you for making your intentions clear.

Well, are we supposed to rule out one possible explanation simply because it's unproven? All the possible options are unproven. None of them are in principle unprovable. We try to find out more about the universe in order to

We are supposed to recognize when one idea is not an explanation at all and suggest that perhaps, on that basis, its inclusion is a bit ridiculous.

Linda

[westprog]

See, that is where you are completely wrong.


You see - I don't care. It doesn't matter to me why you are making your arguments. It doesn't affect the arguments. I recommend that as an approach to debate.

[westprog]

My bold.

This is a fallacious premise, or basis, for making any predictions. That is my entire gripe with fine-tuning. You absolutely can still make predictions from a fallacious premise, especially one like this which is logically equivalent in every measurable way to a universe which was NOT created in some sense so that we might exist. To borrow a bit from what Hans said in the thread that started all of this:

A(1): The universe was created with life in mind.
would certainly lead to
B: Living beings observe a universe which exhibits apparent fine-tuning.

The problem with fine-tuning, is that:

A(2): The universe was not created with life in mind.
also leads to
B: Living beings observe a universe which exhibits apparent fine-tuning.

You can arrive at point B, from either A1, or A2. A2 is clearly more parsimonious. This however, is not the only problem with fine-tuning. You can arrive at B from A(x), but you cannot arrive at A(x) from B! To do so is to commit an obvious fallacy.

That's why it's necessary to derive specific predictions that will differentiate between A1 and A2. IMO anyone choosing a single one of the possible choices runs the risk of excluding another possibility without sufficient evidence.

It's noticeable that the vague possibility that one of the several options could be construed as possibly not totally ruling out God ab initio is sufficient for many people to recoil in horror from the entire discussion - with, in some cases, tirades of abuse.

[westprog]

We are supposed to recognize when one idea is not an explanation at all and suggest that perhaps, on that basis, its inclusion is a bit ridiculous.

Linda

How is the concept that the universe is a created object not an explanation of the fine tuning issue? It seems to explain it just as well as multiverse or simulation. Indeed, there's probably a spectrum of explanations between creation and simulation, depending on how "real" this universe is. If you regard the idea that the universe is a construct as not providing an explanation, please say what it lacks that the other ideas provide.

[Dancing David]

The anthropic principle has been used to make predictions already.

Fred Hoyle and Carbon (http://www.mannkal.org/downloads/environment/fredhoyleoncarbondioxide(rk).pdf)

Finding a way to test the different hypotheses is obviously going to be difficult, but not impossible - except for #1, which will pass every possible test.


However, those energy levels, while needed in order to produce carbon in large
quantities, were statistically very unlikely.


You can't state statistics about the unknown.

[Malerin]

But it is really just about sneaking God in by the back door. Because there is no reason to include God in any list of ideas. God would only be relevant after the debate has ended and unexpected fine-tuning has been established. And even at that point, there's no reason to include God in any list of explanations, as God does not even provide an explanation, let alone a useful explanation, of unexpected fine-tuning.

Of course God is an explanation:

Why do the physical constants appear to be fine-tuned?

Because God fine-tuned them. OK. That explains why they look fine-tuned. They were fine-tuned.

It's as much an explanation as:

Because there are nearly an infinite number number of universes where the constants have different values and we happen to be in one of the few life-permitting ones.

Both explain why there is apparent fine-tuning, neither has any empirical evidence to support it (well, I think there's evidence for God, but that's another thread), and neither makes any testable prediction because they are so highly speculative. But you're so anti-theist, you won't entertain the notion that the explanation for apparent fine-tuning is the existence of a fine-tuner. I'm obviously a theist, but at least I am able to say that both God and the multiverse are equally explanative (and equally non-predictive) hypotheses.

[rocketdodger]

How is the concept that the universe is a created object not an explanation of the fine tuning issue? It seems to explain it just as well as multiverse or simulation. Indeed, there's probably a spectrum of explanations between creation and simulation, depending on how "real" this universe is. If you regard the idea that the universe is a construct as not providing an explanation, please say what it lacks that the other ideas provide.

An explanation for the creator?

The other ideas don't feature a creator, so they don't need to explain it. Funny how that works.

[rocketdodger]

I'm obviously a theist, but at least I am able to say that both God and the multiverse are equally explanative (and equally non-predictive) hypotheses.

They both predict nothing but one happens to introduce a new unexplained idea in order to explain the existing one.

Overall, that means a net negative explanatory power. In other words, injecting God brings up more questions than it answers.

[Malerin]

They both predict nothing but one happens to introduce a new unexplained idea in order to explain the existing one.

So? What does "newness" have to do with anything? Is that anything like "freshness"? Did you just watch a potato chip ad? Germ theory is hardly "new", but continues to be the theory of choice to explain new cases of illness. "Dark Matter" is much "newer", and is the favored theory to explain all sorts of galactic phenomena.

Overall, that means a net negative explanatory power. In other words, injecting God brings up more questions than it answers.

Many explanatory hypotheses bring up more questions than they answer. Example:
1. Data: 100 heads are fairly tossed in a row
2. Hypothesis: The coin is biased towards heads.

Well, that explains why you got 100 heads in a row, but it leaves a lot of unanswered questions: Who made the coin? Was it a group or one person? Why did they choose to favor heads instead of tails? Why did they want to make a loaded coin in the first place? Have they made other biased coins? How did they make the coin? Etc.

This goes on all the time in FBI behaviorial science (profiling studies). The hypothesis to explain the crime (who did it) is often known well in advance. But knowing the murderer is only a small part of the story: Why did they do it? What was their childhood like? Were they a loner? Organized? Able to hold a job? Etc.

Hypotheses often raise many more questions than they answer.

[rocketdodger]

So? What does "newness" have to do with anything? Is that anything like "freshness"? Did you just watch a potato chip ad? Germ theory is hardly "new", but continues to be the theory of choice to explain new cases of illness. "Dark Matter" is much "newer", and is the favored theory to explain all sorts of galactic phenomena.

"New" as in "new to the specific argument" or "additional."

Not "temporally new."

Many explanatory hypotheses bring up more questions than they answer. Example:
1. Data: 100 heads are fairly tossed in a row
2. Hypothesis: The coin is biased towards heads.

Well, that explains why you got 100 heads in a row, but it leaves a lot of unanswered questions: Who made the coin? Was it a group or one person? Why did they choose to favor heads instead of tails? Why did they want to make a loaded coin in the first place? Have they made other biased coins? How did they make the coin? Etc.

This goes on all the time in FBI behaviorial science (profiling studies). The hypothesis to explain the crime (who did it) is often known well in advance. But knowing the murderer is only a small part of the story: Why did they do it? What was their childhood like? Were they a loner? Organized? Able to hold a job? Etc.

Hypotheses often raise many more questions than they answer.

Wrong.

When you had no hypothesis at all, there was an infinite number of questions.

Hypothesizing that a human made a biased coin simply removes a huge chunk from the pool. For example, you don't have to consider whether it was a snark, or a teapot, or a blurrg, or a wookie, or an apple that made the coin -- you hypothesize it was a human. Furthermore you don't have to consider that the coin landed that way due to magic, or telekinesis, or a magnet, or an anomaly in the rotation of the Earth.

On the other hand, invoking God adds questions -- although you remove a huge chunk from the pool (goddidit), you add an even bigger chunk back because 1) all the questions about our existence apply to the existence of God as well (where did it come from? Was the proto-universe finely tuned for God?) and 2) there are now additional questions about God that do not apply to our own existence, such as "why does God want a universe that supports life?"

[Malerin]

"New" as in "new to the specific argument" or "additional."

Not "temporally new."



Wrong.

When you had no hypothesis at all, there was an infinite number of questions.

Hypothesizing that a human God made a biased coin fine-tuned the universe simply removes a huge chunk from the pool. For example, you don't have to consider whether it was a snark, or a teapot, or a blurrg, or a wookie, or an apple that made the coin fine-tuned the universe-- you hypothesize it was a human God. Furthermore you don't have to consider that the coin landed physical constants are that way due to magic, or telekinesis, or a magnet, or an anomaly in the rotation of the Earth Big Bang.

Do you see now why God is an explanatory hypothesis?

[rocketdodger]

Do you see now why God is an explanatory hypothesis?

No, I don't. And the funny thing is that I already explained why, in the exact same post you just quoted. Here, let me repeat it for you:

On the other hand, invoking God adds questions -- although you remove a huge chunk from the pool (goddidit), you add an even bigger chunk back because 1) all the questions about our existence apply to the existence of God as well (where did it come from? Was the proto-universe finely tuned for God?) and 2) there are now additional questions about God that do not apply to our own existence, such as "why does God want a universe that supports life?"

One more time since you seem to miss entire paragraphs quite often:

On the other hand, invoking God adds questions -- although you remove a huge chunk from the pool (goddidit), you add an even bigger chunk back because 1) all the questions about our existence apply to the existence of God as well (where did it come from? Was the proto-universe finely tuned for God?) and 2) there are now additional questions about God that do not apply to our own existence, such as "why does God want a universe that supports life?"

[Malerin]

No, I don't. And the funny thing is that I already explained why, in the exact same post you just quoted. Here, let me repeat it for you:



One more time since you seem to miss entire paragraphs quite often:

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0808/jesus-facepalm-facepalm-jesus-epic-demotivational-poster-1218659828.jpg

[westprog]

You can't state statistics about the unknown.

The entire field of statistics involves making predictions about the unknown. If statistics were used to make predictions about the known, then it wouldn't be very useful, would it?

[paximperium]

The entire field of statistics involves making predictions about the unknown. If statistics were used to make predictions about the known, then it wouldn't be very useful, would it?
You really have no idea what statistic is do you?
The variables must be KNOWN to allow a prediction.

[Dancing David]

Do you see now why God is an explanatory hypothesis?

There are many ways that the universe could appear 'fine tuned' none of which involve any design or creator.

But there are some steps to decide if the 'appearance' is 'valid'.
1. Understand the models of why the constants are what they are.
2. Model the possible variation in universe creation.
3. Sample all possible univserses.
4. Compare samples to models.

So , how we doing on number 1?

You can't discuss the probability of unknowns.

[Dancing David]

The entire field of statistics involves making predictions about the unknown. If statistics were used to make predictions about the known, then it wouldn't be very useful, would it?

What are the following:
data sets
samples
sample bias
models
frequency distributions
correlations
?

And statistical citations that back your assertion or are you just making a philosophical point?

[fls]

I'm not aware of a physical theory that corresponds with the above, but I'd like to see a reference if there is.

http://jxshix.people.wm.edu/math490-2006/AEinstein-1905-MovBrowniano.pdf

http://publicliterature.org/books/origin_of_species/xaa.php

Linda

[paximperium]

http://jxshix.people.wm.edu/math490-2006/AEinstein-1905-MovBrowniano.pdf

http://publicliterature.org/books/origin_of_species/xaa.php

Linda
Who are these nobody authors?

[fls]

How is the concept that the universe is a created object not an explanation of the fine tuning issue?

Start by answering the question that I asked earlier...

"How would you know that the creator didn't intend for carbon nuclei to have that specific amount of energy?"

It seems to explain it just as well as multiverse or simulation.

I agree. I don't think those two ideas provide much an explanation either (although they do have a little bit going for them).

Indeed, there's probably a spectrum of explanations between creation and simulation, depending on how "real" this universe is. If you regard the idea that the universe is a construct as not providing an explanation, please say what it lacks that the other ideas provide.

The other ideas provide very little. At best, we have some independent information on these ideas, so we can form (or at least make the attempt) some hypotheses a priori. The Creator doesn't allow for any a priori hypotheses, since all we know about it will always just happen to be identical to what we observe.

Linda

[fls]

Of course God is an explanation:

Why do the physical constants appear to be fine-tuned?

Because God fine-tuned them. OK. That explains why they look fine-tuned. They were fine-tuned.

It might be helpful to discuss what it means to provide a useful explanation. An explanation is useful if it makes specific predictions - a planet will move in this direction, not that direction. It allows us to act on theory, rather than wait for empirical measures - we can launch a rocket into orbit without trying out a range of trajectories to see which one leads to the outcome we desire. It makes predictions which can falsify the explanation - if the speed of light is the same traveling with or against the motion of the earth, there is no aether.

It is not useful if it describes what we already observe, but does not predict a novel observation - what intelligently designed organ will be added to our body next? It is not useful if any subsequent observations would fit the explanation - I pray for my husband's recovery, and his death, his recovery or his coma are all the result of God's will. It is not useful if it encompasses a fairly trivial subset of what we observe - it doesn't tell us about evolution, gravity, dark energy, aspirin, relativity, electromagnetism, mirror neurons, phonons, the jet stream, or the Marianas trench...it only tells us that humans are the centre of attention.

An 'explanation' is an explanation if it constrains the possibilities a priori. Taking something that already exists, something that already serves as a useful explanation, one can look at its properties a priori and see if it has any novel applications. The explanation for the movement of the heavenly bodies also constrains a priori the falling of an apple from a tree. If something has not been demonstrated to exist, i.e. you wish to postulate a new entity, it provides additional constraint by making novel predictions which are subsequently observed, or it ties together two previously unrelated explanations. A Theory of Everything would tie together the currently unconnected QM and Relativity.

An explanation has a rigid and unyielding form, so that when it is found to fit exactly into a missing part of the puzzle, you go "wow!" It is not a lump of clay which has been used to fill a hole.

A useful explanation brings new information to the table. It does not regurgitate suspiciously self-serving statements.

It's as much an explanation as:

Because there are nearly an infinite number number of universes where the constants have different values and we happen to be in one of the few life-permitting ones.

Both explain why there is apparent fine-tuning, neither has any empirical evidence to support it (well, I think there's evidence for God, but that's another thread), and neither makes any testable prediction because they are so highly speculative.

Yeah, I don't think that Multiverse is much of an explanation either.

But you're so anti-theist, you won't entertain the notion that the explanation for apparent fine-tuning is the existence of a fine-tuner.

I'm not anti-theist. I even started and sustained a 67 page thread arguing that theists can be rational. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=131908) I am anti-pretending-that-something-is-rational-when-it-isn't.

I'm obviously a theist, but at least I am able to say that both God and the multiverse are equally explanative (and equally non-predictive) hypotheses.

I think they pretty much equally miss the point.

Linda

[fls]

Hypothesizing that a human God made a biased coin fine-tuned the universe simply removes a huge chunk from the pool. For example, you don't have to consider whether it was a snark, or a teapot, or a blurrg, or a wookie, or an apple that made the coin fine-tuned the universe-- you hypothesize it was a human God. Furthermore you don't have to consider that the coin landed physical constants are that way due to magic, or telekinesis, or a magnet, or an anomaly in the rotation of the Earth Big Bang.

Do you see now why God is an explanatory hypothesis?

Here's how the two differ (this is a shocker, so hold on to your hat). We have knowledge of "humans" independent of an object which just happens to have a particular appearance on a number of observations.*

Linda

*ETA: a piece of metal with the silhouette of a head on it

[rocketdodger]

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0808/jesus-facepalm-facepalm-jesus-epic-demotivational-poster-1218659828.jpg

As always, you do a fantastic job of actually addressing the points people bring up against your arguments.

[fls]

The entire field of statistics involves making predictions about the unknown. If statistics were used to make predictions about the known, then it wouldn't be very useful, would it?

I'm afraid that that is incorrect.

Statistics is about describing what is known. If we want to know something about the unknown, then we use to statistics to ask "if this unknown thing had the characteristics of this known thing, what would we expect to see?" But whether or not this exercise is useful or is utterly meaningless depends upon whether we have any reason to suppose that our unknown thing has the characteristics of the known thing. And that determination requires independent information, not statistical information.

Linda

[Dr Adequate]

The anthropic principle has been used to make predictions already.

Fred Hoyle and Carbon (http://www.mannkal.org/downloads/environment/fredhoyleoncarbondioxide(rk).pdf) No, not really.

Triple Alpha Process:

Controversially, Fred Hoyle claimed this triumph as a successful prediction made by the Anthropic Principle. According to Hoyle, the line of reasoning goes like this: Here am I, observing the Universe. My biochemistry is based on carbon. If stars didn't make carbon, I wouldn't be here; hence, if beryllium lacks this resonance, I wouldn't be here. Therefore I can deduce the existence of this resonance from the fact that I'm observing the Universe.

We find this line of reasoning unconvincing. In the first place, it applies equally well to lime Jello, as in the following chain of reasoning: Here is some lime Jello. Its biochemistry is based on carbon. If stars didn't make carbon, it wouldn't be here; hence, if beryllium lacked this resonance, it wouldn't be here. Therefore I can deduce the existence of this resonance from the existence of lime Jello.

In this chain of reasoning, as with Hoyle's, it is not the existence of lime Jello or of Fred Hoyle which is the crucial fact, but the existence of carbon. It is from this that we actually deduce the existence of the crucial energy level; and we would be able to make the same deduction from the existence of carbon even if it was not crucial to the biochemistry of intelligent observers (or to lime Jello) : that fact is irrelevant to the reasoning.

In the second place, it is possible to conceive of a universe with alternate physics and chemistry which contains intelligent observers but not carbon. Unless such universes can be ruled out as impossible (which Hoyle has not done) then it is not possible to reason from "Here am I, observing the Universe" to the existence of carbon, let alone the beryllium resonance.

[fls]

No, not really.

Triple Alpha Process:

Controversially, Fred Hoyle claimed this triumph as a successful prediction made by the Anthropic Principle. According to Hoyle, the line of reasoning goes like this: Here am I, observing the Universe. My biochemistry is based on carbon. If stars didn't make carbon, I wouldn't be here; hence, if beryllium lacks this resonance, I wouldn't be here. Therefore I can deduce the existence of this resonance from the fact that I'm observing the Universe.

We find this line of reasoning unconvincing. In the first place, it applies equally well to lime Jello, as in the following chain of reasoning: Here is some lime Jello. Its biochemistry is based on carbon. If stars didn't make carbon, it wouldn't be here; hence, if beryllium lacked this resonance, it wouldn't be here. Therefore I can deduce the existence of this resonance from the existence of lime Jello.

In this chain of reasoning, as with Hoyle's, it is not the existence of lime Jello or of Fred Hoyle which is the crucial fact, but the existence of carbon. It is from this that we actually deduce the existence of the crucial energy level; and we would be able to make the same deduction from the existence of carbon even if it was not crucial to the biochemistry of intelligent observers (or to lime Jello) : that fact is irrelevant to the reasoning.

In the second place, it is possible to conceive of a universe with alternate physics and chemistry which contains intelligent observers but not carbon. Unless such universes can be ruled out as impossible (which Hoyle has not done) then it is not possible to reason from "Here am I, observing the Universe" to the existence of carbon, let alone the beryllium resonance.

I was wondering about that. If Hoyle's reasoning is so mindnumbingly fallacious, why wasn't he laughed off the stage?

Linda

[Dr Adequate]

The entire field of statistics involves making predictions about the unknown. If statistics were used to make predictions about the known, then it wouldn't be very useful, would it? But some knowledge is clearly required.

If you find a hundred coins on the sidewalk, and every single one of them is heads side up, then your knowledge of coins would suggest that they were not dropped at random but that someone had put them like that.

If, on the other hand, you find a hundred fneems on the oograh, and every single one of them is combomptible, then it becomes harder for you to say whether this is a matter of chance, necessity, or fine-tuning by some unseen hand.

[Dr Adequate]

I was wondering about that. If Hoyle's reasoning is so mindnumbingly fallacious, why wasn't he laughed off the stage? Well Hoyle was correct in deducing the existence of the beryllium resonance from the existence of carbon. And then physicists looked, and there it was where he said it would be. It's hard to laugh at that. It's tying it in to the anthropic principle which is laughable.

Your question also contains a false premise. People did laugh at Hoyle. It has been claimed, I don't know with what veracity, that the only reason he never got a Nobel Prize was because all his really dumb ideas detracted from his really clever ones.

[fls]

Well Hoyle was correct in deducing the existence of the beryllium resonance from the existence of carbon. And then physicists looked, and there it was where he said it would be. It's hard to laugh at that. It's tying it in to the anthropic principle which is laughable.

Well, it's that last bit that I was referring to. I mean somebody, presumably with a straight face, puts it as a prediction from the Anthropic Principle on the Wiki page of that name.

Your question also contains a false premise. People did laugh at Hoyle. It has been claimed, I don't know with what veracity, that the only reason he never got a Nobel Prize was because all his really dumb ideas detracted from his really clever ones.

Ah.

Linda

[Malerin]

It might be helpful to discuss what it means to provide a useful explanation. An explanation is useful if it makes specific predictions - a planet will move in this direction, not that direction. It allows us to act on theory, rather than wait for empirical measures - we can launch a rocket into orbit without trying out a range of trajectories to see which one leads to the outcome we desire. It makes predictions which can falsify the explanation - if the speed of light is the same traveling with or against the motion of the earth, there is no aether.

In general, we prefer hypotheses that have predictive power. But you're taking that to mean that every hypothesis must have predictive power. That is obviously not true. There are plenty of hypotheses that deal with non-repeatable events that have no predictive power, but are still true. To go back to coins:

Suppose you fairly flip a coin 100 times and it lands heads each time. On the 100th toss, the coin... falls into a pit of lava (or is hit by a stray bullet, or self-destructs, whatever- It's gone for good). You would hypothesize, and rightly so, that the coin you were flipping was biased for heads. You would hypothesize this even though there is no possible way of testing your hypothesis.

If every hypothesis had to have predictive power, how could anyone hypothesize about what happens past the event horizon of a black hole?


It is not useful if it describes what we already observe, but does not predict a novel observation

Nonsense. SETI operates entirely on the principle of hypothesizing about events that have already occurred. They spend gobs of processing power analyzing signals that have already been observed. If SETI received a one-time transmission that listed all the primes up to 997, people would rightly conclude that the transmission came from an inteligent source. If no other "prime" transmissions were ever receieved, do you think they would change their minds because "it doesn't predict a novel observation"?

- what intelligently designed organ will be added to our body next?

Intelligent design and fine-tuning are two seperate things. FT proponents claim God fine-tuned the constants to allow for the possibility of life. ID proponents make a much stronger claim regarding evolution.

It is not useful if any subsequent observations would fit the explanation - I pray for my husband's recovery, and his death, his recovery or his coma are all the result of God's will.

What other "subsequent observations" would explain apparent fine-tuning? There are three possibilities:
1. There is no apparent fine-tuning of the constants.
2. The apparent fine-tuning of the constants is not due to design
2.A Multiverse theory (there are a lot of universes and we happpen to be in one of the life-permitting ones)
2.B "Set" theory (the values of the constants are "set" in some way at just the right values)
2.C It just happened that way (sure the odds were long, but if it hadn't happened, we wouldn't be asking the question in the first place).
3. The apparent fine-tuning of the constants is due to actual fine-tuning

That's it. (1) is not widely believed. That leaves (2) and (3). 2A seems to be the current front runner among cosmologists and physicists. So I'm not sure what other hypotheses you're considering.

It is not useful if it encompasses a fairly trivial subset of what we observe - it doesn't tell us about evolution, gravity, dark energy, aspirin, relativity, electromagnetism, mirror neurons, phonons, the jet stream, or the Marianas trench...it only tells us that humans are the centre of attention.

No, it tells us why the physical constants are apparently fine-tuned. Because they were actually fine-tuned. That succesfully answers the fine-tuning question. It raises its own questions, but what hypothesis doesn't? (Dark Matter anyone?)

An 'explanation' is an explanation if it constrains the possibilities a priori.

It's not clear what you mean by "a priori". It can have several meanings.

Taking something that already exists, something that already serves as a useful explanation, one can look at its properties a priori and see if it has any novel applications.

Unless it's a brand new theory and has never "served as a useful explanation". Using this criteria, we'd still be drawing on cave walls because all theories were once new and therefore would not fit this arbitrary criteria. What matters is not how old or new a theory is, but whether Pr(E/H) is greater than Pr(E/~H). If Pr(E/H) is greater, it doesn't matter what H is because H is confirmed. H could be "the coin is biased", "God fine-tuned the constants", or "all ravens are black".


The explanation for the movement of the heavenly bodies also constrains a priori the falling of an apple from a tree.

What explanation? Newtonian physics?

If something has not been demonstrated to exist, i.e. you wish to postulate a new entity, it provides additional constraint by making novel predictions which are subsequently observed, or it ties together two previously unrelated explanations.

Or it explains something better than any competing theory. You can scrap all the "a priori" stuff you're talking about and simply use that as a benchmark. Example: Relativity theory is universally accepted because it is better than any competing theory. Newtonian physics was better than other competing theories at the time, but fell by the wayside once it was shown that relativity theory accounted for Mercury's eccentric orbit without invoking a mysterious planet (again, this is the problem with conflating predictive power with explanatory power- one of the strongest pieces of confirming evidence for relativity theory was that it accounted for Mercury's odd orbit. It couldn't predict Mercury's orbit, because Mercury's strange orbit had been know about long before relativity came along). The appeal of multiverse theory among physicists like Linde, Tegmark, and Kaku is that it explains apparent fine-tuning and looks good in theory. It doesn't predict anything, and isn't confirmed by any evidence, but that doesn't stop a whole lot of scientists from endorsing it.

A useful explanation brings new information to the table. It does not regurgitate suspiciously self-serving statements.

How is "There exists a fine-tuner" a self-serving statement? How is it any different than "There exists a cheating dealer" to explain 10 royal flushes in a row?



Yeah, I don't think that Multiverse is much of an explanation either.

Do you think there's even apparent fine-tuning? How far out on a limb do you want to go? If there's apparent fine-tuning, and you don't believe God or a multiverse is a good explanation, what are you left with?

[Malerin]

But some knowledge is clearly required.

If you find a hundred coins on the sidewalk, and every single one of them is heads side up, then your knowledge of coins would suggest that they were not dropped at random but that someone had put them like that.

If, on the other hand, you find a hundred fneems on the oograh, and every single one of them is combomptible, then it becomes harder for you to say whether this is a matter of chance, necessity, or fine-tuning by some unseen hand.

That would be a valid point if we were talking about why oograh's have just the right values to make a fneem possible. But we're clearly not at that level of ignorance. We have enough knowledge to replace "oograh" with, say, cosmological constant and "fneems" with life-permitting universe.

[Dr Adequate]

That would be a valid point if we were talking about why oograh's have just the right values to make a fneem possible. But we're clearly not at that level of ignorance. We have enough knowledge to replace "oograh" with, say, cosmological constant and "fneems" with life-permitting universe. It illustrates the point that some prior knowledge is required for a statistical analysis.

In the case of the universe, the crucial knowledge is not available. Just as we do not know the odds of finding a hundred fneems all of which are combomptible, so, though for slightly different reasons, we cannot calculate the odds of a life-permitting universe arising without intelligent intervention.

[Malerin]

It illustrates the point that some prior knowledge is required for a statistical analysis.

Yes, that's true.

In the case of the universe, the crucial knowledge is not available. Just as we do not know the odds of finding a hundred fneems all of which are combomptible, so, though for slightly different reasons, we cannot calculate the odds of a life-permitting universe arising without intelligent intervention.

But I think we can make some good guesses. I brought up the cosmological constant. If it were different by a small amount, galactic formation would be impossible. Now, you could argue that life could evolve without galaxies, and it's possibly true, but there's no evidence of non-galactic based life, and plenty of evidence for galactic based life (namely, every life form we've observed so far).

Some cosmologists go down the road of postulating exotic life forms to get around apparent fine-tuning (Victor Stenger argues that non-molecular life is possible). But to go down such a road puts the person squarely at odds with biology as we know it. The theist, for once, is on solid evidential ground when they claim that carbon, for example, is a necessary condition for life, and that any universe where carbon couldn't form would not be a life-permitting universe.

[fls]

In general, we prefer hypotheses that have predictive power. But you're taking that to mean that every hypothesis must have predictive power.

Not really. I was giving examples of the different ways in which an explanation may be useful.

That is obviously not true. There are plenty of hypotheses that deal with non-repeatable events that have no predictive power, but are still true.

Can you give some examples?

To go back to coins:

Suppose you fairly flip a coin 100 times and it lands heads each time. On the 100th toss, the coin... falls into a pit of lava (or is hit by a stray bullet, or self-destructs, whatever- It's gone for good). You would hypothesize, and rightly so, that the coin you were flipping was biased for heads. You would hypothesize this even though there is no possible way of testing your hypothesis.

It seems like you have more than enough information to test your hypothesis already. But you have missed the point. It isn't a matter of whether or not you are given the opportunity to run a test, it is a matter of whether or not you can form a hypothesis as to which results would support your idea and which results wouldn't. Regardless of whether or not the actual coin fell into some lava, the coin can be tested by performing flips.

If every hypothesis had to have predictive power, how could anyone hypothesize about what happens past the event horizon of a black hole?

Sometimes we refer to 'testable hypotheses' in order to recognize that some explanations lead to predictions that we are unable to observe.

Nonsense. SETI operates entirely on the principle of hypothesizing about events that have already occurred. They spend gobs of processing power analyzing signals that have already been observed. If SETI received a one-time transmission that listed all the primes up to 997, people would rightly conclude that the transmission came from an inteligent source. If no other "prime" transmissions were ever receieved, do you think they would change their minds because "it doesn't predict a novel observation"?

You don't understand what is meant by a novel observation. Which is a bit odd considering this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5088710#post5088710).

Anyway, to repeat myself, a 'novel observation' doesn't mean 'future event'. It means that you can take the explanation and use that to postulate observations which are specific to that explanation and not specific to other explanations. It is information collected in light of a specific hypothesis, but it isn't necessarily information which hasn't previously been available. There are several ways that this information can be considered 'new', but 'future event' is only one of the ways. It could be additional information which is sought specific to the idea, it could be information which has already been obtained but it's connection to this specific idea had not yet been made, it could be information which depends upon future technology or is otherwise inaccessible to us, etc. All that is considered 'novel' in addition to observations which occur in the future.

SETI is a good example of this. Data has already been collected which may contain the patterns which SETI is specifically looking for. But it isn't until the data is reviewed with respect to that particular idea that we can say whether or not observations are available which support the idea of intelligent life elsewhere. Certainly something like a transmission of a long string of prime numbers would fit what they are looking for.

Intelligent design and fine-tuning are two seperate things. FT proponents claim God fine-tuned the constants to allow for the possibility of life. ID proponents make a much stronger claim regarding evolution.

I'm not comparing Design proponents and ID. I was just giving specific examples in an attempt to help you understand my explanation.

What other "subsequent observations" would explain apparent fine-tuning?

You misunderstand. It isn't observations which explain the idea. The idea is used to explain the observations.

There are three possibilities:
1. There is no apparent fine-tuning of the constants.
2. The apparent fine-tuning of the constants is not due to design
2.A Multiverse theory (there are a lot of universes and we happpen to be in one of the life-permitting ones)
2.B "Set" theory (the values of the constants are "set" in some way at just the right values)
2.C It just happened that way (sure the odds were long, but if it hadn't happened, we wouldn't be asking the question in the first place).
3. The apparent fine-tuning of the constants is due to actual fine-tuning

That's it. (1) is not widely believed. That leaves (2) and (3). 2A seems to be the current front runner among cosmologists and physicists. So I'm not sure what other hypotheses you're considering.

The problem is that you've put the cart before the horse. You are attempting to guess at what sort of explanations we might come up with if we assume that we have something for which an explanation is needed.

No, it tells us why the physical constants are apparently fine-tuned. Because they were actually fine-tuned. That succesfully answers the fine-tuning question. It raises its own questions, but what hypothesis doesn't? (Dark Matter anyone?)

It doesn't tell you why the physical constants are fine-tuned, because it doesn't give you any clue beforehand as to what they would be tuned to.

It's not clear what you mean by "a priori". It can have several meanings.

It means 'beforehand'. It means I can tell you what you will see before you open your eyes. Without knowing whether you are a sentient hydrogen cloud or a human being, can you tell me which universe God intends to create?

Unless it's a brand new theory and has never "served as a useful explanation". Using this criteria, we'd still be drawing on cave walls because all theories were once new and therefore would not fit this arbitrary criteria.

Again, you misunderstood. I was giving examples of different ways that we arrive at theories and explanations, one of which is making use of pre-existing explanations.

What matters is not how old or new a theory is, but whether Pr(E/H) is greater than Pr(E/~H). If Pr(E/H) is greater, it doesn't matter what H is because H is confirmed.

Nope. You don't know what you are doing and you are dead wrong about that. H has to be confirmed independently. The reason for this has been previously explained to you (over and over and over again).

H could be "the coin is biased", "God fine-tuned the constants", or "all ravens are black".

One of these things is not like the others.

What explanation? Newtonian physics?

Yup.

Or it explains something better than any competing theory. You can scrap all the "a priori" stuff you're talking about and simply use that as a benchmark.

You misunderstood what is meant by "a priori".

Example: Relativity theory is universally accepted because it is better than any competing theory. Newtonian physics was better than other competing theories at the time, but fell by the wayside once it was shown that relativity theory accounted for Mercury's eccentric orbit without invoking a mysterious planet (again, this is the problem with conflating predictive power with explanatory power- one of the strongest pieces of confirming evidence for relativity theory was that it accounted for Mercury's odd orbit. It couldn't predict Mercury's orbit, because Mercury's strange orbit had been know about long before relativity came along).

This is a good example to use. Newtonian physics makes very specific predictions beforehand. So specific, that it was able to demonstrate that gravity did not fully explain Mercury's orbit. It was able to show us that our explanation was incomplete. Relativity was able to demonstrate that it was a more complete explanation, as the very specific predictions it makes account also for Mercury's orbit. Again, you do not understand what a prediction is if you think that knowing about Mercury's orbit beforehand does not allow Relativity to make that prediction.

How is "There exists a fine-tuner" a self-serving statement?

Because it has to assume that a fine-tuner just happens to tune the universe to the one which makes you possible.

How is it any different than "There exists a cheating dealer" to explain 10 royal flushes in a row?

Other than having independent knowledge of "cheating", "dealers", and "royal flushes", it isn't different. As I pointed out earlier, you cannot tell, from the probability of 10 royal flushes due to chance, the probability that your dealer is cheating. I realize this is counter-intuitive.

Do you think there's even apparent fine-tuning? How far out on a limb do you want to go? If there's apparent fine-tuning, and you don't believe God or a multiverse is a good explanation, what are you left with?

I'm saying that this is as pointless as asking me whether a unicorn's eyes would be blue or pink.

Linda

[Dr Adequate]

But I think we can make some good guesses. I brought up the cosmological constant. If it were different by a small amount, galactic formation would be impossible. Yeah, amazing. What are the odds that there's be a universe with a cosmological constant that happens to be (indistinguishable from) zero?

Well, what are the odds?

To say whether it could have happened by chance, or whether it is a matter of physical necessity, or whether it's so improbable that it requires intelligent intervention, is something we can't say. Perhaps fneems are overwhelmingly likely to be combomptible.

The theist, for once, is on solid evidential ground when they claim that carbon, for example, is a necessary condition for life, and that any universe where carbon couldn't form would not be a life-permitting universe. Solid evidential ground? No. They haven't considered the life-permitting properties of groophsnarg, a substance in which our universe is sadly lacking.

One cannot claim that in all conceivable universes, life would require carbon, and even to claim that this is necessary in all possible universes would require us to know just the thing which we don't know, namely which universes are possible.

The nearest you can get is to argue that if you took a universe which was exactly like ours, and then magicked away all the carbon, life might be impossible ... though I should still like to see your working.

[Malerin]

Not really. I was giving examples of the different ways in which an explanation may be useful.



Can you give some examples?



It seems like you have more than enough information to test your hypothesis already. But you have missed the point. It isn't a matter of whether or not you are given the opportunity to run a test, it is a matter of whether or not you can form a hypothesis as to which results would support your idea and which results wouldn't. Regardless of whether or not the actual coin fell into some lava, the coin can be tested by performing flips.

Not if it's destroyed in the process. You cannot run tests on a non-existent coin. Still, the hypothesis would hold true, that the coin was biased, even though the hypothesis has zero predictive value.



Sometimes we refer to 'testable hypotheses' in order to recognize that some explanations lead to predictions that we are unable to observe.

LOL. Ok, so we can make predictions about what happens beyond the event horizon, but we just can't observe the outcome? Then allow me to submit a prediction that an invisble pink unicorn will appear in front of you right now. What's that? You can't possibly observe it? Oops!




Anyway, to repeat myself, a 'novel observation' doesn't mean 'future event'. It means that you can take the explanation and use that to postulate observations which are specific to that explanation and not specific to other explanations. It is information collected in light of a specific hypothesis, but it isn't necessarily information which hasn't previously been available. There are several ways that this information can be considered 'new', but 'future event' is only one of the ways. It could be additional information which is sought specific to the idea, it could be information which has already been obtained but it's connection to this specific idea had not yet been made, it could be information which depends upon future technology or is otherwise inaccessible to us, etc. All that is considered 'novel' in addition to observations which occur in the future.

Ah, so a novel observation would be invisble aliens walking around us that would be visible if only we had the right technology...


SETI is a good example of this. Data has already been collected which may contain the patterns which SETI is specifically looking for. But it isn't until the data is reviewed with respect to that particular idea that we can say whether or not observations are available which support the idea of intelligent life elsewhere. Certainly something like a transmission of a long string of prime numbers would fit what they are looking for.

Maybe because "what they are looking for" is an explanation for events that have already happened?





Nope. You don't know what you are doing and you are dead wrong about that. H has to be confirmed independently. The reason for this has been previously explained to you (over and over and over again).

A single black raven confirms "All ravens are black". A dozen confirms it as well.






This is a good example to use. Newtonian physics makes very specific predictions beforehand. So specific, that it was able to demonstrate that gravity did not fully explain Mercury's orbit. It was able to show us that our explanation was incomplete. Relativity was able to demonstrate that it was a more complete explanation, as the very specific predictions it makes account also for Mercury's orbit. Again, you do not understand what a prediction is if you think that knowing about Mercury's orbit beforehand does not allow Relativity to make that prediction.


Main Entry: pre·dict
Pronunciation: \pri-ˈdikt\
Function: verb
Etymology: Latin praedictus, past participle of praedicere, from prae- pre- + dicere to say — more at diction
Date: 1609
transitive verb
: to declare or indicate in advance; especially : foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason

You cannot predict evidence that is already known, or events that have already happened. Relativity did not predict Mercury's eccentric orbit. Relatavity explained Mercury's eccentric orbit.



Because it has to assume that a fine-tuner just happens to tune the universe to the one which makes you life possible.



Other than having independent knowledge of "cheating", "dealers", and "royal flushes", it isn't different. As I pointed out earlier, you cannot tell, from the probability of 10 royal flushes due to chance, the probability that your dealer is cheating. I realize this is counter-intuitive.

It's also wrong. Only a fool would play with a dealer who has dealt himself even two royal flushes in a row. The odds of just three in a row happening naturally are over 100 trillion to 1.
Pr(E/H) >> Pr(E/~H)

Where E = 3 royal flushes in a row and H = "The dealer is cheating". This can easily be shown with a simple Bayesian calculus:

Assume you have faith in the dealer. Pr (H) = .001
The probablity of three royal flushes in a row = .0000000000000001 (approx(the actual odds are much longer))
Pr(E/H) = .1 (Given that the dealer is cheating, it is not necessarily the case that he would deal himself a royal flush, but there are not that many winning hands in poker).
Pr(H/E) = Pr(E/H) x Pr(H) / (Pr(E/H) x Pr(H) + Pr(E/~H) x P(~H)

.1 x .001 / .1 x .001 + .0000000000000001 x .999

.0001 / .0001 + .00000000000000999

.0001 / .00010000000000999

Pr(H/E) = .99999999

In other words, walk away from the game ;)


But this just goes back to the point that if you're not sure a dealer is cheating after 10 royal flushes in a row, you are ignorant of the most basic statistical concepts and will not be able to evaluate a more nuanced argument, like apparent fine-tuning.

[Malerin]

Yeah, amazing. What are the odds that there's be a universe with a cosmological constant that happens to be (indistinguishable from) zero?

Thus, the current standard model of cosmology, the Lambda-CDM model, includes the cosmological constant, which is measured to be on the order of 10−35 s−2, or 10−47 GeV4, or 10−29 g/cm3,[5] or about 10−120 in reduced Planck units.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

It is not zero, nor is it indistinuishable from zero.

Well, what are the odds?

Depends on the possible values it could have had. There is no evidence the constant was "set" in any way. In addition to the cosmological constant, there are about 20 other constants, all needing to be within a certain value for a life-permitting universe to pertain.

To say whether it could have happened by chance, or whether it is a matter of physical necessity, or whether it's so improbable that it requires intelligent intervention, is something we can't say. Perhaps fneems are overwhelmingly likely to be combomptible.

If it's physical necesssity, the same question arises: why are the constants necessarily at the precise values needed for a life-permitting universe?

Solid evidential ground? No. They haven't considered the life-permitting properties of groophsnarg, a substance in which our universe is sadly lacking.

Ah, so we know nothing about biology, after seriously studying and classifying life forms for centuries? The theist is on very solid ground when asserting carbon is a necessary condition for life: ALL life so far discovered, in all it's forms, has been carbon-based. To say that non-carbon-based life is possible (not to mention non-molecular life) is to make a faith-based claim with zero evidence backing it up.

One cannot claim that in all conceivable universes, life would require carbon, and even to claim that this is necessary in all possible universes would require us to know just the thing which we don't know, namely which universes are possible.

No one's claiming that. The claim is that all life forms so far discovered have been carbon-based, so the claim that carbon is a necessary condition for life is much more evidentiary-based than the claim that carbon is not a necessary condition for life.

That is not to say that non-carbon based life is impossible. But based on what we know, we would be surprised to discover non-carbon based life. We would not be surprised to discover carbon-based life. If you are (or would be) surprised at the discovery of a particular piece of evidence, that means the probability of the evidence is low.

Even more simply, non-carbon life may be possible, but I wouldn't bet on it, and I certainly wouldn't count on it as a defeater to an argument. Your opponent will simply whip out example after example of carbon-based life, and you will be left with nothing but baseless suppositions.

[Dr Adequate]

Thus, the current standard model of cosmology, the Lambda-CDM model, includes the cosmological constant, which is measured to be on the order of 10−35 s−2, or 10−47 GeV4, or 10−29 g/cm3,[5] or about 10−120 in reduced Planck units. Um ... my point does not relate to what it actually is.

Ah, so we know nothing about biology, after seriously studying and classifying life forms for centuries? The theist is on very solid ground when asserting carbon is a necessary condition for life: ALL life so far discovered, in all it's forms, has been carbon-based. To say that non-carbon-based life is possible (not to mention non-molecular life) is to make a faith-based claim with zero evidence backing it up.

No one's claiming that. The claim is that all life forms so far discovered have been carbon-based, so the claim that carbon is a necessary condition for life is much more evidentiary-based than the claim that carbon is not a necessary condition for life.

That is not to say that non-carbon based life is impossible. But based on what we know, we would be surprised to discover non-carbon based life. We would not be surprised to discover carbon-based life. If you are (or would be) surprised at the discovery of a particular piece of evidence, that means the probability of the evidence is low.

Even more simply, non-carbon life may be possible, but I wouldn't bet on it, and I certainly wouldn't count on it as a defeater to an argument. Your opponent will simply whip out example after example of carbon-based life, and you will be left with nothing but baseless suppositions. I think that you're pushing this further than it can go. Suppose I said: "The only organisms that we know of capable of understanding differential calculus are bipedal, therefore nowhere in the universe can there exist an octopedal lifeform that can tell me the differential of x times e to the x". How far would that get me? I would be making deductions from a very narrow sample.

Indeed, from that position, I could deduce the nonexistence of God, according to the normal theist concept of him, since he cannot be said to be bipedal; and, being by definition omniscient, he must understand differential calculus. Ooops, there goes God.

But I do not reason like that, since it is foolish to make empirical arguments based on the evidence available to you when the evidence available to you is a sample size of one.

[Dr Adequate]

How is "There exists a fine-tuner" a self-serving statement? How is it any different than "There exists a cheating dealer" to explain 10 royal flushes in a row? But this analogy supposes that we know what's in a deck of cards, that we know what constitutes a fair shuffle, and that we know what constitutes a winning hand.

Let me present a more realistic analogy for the situation we find ourselves in.

The dealer deals me a number of cards, although I don't know how many, nor how or if they were shuffled. Then the dealer looks at my cards and informs me that I've won.

Of course, I'm jolly pleased that I've won. Hooray! But then I start to wonder what the rules of the game are and what cards I held that won the game, and what cards one needs to win the game, and what the odds were that I'd have won without a crooked dealer.

So I start extracting information from the dealer, by bribery, by force, by persuasion, about what cards I hold, and I find that amongst the cards in my hand I hold the Three Of Turtles, the Nine Of Ham Sandwiches With Mustard, and the Ace Of Love.

I still don't know what the suits are, except that they appear to include turtles, ham sandwiches, and love, nor am I certain how far up the numbers go, except that the best evidence I have is that they include one, three and nine. And I am not sure even how many cards I hold. And in fact the dealer gives me ambiguous answers when put to the question, so that I'm not completely certain whether I hold the Three Of Turtles or the Four Of Crocodiles.

And now I have to figure out whether I won the game by chance or by the favor of a crooked dealer.

Well then: I don't know what the suits are, I don't know how high the numbers go, I don't know the identity of all the cards I hold in my hand, I don't know what the winning conditions are, I don't know what cards are in the pack, and I have only played the game once.

So there is no way that I can apply statistical analysis to find out whether I have won the game by luck, by the favor of a crooked dealer, or because any deal from the pack would have constituted a winning hand.

[westprog]

I'm afraid that that is incorrect.

Statistics is about describing what is known. If we want to know something about the unknown, then we use to statistics to ask "if this unknown thing had the characteristics of this known thing, what would we expect to see?" But whether or not this exercise is useful or is utterly meaningless depends upon whether we have any reason to suppose that our unknown thing has the characteristics of the known thing. And that determination requires independent information, not statistical information.

Linda

The predictions are always about an unknown thing. How can you predict something that you already know?

In the case of Hoyle's prediction, he was predicting something unknown - but other things of the same kind were known. Hence it's perfectly reasonable to assign a probability of his estimate being correct.

[Dancing David]

Thus, the current standard model of cosmology, the Lambda-CDM model, includes the cosmological constant, which is measured to be on the order of 10−35 s−2, or 10−47 GeV4, or 10−29 g/cm3,[5] or about 10−120 in reduced Planck units.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant




Isn't that the value for the Plank length, how many Plank lengths fit is the Uinverse, a small constant over the volume of the Universe, related to the 'presseure' is a huge amount of energy. Th CC may be close to zero but lambda is much higher.

[Dancing David]

The predictions are always about an unknown thing. How can you predict something that you already know?

In the case of Hoyle's prediction, he was predicting something unknown - but other things of the same kind were known. Hence it's perfectly reasonable to assign a probability of his estimate being correct.

Yes and estimates of potential values are a constant in particle physics, this has nothing to do with the possible values it could have had because we have no way of knowing that.

[westprog]

But this analogy supposes that we know what's in a deck of cards, that we know what constitutes a fair shuffle, and that we know what constitutes a winning hand.

Let me present a more realistic analogy for the situation we find ourselves in.

The dealer deals me a number of cards, although I don't know how many, nor how or if they were shuffled. Then the dealer looks at my cards and informs me that I've won.

Of course, I'm jolly pleased that I've won. Hooray! But then I start to wonder what the rules of the game are and what cards I held that won the game, and what cards one needs to win the game, and what the odds were that I'd have won without a crooked dealer.

So I start extracting information from the dealer, by bribery, by force, by persuasion, about what cards I hold, and I find that amongst the cards in my hand I hold the Three Of Turtles, the Nine Of Ham Sandwiches With Mustard, and the Ace Of Love.

I still don't know what the suits are, except that they appear to include turtles, ham sandwiches, and love, nor am I certain how far up the numbers go, except that the best evidence I have is that they include one, three and nine. And I am not sure even how many cards I hold. And in fact the dealer gives me ambiguous answers when put to the question, so that I'm not completely certain whether I hold the Three Of Turtles or the Four Of Crocodiles.

And now I have to figure out whether I won the game by chance or by the favor of a crooked dealer.

Well then: I don't know what the suits are, I don't know how high the numbers go, I don't know the identity of all the cards I hold in my hand, I don't know what the winning conditions are, I don't know what cards are in the pack, and I have only played the game once.

So there is no way that I can apply statistical analysis to find out whether I have won the game by luck, by the favor of a crooked dealer, or because any deal from the pack would have constituted a winning hand.

We don't know how many cards are in the deck, or if there is a deck. We just have a hand which has AKQJ1098765432 of Spades in order. Why is it absurd to consider the possibility that the cards were handed to us that way? Or should we just say that that particular hand is no more unlikely than any other?

[westprog]

http://jxshix.people.wm.edu/math490-2006/AEinstein-1905-MovBrowniano.pdf

http://publicliterature.org/books/origin_of_species/xaa.php

Linda

I like the touch of referring to the paper in the original German. Yes, they are eminent names, but if you carefully read this (http://books.google.com/books?id=WqaGuP1HqE0C&printsec=titlepage#v=onepage&q=&f=false), you'll find that it fully supports my view.

[fls]

Not if it's destroyed in the process. You cannot run tests on a non-existent coin. Still, the hypothesis would hold true, that the coin was biased, even though the hypothesis has zero predictive value.

The question of whether a hypothesis is testable has nothing to do with whether your coin fell into lava, there was a power outage in the lab that day, the only machine in the world capable of running the test is controlled by a cruel dictator in a tiny third-world country, etc. All that matters is whether you can formulate a test to determine whether a coin is biased. If that test is 'flipping the coin', then all that matters is whether or not the result from flipping that coin would support or would not support your idea. The key component is that a result would speak to the veracity of your idea. Technical issues surrounding the acquisition of that result are irrelevant to the principle.

LOL. Ok, so we can make predictions about what happens beyond the event horizon, but we just can't observe the outcome? Then allow me to submit a prediction that an invisble pink unicorn will appear in front of you right now. What's that? You can't possibly observe it? Oops!

Saying something stupid is not the same as forming a prediction based on a hypothesis.

Ah, so a novel observation would be invisble aliens walking around us that would be visible if only we had the right technology...

Yes. This would correspond to the ideas raised by consideration of p-branes. Testing string theory depends upon having the right technology.

Maybe because "what they are looking for" is an explanation for events that have already happened?

I'm not sure what you are getting at. I think that what you are referring to is confusion over what it means to describe events that already happened and then simply propose an entity who just happened to have intended for those events to happen. Let's use the data that SETI is sifting through to illustrate the difference (with the caveat that I am not familiar with the details of the SETI project). SETI hypothesizes the kind of patterns of electromagnetic radiation one might see from an alien civilization and searches the data for these patterns (although, I don't think they are looking for a message to others (which is what the prime number string would represent) as much as the residual effect of communication amongst themselves). The presence of one of these patterns supports the idea, the absence means the idea remains without evidence.

Instead, we could describe the data (4 regularly spaced 1 millisecond bursts at 3 MHz, 1 2 millisecond burst at 30 MHz, 5 seconds of a signal varying from 30 to 300 GHz, etc.). Then we could hypothesize that an alien civilization is that which transmits 4 regularly spaced 1 millisecond bursts at 3 MHz, 1 2 millisecond burst at 30 MHz, 5 seconds of a signal varying from 30 to 300 GHz, etc. Any observation supports the idea that you are observing the results of an alien civilization, and any change in the observations leads to a change in the description.

A single black raven confirms "All ravens are black". A dozen confirms it as well.

Your set-up is incorrect. And, as Dr. Adequate so eloquently illustrated, because you use real world examples, you confuse the information coming from your real world knowledge with information that you garnered through the use of a formula.

The real question you are asking is, "what is the probability that all ravens are black, given that I just saw something that is black?"


Main Entry: pre·dict
Pronunciation: \pri-ˈdikt\
Function: verb
Etymology: Latin praedictus, past participle of praedicere, from prae- pre- + dicere to say — more at diction
Date: 1609
transitive verb
: to declare or indicate in advance; especially : foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason

Yes. In advance. You are confusing 'predicting the future' with prediction. A hypothesis only has to tell you in advance which observations support the hypothesis and which observations don't support the hypothesis or falsify the hypothesis. The actual existence of those observations is irrelevant. If you can understand that a description is not the same as an explanation, then it would be clear why the timing of an observation is irrelevant. As it is, a description can only serve as an explanation if the description is made before there are any observations on which to base the description. But that doesn't apply to explanations that are not merely descriptions.

You cannot predict evidence that is already known, or events that have already happened.

This is simply wrong.

Relativity did not predict Mercury's eccentric orbit. Relatavity explained Mercury's eccentric orbit.

Relativity tells us in advance the shape of Mercury's orbit. There is no variable for "position at time x" when you are calculating "position at time x". To take a much simpler example, the formula for the volume of a box predicts that a box of length 3, height 2, and width 2 has a volume of 12. You do not need to know, in advance, what the volume of the box is in order to predict the volume of the box.

It's also wrong. Only a fool would play with a dealer who has dealt himself even two royal flushes in a row. The odds of just three in a row happening naturally are over 100 trillion to 1.
Pr(E/H) >> Pr(E/~H)

Where E = 3 royal flushes in a row and H = "The dealer is cheating". This can easily be shown with a simple Bayesian calculus:

Assume you have faith in the dealer. Pr (H) = .001
The probablity of three royal flushes in a row = .0000000000000001 (approx(the actual odds are much longer))
Pr(E/H) = .1 (Given that the dealer is cheating, it is not necessarily the case that he would deal himself a royal flush, but there are not that many winning hands in poker).
Pr(H/E) = Pr(E/H) x Pr(H) / (Pr(E/H) x Pr(H) + Pr(E/~H) x P(~H)

.1 x .001 / .1 x .001 + .0000000000000001 x .999

.0001 / .0001 + .00000000000000999

.0001 / .00010000000000999

Pr(H/E) = .99999999

In other words, walk away from the game ;)

Again. Your use of real world examples means that you are confusing your intuitive knowledge prior to the set-up with the knowledge that you obtained from Bayesian analysis. Dr. Adequate's example illustrates this clearly.

But this just goes back to the point that if you're not sure a dealer is cheating after 10 royal flushes in a row, you are ignorant of the most basic statistical concepts and will not be able to evaluate a more nuanced argument, like apparent fine-tuning.

But your walking away depends entirely upon your knowledge of "dealers", "cheating" and "royal flushes". None of the knowledge was obtained through your Bayesian analysis. Let me give you an example by confining the information I give you to the information you have for the Designer argument.

I am looking at two events that have happened. The probability that the first event would occur if due to chance is one in a trillion. Some people found the occurence of the event mildly interesting. The probability that the second event would occur if due to chance is one in a thousand. Some people found the occurence of the event of much importance. What is the probability that the first event occurred due to chance? What is the probability that the second event occured due to chance?

I have enough information to answer my questions, and if I told you what the events were, you would have enough information to answer my questions.

Linda

[Beth]

I'm saying that this is as pointless as asking me whether a unicorn's eyes would be blue or pink.

Linda

Not entirely pointless. It gave me a few moments of amusement to contemplate the question. Given that unicorns (other than the pink invisible kind) are reputed to be entirely white, it would be reasonable to speculate that they are albino and thus would have pink eyes rather than blue. This is assuming they have red blood rather than blue. Not a testable hypothesis though. :D

[fls]

The predictions are always about an unknown thing.

No, they are not. I've seen many scientists, including statisticians, make this mistake. Statistics describe what happens when working with something we already know about. What many people do not realize when they apply statistics to things that are unknown is that they are assuming that what will describe the known can be used to describe the unknown. But whether or not that assumption is valid isn't related to the statistical analysis.

These two papers are helpful for understanding the issue, although I think the second paper is difficult to impossible to understand without some background knowledge (I apologize in advance if this is the case - ETA: if you are interested, I'd be happy to explain it).

http://www.projectimplicit.net/nosek/teaching/761/cohen.pdf
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124

How can you predict something that you already know?

How can you not base a prediction on something that you already know?

In the case of Hoyle's prediction, he was predicting something unknown - but other things of the same kind were known. Hence it's perfectly reasonable to assign a probability of his estimate being correct.

Nope. In this case, you have to spend a great deal of time and effort finding a way to validly associate the thing that is unknown with something that is known. The problem is that this is difficult to impossible to do with a sample size of 1 and no analogous examples. The best that you can say is "if this unknown thing is like that known thing, then..." But you are still left with the problem that you have no way of evaluating the likelihood that that is the case without additional, independent information.

Linda

[fls]

I like the touch of referring to the paper in the original German. Yes, they are eminent names, but if you carefully read this (http://books.google.com/books?id=WqaGuP1HqE0C&printsec=titlepage#v=onepage&q=&f=false), you'll find that it fully supports my view.

I hope you noticed that a copy of the English version followed the German. I wasn't trying to be a smart-ass. However, I suspect that perhaps you are, as the Principia does not actually speak to what I was talking about.

Linda

[westprog]

I hope you noticed that a copy of the English version followed the German. I wasn't trying to be a smart-ass. However, I suspect that perhaps you are,
Certainly am.
as the Principia does not actually speak to what I was talking about.

Linda

Then I'd like a crib to explain how the atomic explanation of Brownian motion deals with a cosmological hypothesis. Darwin isn't even physics.

[porch]

Do you think there's even apparent fine-tuning? How far out on a limb do you want to go? If there's apparent fine-tuning, and you don't believe God or a multiverse is a good explanation, what are you left with?


I do not think that there is apparent fine tuning for life. At least, no more than there's the appearance of fine tuning for every other phenomenon in the universe. How does this put me on a limb?

[westprog]

I do not think that there is apparent fine tuning for life. At least, no more than there's the appearance of fine tuning for every other phenomenon in the universe. How does this put me on a limb?

Do you think there's fine tuning for the existence of hydrogen? What constants are fine tuned for this to happen?

[porch]

Do you think there's fine tuning for the existence of hydrogen? What constants are fine tuned for this to happen?

I honestly know next to nothing about the constants. That's not my point. I think that FT fails at a basic philosophical level.

Maybe there could be a universe without life. Maybe there could be a universe without hydrogen. I don't know. The fact is, the universe appears to be exactly the way the universe appears to be. Now what? The onus is on FT proponents to show that there is some particular significance in LIFE that should make us ask questions that other phenomena wouldn't. The implication always seems to have something to do with the universe becoming aware of itself. Obviously, that's not a sound argument, but again, that's not an argument that anyone here has made. But I would like to hear an argument, please. Sure, if 6 was 9, there wouldn't be life. Likewise, if 6 was 9, there wouldn't be black holes. The universe we inhabit allows for both life and black holes. So what? WHY does life get granted a special status?

Edit: Maybe, instead of black holes, I should have chosen hydrogen, to speak more directly to what you said. I apologize, I guess it's my personal bias to imagine that if there was a god, that it would care about things that go WHIZZ-BANG! as opposed to something that I, personally, find boring. However, for the sake of my argument, you can put anything in the place of black holes, and the conclusion is the same.

[Dr Adequate]

We don't know how many cards are in the deck, or if there is a deck. We just have a hand which has AKQJ1098765432 of Spades in order. Why is it absurd to consider the possibility that the cards were handed to us that way? Because, in my analogy, one of the few things I think I know about my hand is that that isn't it.

[Puppycow]

Because, in my analogy, one of the few things I think I know about my hand is that that isn't it.

Yeah, we don't live in Heaven or Paradise. Far from it.

[Dr Adequate]

My point was that all the information I have indicates that I am holding some cards that are not spades.

[rocketdodger]

Have fun playing on the merry-go-round of cognitive dissonance, Dr. Adequate ...

[westprog]

I honestly know next to nothing about the constants. That's not my point. I think that FT fails at a basic philosophical level.

Maybe there could be a universe without life. Maybe there could be a universe without hydrogen. I don't know. The fact is, the universe appears to be exactly the way the universe appears to be. Now what? The onus is on FT proponents to show that there is some particular significance in LIFE that should make us ask questions that other phenomena wouldn't. The implication always seems to have something to do with the universe becoming aware of itself. Obviously, that's not a sound argument, but again, that's not an argument that anyone here has made. But I would like to hear an argument, please. Sure, if 6 was 9, there wouldn't be life. Likewise, if 6 was 9, there wouldn't be black holes. The universe we inhabit allows for both life and black holes. So what? WHY does life get granted a special status?

Edit: Maybe, instead of black holes, I should have chosen hydrogen, to speak more directly to what you said. I apologize, I guess it's my personal bias to imagine that if there was a god, that it would care about things that go WHIZZ-BANG! as opposed to something that I, personally, find boring. However, for the sake of my argument, you can put anything in the place of black holes, and the conclusion is the same.


Perhaps there are proponents of the anthropic principle who like to dwell on the self-awareness aspect, but that's a less persuasive argument than the difference between a universe with a lot of different objects in it, and one with very few differentiated objects in it. Even if life did not exist, this universe would contain an exotic variety of matter unevenly distributed. It has been claimed that in order for matter to exhibit these patterns, as opposed to a universe with diffuse and undifferentiated matter, fundamental constants need to have very precise values.

I haven't brought God into this entire three-thread debate, but it seems to be a central preoccupation of a number of people involved. Rocketdodger claims to be exposing my secret agenda. Like a proponent of ID trying to get it taught in the schools, I'm just trying to muddy the waters and destroy science. However, the proponents of anthropic reasoning have been and continue to be scientists, using scientific reasoning, and many of them manage to discuss the issue without using the G word at all.

[fls]

I haven't brought God into this entire three-thread debate, but it seems to be a central preoccupation of a number of people involved. Rocketdodger claims to be exposing my secret agenda. Like a proponent of ID trying to get it taught in the schools, I'm just trying to muddy the waters and destroy science. However, the proponents of anthropic reasoning have been and continue to be scientists, using scientific reasoning, and many of them manage to discuss the issue without using the G word at all.

I think that this is because there is an element of equivocation to this argument. There are several variations in how the anthropic principle is used, and the one used to rationalize God beliefs is not the same one that is used for serious scientific speculation. And it seems that theists and apologists only really involve themselves in the discussion of the idea in order to defend the inclusion of "creator" in the list, rather than any other sorts of use of the principle. I think that is where our suspicions arise.

Linda

[fls]

Then I'd like a crib to explain how the atomic explanation of Brownian motion deals with a cosmological hypothesis. Darwin isn't even physics.

The underlying assumption is that the values of the various parameters should be expected to represent a random sample from the population of all possible values. Yet the sample itself has the appearance, not of a random sample, but of a selected sample. Then the question becomes, what sort of process can lead to selection, with the theists and apologists proposing that a creator who just happens to have "human life" as a goal could intentionally select this sample.

My point is that we have many examples whereby what we see does not reflect what we would expect to see from a random sample. And that in all these cases, there is either no selection, or the selection is through a mindless process without intent. Which makes the idea that somehow, in this one case, we should be insisting that both selection and intent can be assumed, and that it must be explained away or else accepted as potentially valid, a puzzlingly invalid suggestion.

A single atom cannot visibly move a particle of pollen. It requires the action of many atoms to visibly move a particle of pollen. If the force exerted by many atoms on each side of a particle of pollen represents a random sample, then the force on one side should be roughly equivalent to the force exerted on the other side and no movement should occur. And yet, we see particles of pollen in constant motion. What gives? The occasions when one side represents an unusual sample, an extraordinarily large or small sample, which is matched by an ordinary sample on the other side, means that the forces are unbalanced and the pollen grain moves. In this case, the movement of the pollen grains represents a series of selected samples, yet there is no selection going on.

The presence of any particular heritable traits in our offspring should represent a random sample of the heritable traits in ourselves. Yet subsequent generations show sustained increases or decreases in the frequency of those traits to the point where subsequent generations are no longer recognizable as having arisen from us. Some traits, instead of representing a random sample, represent a highly selected sample. Is something doing this on purpose? No. Yet for millennia we had the impression that the answer was yes, and a substantial number of people are still unable to rid themselves of this impression. Nevertheless, the selection process is a simple, mindless sorting algorithm which leads to this result.

So, back to our apparently selected sample of constants. The first question is, does this represent a selected sample? If yes, the second question is, what is the selection process? The third question is, is that selection process capricious? If yes, the next question is, is that capriciousness associated with intention? If yes, the next question is, is there any way to associate that intention with the presence of humans in advance? If yes, the next question is, is there any way to associate that intention with specific observations made by humans and used to form the idea 'God'? Since we have never yet had to go beyond the third question, it seems a bit unreasonable to insist that the answer to the sixth question is relevant.

The relevance to cosmology is that an apparently selected sample may not have been the result of selection, and that it seems like symmetry breaking should be an example of this type of sampling process. And even if it were selected, selection processes that are mindless can give us the impression of intent, such that our impressions have no evidentiary value.

Linda

[Miss_Kitt]

I didn't see an option I was comfortable with. I'd take the position, "We are able to ask questions because the Universe is as it is--that is, its characteristics allowed the Solar System to form; the Earth/Moon system to develop; and, ultimately, human life to develop and intelligence to evolve."

I almost went with the "Physics unity" option, but the phrasing implies that ultimately it all comes down to one unifying force or attribute, and I don't think that has been demonstrated yet. It would be emotionally satisfying for there to be One Underlying Rule, I think, but so far it has not been demonstrated. I would not be surprised for the number of fundamental Laws to be less than a dozen, but I don't think that a single 'wellspring' likely exists.

Conversely, the whole "just happens" approach seems to me in its wording to imply that the Universe is utterly random, and since there are demonstrable physical laws, that doesn't work either.

The Universe is the way it is; because it is the way it is, we are the way we are and can ask questions about it. There is a point in exploring the 'why' of physical phenomena where the question stops being meaningful; it's more an applied "How?" The implied search for meaning in "Why?" is not part of my worldview.

Stepping off my soapbox now, Miss_Kitt

[Dr Adequate]

I haven't brought God into this entire three-thread debate, but it seems to be a central preoccupation of a number of people involved. No, no, you didn't mention God, perish the thought. Just a creator who designed the Universe: but as you didn't use "the G word", this has nothing to do with the religious beliefs that you just coincidentally happen to have.

[westprog]

No, no, you didn't mention God, perish the thought. Just a creator who designed the Universe: but as you didn't use "the G word", this has nothing to do with the religious beliefs that you just coincidentally happen to have.

Is this thread going to have no value apart from a demonstration of the ad hominem fallacy?

Clearly you, Rocketdodger and some others have an ingrained belief system which means that you can't deal with my arguments just as arguments. That's a pity, but it doesn't affect the arguments.

[Dancing David]

I do adress teh argument, too many parameters are unknown, the contraints might or might not exist, they might be design they might be happenstance, too many unknowns.

The universe is very cool. Like Eddington's Limit.

[porch]

I didn't see an option I was comfortable with. I'd take the position, "We are able to ask questions because the Universe is as it is--that is, its characteristics allowed the Solar System to form; the Earth/Moon system to develop; and, ultimately, human life to develop and intelligence to evolve."

I almost went with the "Physics unity" option, but the phrasing implies that ultimately it all comes down to one unifying force or attribute, and I don't think that has been demonstrated yet. It would be emotionally satisfying for there to be One Underlying Rule, I think, but so far it has not been demonstrated. I would not be surprised for the number of fundamental Laws to be less than a dozen, but I don't think that a single 'wellspring' likely exists.

Conversely, the whole "just happens" approach seems to me in its wording to imply that the Universe is utterly random, and since there are demonstrable physical laws, that doesn't work either.

The Universe is the way it is; because it is the way it is, we are the way we are and can ask questions about it. There is a point in exploring the 'why' of physical phenomena where the question stops being meaningful; it's more an applied "How?" The implied search for meaning in "Why?" is not part of my worldview.

Stepping off my soapbox now, Miss_Kitt

That agrees with my thoughts on the poll. Option 2 seemed appealing to me at first, but I couldn't really make sense of "deep underlying unity". Physics is a way to describe the universe. The universe is.

I almost begrudgingly took #8 (begrudgingly because it implies that all the above have equal footing, whereas some seemed more likely than others, and some had no meaning to me whatsoever) but I got hung up on the meaning of the word "possible". (I seem to recall someone in another thread, maybe Gate2501?, give a breakdown of the different possible meanings of possible.) To me, all the above are possibly possible, that is to say, perhaps possible, but I only have limited knowledge. As far as I know, some of those options may be impossible.

I also almost took the final option - "The question is irrelevant and indicative of personality disorder" - yet, while I know the OP is being cheeky, Westprog, I don't know you well enough to know if I'm playing along with your joke, or being roped into being used as fodder by agreeing to the personality disorder part. Also, relevancy is subjective. I find the premise of FT to be illogical and misleading, but at the same time, I'm here debating it for fun, so it's not irrelevant to me. And people are illogical all the time. I do it myself on a regular basis. It's not a personality disorder, it's human nature. Don't beat yourself up over it, Westprog. :D

[porch]

Perhaps there are proponents of the anthropic principle who like to dwell on the self-awareness aspect, but that's a less persuasive argument than the difference between a universe with a lot of different objects in it, and one with very few differentiated objects in it. Even if life did not exist, this universe would contain an exotic variety of matter unevenly distributed. It has been claimed that in order for matter to exhibit these patterns, as opposed to a universe with diffuse and undifferentiated matter, fundamental constants need to have very precise values.

I haven't brought God into this entire three-thread debate, but it seems to be a central preoccupation of a number of people involved. Rocketdodger claims to be exposing my secret agenda. Like a proponent of ID trying to get it taught in the schools, I'm just trying to muddy the waters and destroy science. However, the proponents of anthropic reasoning have been and continue to be scientists, using scientific reasoning, and many of them manage to discuss the issue without using the G word at all.

I'm beginning to be stumped on what your position actually is on this matter. Sorry for not paying attention, as you've probably made it clear either in this thread or in another FT thread, but could you, for my benefit, state explicitly what you think? How did you vote in the poll?

[Dr Adequate]

Is this thread going to have no value apart from a demonstration of the ad hominem fallacy?

Clearly you, Rocketdodger and some others have an ingrained belief system which means that you can't deal with my arguments just as arguments. That's a pity, but it doesn't affect the arguments. Your ad hominem attack, while amusing, is irrelevant to anything I've actually posted.

[westprog]

Your ad hominem attack, while amusing, is irrelevant to anything I've actually posted.

Since you've quite explicitly attached motivations and beliefs to my arguments and used them as a reason why what I say should not be taken at face value, I think it's about as appropriate an example of ad hom as I can think of. It reminds me of the creationists who say that Dawkins only supports evolution because he's an atheist.

[westprog]

I'm beginning to be stumped on what your position actually is on this matter. Sorry for not paying attention, as you've probably made it clear either in this thread or in another FT thread, but could you, for my benefit, state explicitly what you think? How did you vote in the poll?

All of the above are possible. As I've already said, there might be some better options selected, but the purpose of the poll was really to focus the argument.

[Dancing David]

Well, it doesn't really focus the argument because it is about something else.

There are some formal statements that can be made about the FTA:
1. The universe's constants are precise and and change in them would not work. (Strong FTA)
2. The universe's constants are capable of small variation before they don't work. (Weak GTA)
3. The universe's contants appear to be capable of a small range of variation. (Neutral FTA)
4. the appearance of the small constraints on the constants is appearance only we do not know enough to draw a conclusion. (Agnostic FTA)

Now these seem to me to be the statemets of the FTA, aside from any creation or design.

Are they reasonable?

[fls]

Is this thread going to have no value apart from a demonstration of the ad hominem fallacy?

Clearly you, Rocketdodger and some others have an ingrained belief system which means that you can't deal with my arguments just as arguments. That's a pity, but it doesn't affect the arguments.

The reason for mentioning God is that without it, your inclusion of the option for "a creator designed the Universe with the purpose of supporting complexity and the emergence of Intelligence" becomes even more bereft of meaning. By itself it has no meaning (for the reasons I've outlined previously - a just so story only has explanatory potential if it is formed before one discovers which characteristics it just happens to have). The only thing that saves it a little bit is if it is related to a pre-existing idea - i.e. the idea of God. I bring up God, not because it is meant to be an insult, but rather because it is a necessary component to any claim that it is valid to include Creator on that list.

Now, if you truly are uninterested in God and are interested only in the use of the Anthropic Principle, then simply remove the Creator option from your list. If some of us find the illegitimacy of that option too distracting to get to your main point, then simply remove the distraction. If you pick the low-lying fruit for us, we'll bring out the ladder to get the rest.

Linda

[westprog]

The reason for mentioning God is that without it, your inclusion of the option for "a creator designed the Universe with the purpose of supporting complexity and the emergence of Intelligence" becomes even more bereft of meaning. By itself it has no meaning (for the reasons I've outlined previously - a just so story only has explanatory potential if it is formed before one discovers which characteristics it just happens to have). The only thing that saves it a little bit is if it is related to a pre-existing idea - i.e. the idea of God. I bring up God, not because it is meant to be an insult, but rather because it is a necessary component to any claim that it is valid to include Creator on that list.

Now, if you truly are uninterested in God and are interested only in the use of the Anthropic Principle, then simply remove the Creator option from your list. If some of us find the illegitimacy of that option too distracting to get to your main point, then simply remove the distraction. If you pick the low-lying fruit for us, we'll bring out the ladder to get the rest.

Linda

You might find the possibility that the universe is a created object an unacceptable possibility, but if you want it treated differently to the other options - simulation, multiverse etc - you'll need to convince me precisely why it's not possible.

I can imagine thousands of years from now, wandering tribesmen stumbling on Mount Rushmore. They might well have a debate on how four weathered faces appear to be carved out of the mountain. I don't think that they would be justified in using philosophical reasons for deciding that they couldn't have been deliberately created.

In any case, the reason for including the option is that it is part of the standard list. As I said, I merely cut and pasted the main anthropic possibilities.

[westprog]

Well, it doesn't really focus the argument because it is about something else.

There are some formal statements that can be made about the FTA:
1. The universe's constants are precise and and change in them would not work. (Strong FTA)
2. The universe's constants are capable of small variation before they don't work. (Weak GTA)
3. The universe's contants appear to be capable of a small range of variation. (Neutral FTA)
4. the appearance of the small constraints on the constants is appearance only we do not know enough to draw a conclusion. (Agnostic FTA)

Now these seem to me to be the statemets of the FTA, aside from any creation or design.

Are they reasonable?

The fine tuning observation is that the constants need to have an extremely precise value in order to produce the observed effects. This is not a hypothetical matter - it's just an observation. Then it's a matter of figuring out why.

The essence of anthropic reasoning is that it's very unlikely that the constants could have had values randomly chosen from a range. That's why the various explanations given above are necessary.

[westprog]

That agrees with my thoughts on the poll. Option 2 seemed appealing to me at first, but I couldn't really make sense of "deep underlying unity". Physics is a way to describe the universe. The universe is.


I find option #1 potentially almost meaningless, in that it can apply in conjunction with the other options. What I think that it implies is that the apparent patterns observed in the physical constants do not require any explanation, and that no such explanation should be sought. Option #2 seems to say that there is a need for an explanation, and that physics should address the matter, and that it is possible that some underlying law of physics might explain why the physical constants have the values they do. This is just my personal interpretation though.

This is not the same thing as looking for an ultimate law of physics, or a descent into metaphysics.


I almost begrudgingly took #8 (begrudgingly because it implies that all the above have equal footing, whereas some seemed more likely than others, and some had no meaning to me whatsoever) but I got hung up on the meaning of the word "possible". (I seem to recall someone in another thread, maybe Gate2501?, give a breakdown of the different possible meanings of possible.) To me, all the above are possibly possible, that is to say, perhaps possible, but I only have limited knowledge. As far as I know, some of those options may be impossible.

I also almost took the final option - "The question is irrelevant and indicative of personality disorder" - yet, while I know the OP is being cheeky, Westprog, I don't know you well enough to know if I'm playing along with your joke, or being roped into being used as fodder by agreeing to the personality disorder part. Also, relevancy is subjective. I find the premise of FT to be illogical and misleading, but at the same time, I'm here debating it for fun, so it's not irrelevant to me. And people are illogical all the time. I do it myself on a regular basis. It's not a personality disorder, it's human nature. Don't beat yourself up over it, Westprog. :D

The joke refers to Rocketdodger's claim that the people who happen to disagree with him are dishonest and/or uneducated. I think it's a silly enough thing to say that it's not actually worth arguing about. We should have no problem accepting that honest, educated people can disagree on many subjects, and that an explanation that one person finds convincing might not persuade another.

[fls]

You might find the possibility that the universe is a created object an unacceptable possibility,

I have no feelings one way or the other beforehand. I simply think that the question benefits from a rational approach.

but if you want it treated differently to the other options - simulation, multiverse etc - you'll need to convince me precisely why it's not possible.

I'm not asking for it to be treated differently. I'm asking why we can't simply take a rational approach to the question. A rational approach excludes ideas without logical consistency or without empirical grounding.

I can imagine thousands of years from now, wandering tribesmen stumbling on Mount Rushmore. They might well have a debate on how four weathered faces appear to be carved out of the mountain. I don't think that they would be justified in using philosophical reasons for deciding that they couldn't have been deliberately created.

Of course not. I would hope that they would simply take a rational approach and figure out that their ancestors carved it.

In any case, the reason for including the option is that it is part of the standard list. As I said, I merely cut and pasted the main anthropic possibilities.

If you have no interest in the idea, then why no simply discard it, so that you're not obliged to address our criticisms?

Linda

[rocketdodger]

I'm beginning to be stumped on what your position actually is on this matter. Sorry for not paying attention, as you've probably made it clear either in this thread or in another FT thread, but could you, for my benefit, state explicitly what you think? How did you vote in the poll?

Westprog, along with Malerin, are our resident "wedge" strategy test cases.

They are going to avoid straight answers to any questions that might compromise their end goal of sneaking God in on the back of otherwise rational arguments.

[fls]

The fine tuning observation is that the constants need to have an extremely precise value in order to produce the observed effects. This is not a hypothetical matter - it's just an observation. Then it's a matter of figuring out why.

The essence of anthropic reasoning is that it's very unlikely that the constants could have had values randomly chosen from a range. That's why the various explanations given above are necessary.

My own observation is that speculating in the absence of evidence accomplishes little except wasting resources (I don't mean playing around on an internet forum, but rather scientific investigation). What I mean is that skipping ahead several steps by assuming the answers leads us astray in a way that collecting the answers as we go along does not. On this issue, we are skipping over the following steps:

Does the use of the anthropic principle* provide a useful explanatory framework?
Are the values of the parameters a random sample from the population of possible values?
If not, are they a selected sample?
If so, what is that selection process?

The use of the anthropic principle as an explanatory framework does not yet seem to be established. The only prediction assigned to that principle so far seems to be Hoyle's prediction about the formation of carbon. And to be honest, that same prediction could have been made by simply observing that there was a lot of carbon about (no need to bring in the idea that somebody wanted it). The idea has been around for quite a while now, but it doesn't seem to generate any useful hypotheses. Compare that to the idea of pathological states in medicine or sexual selection in biology for generating hypotheses.

Even if we establish that the values do not represent a random sample, the lack of any evidence that the anthropic principle is useful would preclude attacking the problem using that tool. We'd be better off invoking symmetry or some of our other tools.

So what you are really asking us is...if, contrary to available evidence, the anthropic principle is a useful explanatory framework, and if, contrary to available evidence, the values of these parameters do not represent a random sample, and if, contrary to available evidence, the selection process has a goal, and if, contrary to available evidence, the goal for the selection process involves conscious intent, would this idea be possible?

It has been my observation, though, that getting so far ahead of ourselves means that we come up with all sorts of ideas that aren't necessary. The evidence used to answer the first question ends up guiding our next steps, instead of using our guesses (usually wrong) as to what the answer might be to guide them. All the ideas that we came up with to explain the ways in which various illnesses were manifestations of imbalances in the four humours turned out to be an unnecessary waste of time as following the evidence led us to discover that there weren't even four humours to begin with.

So when I see this, I have to ask, why the departure from rationality?

Linda

*By this I mean the original anthropic principle, not the bastardized version which generated the list that you copied.

[Dancing David]

The fine tuning observation is that the constants need to have an extremely precise value in order to produce the observed effects. This is not a hypothetical matter - it's just an observation. Then it's a matter of figuring out why.

The essence of anthropic reasoning is that it's very unlikely that the constants could have had values randomly chosen from a range. That's why the various explanations given above are necessary.

How can you say 'precision' when you do not know the underlying mechanisms.
It is just as likely that they are natural points of balance between the forces. But that is speculation as well. how do you know:

1. There is a possibility of variation in the constants?
2. The level of variability amongst the constants?

These are two crucial points to the FTA, how do you demonstrate them? How have you shown either to be true, do you have evidence or just your assertion?

You can not demonstrate that the universe's constants are fine tuned in any way. You cans ay you belioeve that they have the appearance of fine tuning, but now deomonstrate it: What experiment can you design to demonstrate it?

How do you know that it is not just happenstance.

I now you want to ignore my points, but it still stands.

[Beth]

I'm beginning to be stumped on what your position actually is on this matter. Sorry for not paying attention, as you've probably made it clear either in this thread or in another FT thread, but could you, for my benefit, state explicitly what you think? How did you vote in the poll?

Westprog, along with Malerin, are our resident "wedge" strategy test cases.

They are going to avoid straight answers to any questions that might compromise their end goal of sneaking God in on the back of otherwise rational arguments.


Not everyone agrees with this assessment. I don't see any more reason to suspect them of having ulterior motives for posting what they do than I see reason to have similar suspicions of those arguing for the opposite position. While it's true that sometimes people are not entirely aware of the reasons they may do things, that's a statement that applies equally well to those who want to exclude consideration of the option of a creator from the discussion as those that disagree with them.

[fls]

Westprog, along with Malerin, are our resident "wedge" strategy test cases.

They are going to avoid straight answers to any questions that might compromise their end goal of sneaking God in on the back of otherwise rational arguments.

But that's what gets me. There's nothing holding them back from using God. It's not like it changes the argument - at issue is the Creator who just happens to intend to make intelligent life. It matters not at all what name this Creator has. And if they want to use their arguments in a place where use of the word 'God' is banned, all they have to go back and substitute 'Designer' (or whatever the word du jour is) wherever the word 'God' appears. But using it here won't get them into any trouble, other than accidentally giving the appearance of honesty, because we're going to recognize when they are describing God anyway.

Linda

[rocketdodger]

Not everyone agrees with this assessment. I don't see any more reason to suspect them of having ulterior motives for posting what they do than I see reason to have similar suspicions of those arguing for the opposite position. While it's true that sometimes people are not entirely aware of the reasons they may do things, that's a statement that applies equally well to those who want to exclude consideration of the option of a creator from the discussion as those that disagree with them.

Yes this is all true.

On the other hand, I would put you in the same category as them, so ... lets just say that I find it to be more than mere coincidence that you are the first to reply on their behalf.

[rocketdodger]

But that's what gets me. There's nothing holding them back from using God. It's not like it changes the argument - at issue is the Creator who just happens to intend to make intelligent life. It matters not at all what name this Creator has. And if they want to use their arguments in a place where use of the word 'God' is banned, all they have to go back and substitute 'Designer' (or whatever the word du jour is) wherever the word 'God' appears. But using it here won't get them into any trouble, other than accidentally giving the appearance of honesty, because we're going to recognize when they are describing God anyway.

Linda

I think it is more that they realize there is a clear rational limit to what one can infer about God.

It might be rational -- might be -- to speculate about a universal creator, or even designer of life.

It is clearly not rational, unless one has the level of education of 10 year old, to speculate about things like this entity being "Male", or "preferring" a certain type of person, or setting up some kind of "afterlife" where individuals go if they have been "good," and all the other dogma that humans have come up with over thousands of years of storytelling.

Now it is not necessarily *bad* to speculate about such things, it just isn't rational.

So in a rational discussion, it is probably smart to leave all the dogma at the door and only bring in what can genuinely be argued about. And I am not saying Malerin or westprog actually subscribe to any of that dogma -- in fact I bet they don't, given how intelligent they are. But certainly when any of us atheists see the word "God" we subconsciously think "oh, jeez, this person is a fool who buys into all that BS, etc." And I think the intelligent theists on these forums know this and are smart enough to keep quiet about it.

[westprog]

I have no feelings one way or the other beforehand. I simply think that the question benefits from a rational approach.



I'm not asking for it to be treated differently. I'm asking why we can't simply take a rational approach to the question. A rational approach excludes ideas without logical consistency or without empirical grounding.



I agree. However, I don't think that the created universe hypothesis has any less empirical grounding or logical consistency than the multiverse or simulation hypotheses.


Of course not. I would hope that they would simply take a rational approach and figure out that their ancestors carved it.



If you have no interest in the idea, then why no simply discard it, so that you're not obliged to address our criticisms?

Linda

I didn't say that I disagreed with the idea, or wanted to exclude it - I simply mean that it wasn't an arbitrary choice of mine to include it, but an accepted part of the anthropic model.

You're perfectly welcome to indicate that you don't find it an acceptable alternative for you.

[fls]

I think it is more that they realize there is a clear rational limit to what one can infer about God.

It might be rational -- might be -- to speculate about a universal creator, or even designer of life.

It is clearly not rational, unless one has the level of education of 10 year old, to speculate about things like this entity being "Male", or "preferring" a certain type of person, or setting up some kind of "afterlife" where individuals go if they have been "good," and all the other dogma that humans have come up with over thousands of years of storytelling.

Now it is not necessarily *bad* to speculate about such things, it just isn't rational.

So in a rational discussion, it is probably smart to leave all the dogma at the door and only bring in what can genuinely be argued about. And I am not saying Malerin or westprog actually subscribe to any of that dogma -- in fact I bet they don't, given how intelligent they are. But certainly when any of us atheists see the word "God" we subconsciously think "oh, jeez, this person is a fool who buys into all that BS, etc." And I think the intelligent theists on these forums know this and are smart enough to keep quiet about it.

To be honest, I usually assume that they don't buy into all that BS. I didn't really think of the possibility that they were avoiding use of the word so as not to have to discuss the red-herring of dogma, but now that you mention it, I can see why they wouldn't, if that was their usual experience.

I was just thinking that you can't get from "Creator" to "supporting complexity and the emergence of Intelligence" without invoking something which is already familiar to us. Because otherwise there's no reason to suggest that a Creator has Intelligence as a goal. They need God or the argument falls even further into disarray (if that's possible).

Linda

[westprog]

But that's what gets me. There's nothing holding them back from using God. It's not like it changes the argument - at issue is the Creator who just happens to intend to make intelligent life. It matters not at all what name this Creator has. And if they want to use their arguments in a place where use of the word 'God' is banned, all they have to go back and substitute 'Designer' (or whatever the word du jour is) wherever the word 'God' appears. But using it here won't get them into any trouble, other than accidentally giving the appearance of honesty, because we're going to recognize when they are describing God anyway.

Linda

I honestly don't understand why you are so wedded to this idea of God being the only possible creator. I assume that by God we mean an omnipotent being responsible for all of creation. I also assume that by creator we mean some kind of intelligent being responsible for what we call the universe, which would turn out to be part of some greater omniverse.

There's no logical necessity for the one to imply the other. Both can co-exist in parallel - one can have this universe created by some non-omnipotent aliens, and the omniverse created by God. We can have the aliens without God, and we can have God without the aliens.

But because you've deduced from previous posts that Beth and I, among others, have certain beliefs, you can't accept the arguments that we are actually putting forward, and have made up a story in which we are hiding our God ideas like ID proponents concealing their creationist agenda.

As to the idea that a being capable of creating this universe being effectively equivalent to God - no, obviously not. It's just a higher level of technology, that's all. Creating a universe that splits off from an existing universe might be difficult (or indeed impossible) but it's a different thing altogether from creating everything from nothing.

[fls]

I agree. However, I don't think that the created universe hypothesis has any less empirical grounding or logical consistency than the multiverse or simulation hypotheses.

I think that they are similarly "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" questions as they are not evidence-driven. Their only advantage is that we have pre-knowledge about how they may possibly behave based on the existence of man-made simulations and on multiple sample selections.

I didn't say that I disagreed with the idea, or wanted to exclude it - I simply mean that it wasn't an arbitrary choice of mine to include it, but an accepted part of the anthropic model.

You're perfectly welcome to indicate that you don't find it an acceptable alternative for you.

That wasn't the point of your poll though (although, science by consensus could be useful - modifying gravity would have its uses). Other than being a parody, it seemed to be formed in order to get an idea of how a group of people who'd be inclined to consider themselves rational, approach questions about the unknown, probably with the hope that at least a few would choose your approach (which I would guess you consider rational). Maybe you also hoped that we'd be forced to fight our own kind. :)

Linda

[westprog]

Yes this is all true.

On the other hand, I would put you in the same category as them,

We accept you. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C4uTEEOJlM&feature=related)

[fls]

I honestly don't understand why you are so wedded to this idea of God being the only possible creator. I assume that by God we mean an omnipotent being responsible for all of creation. I also assume that by creator we mean some kind of intelligent being responsible for what we call the universe, which would turn out to be part of some greater omniverse.

No, I actually mean God as represented in my sig - in this case, as a capricious creative force. God doesn't have to be omnipotent or responsible for all of creation. It needs to be capable of affecting the outcome of which values are set, it needs to have some pre-knowledge of what the outcomes will be, and it needs to choose which outcomes it is attempting to achieve. It doesn't need any of the other baggage we usually associate with the Judeo-Christian god. It doesn't even need to be a single entity.

There's no logical necessity for the one to imply the other. Both can co-exist in parallel - one can have this universe created by some non-omnipotent aliens, and the omniverse created by God. We can have the aliens without God, and we can have God without the aliens.

But because you've deduced from previous posts that Beth and I, among others, have certain beliefs, you can't accept the arguments that we are actually putting forward, and have made up a story in which we are hiding our God ideas like ID proponents concealing their creationist agenda.

Beth says that she is agnostic. Malerin says that he is a theist. I don't know what/if you believe, but it doesn't matter. Y'all are either talking about a capricious creative force, or you're not. It doesn't matter if you actually have beliefs related to it. And I apologize. It didn't occur to me that you would be worried about avoiding all that other baggage, since it actually hadn't been raised in these threads.

As to the idea that a being capable of creating this universe being effectively equivalent to God - no, obviously not. It's just a higher level of technology, that's all. Creating a universe that splits off from an existing universe might be difficult (or indeed impossible) but it's a different thing altogether from creating everything from nothing.

Right. But it gets you absolutely nowhere, since now you are stuck with explaining so much complexity that the apparent selection of a handful of constants is a trivial issue in comparison.

Linda

[westprog]

Yeah, we don't live in Heaven or Paradise. Far from it.

Is this the "If I were God, pi would be 3" argument?

[rocketdodger]

I was just thinking that you can't get from "Creator" to "supporting complexity and the emergence of Intelligence" without invoking something which is already familiar to us. Because otherwise there's no reason to suggest that a Creator has Intelligence as a goal. They need God or the argument falls even further into disarray (if that's possible).

Ah, yes, I would agree with that as well. There is no reason to assume a creator would favor life over any other outcome, unless ...

[Gate2501]

Ah, yes, I would agree with that as well. There is no reason to assume a creator would favor life over any other outcome, unless ...

Maybe the creator has a vested interest in life existing, maybe it is tied to his own existence! Perhaps some day mankind will "give birth" to some kind of God-Thing. An uber space-faring machine intelligence which never dies, only grows and learns. One day this being will realize that it must create itself by traveling back in time(it has teh technology), causing the big bang with precise parameters!

This is the thread about Xenogears fan fiction right? Wait...

[westprog]

No, I actually mean God as represented in my sig - in this case, as a capricious creative force.



That could be somebody's dad. I don't think it represents


God doesn't have to be omnipotent or responsible for all of creation. It needs to be capable of affecting the outcome of which values are set, it needs to have some pre-knowledge of what the outcomes will be, and it needs to choose which outcomes it is attempting to achieve.



All it needs to be able to do is to affect what the constants are going to be. The outcome we can already figure out ourselves by running cosmological models, which is how the issue arose in the first place.

Such a being(s) need not necessarily want to produce life. They might just want to produce planets, or black holes, and life was a fun byproduct.


It doesn't need any of the other baggage we usually associate with the Judeo-Christian god. It doesn't even need to be a single entity.

Which to me means that it doesn't have to be divine.



Beth says that she is agnostic. Malerin says that he is a theist. I don't know what/if you believe, but it doesn't matter. Y'all are either talking about a capricious creative force, or you're not. It doesn't matter if you actually have beliefs related to it. And I apologize. It didn't occur to me that you would be worried about avoiding all that other baggage, since it actually hadn't been raised in these threads.



Right. But it gets you absolutely nowhere, since now you are stuck with explaining so much complexity that the apparent selection of a handful of constants is a trivial issue in comparison.

Linda

It's a perennial problem when enumerating possible solutions that some of them might not lend themselves to easy analysis.

[rocketdodger]

It's a perennial problem when enumerating possible solutions that some of them might not lend themselves to easy analysis.

You are now implying not only that an analysis of God could somehow be equivalent to an analysis of anything else but also that these kinds of obstacles have been encountered before in other rational arguments.

It is this kind of statement that raises red flags and leads me to think there is some kind of wedge strategy at play here. You do this all the time.

[Dancing David]

I agree. However, I don't think that the created universe hypothesis has any less empirical grounding or logical consistency than the multiverse or simulation hypotheses.





And that is my point, it is all moot. The universe might be fine tuned, it might not be , we can't tell.
The universe might be created, the universe might not be created, we can't tell.

Moot, moot, moot.

[porch]

Well, I must say, I find the constants to be quite nice. Nice weather we've been having lately, too.

;)

[arthwollipot]

I can imagine thousands of years from now, wandering tribesmen stumbling on Mount Rushmore. They might well have a debate on how four weathered faces appear to be carved out of the mountain. I don't think that they would be justified in using philosophical reasons for deciding that they couldn't have been deliberately created.Hellooooo Paley!

[fls]

That could be somebody's dad.

Well, no. It obviously couldn't. If we were talking about something so easily achievable that somebody's dad could do it, why would anyone build an elaborate argument out of it? The whole point of the apparently selected sample of constants is that it seems to be extra-ordinary, something which is beyond our capability and understanding. However you want to consider that, it's the kind of thing that we attribute to God, if we are inclined to anthropomorphize entities.

All it needs to be able to do is to affect what the constants are going to be. The outcome we can already figure out ourselves by running cosmological models, which is how the issue arose in the first place.

No. The point isn't that constants can be selected. We already know that this happens through random processes. The point is that there is some reason that this particular set (or something close to it) is selected. The whole point of this entity is intention, not selection.

Such a being(s) need not necessarily want to produce life. They might just want to produce planets, or black holes, and life was a fun byproduct.

Right. Intention is the key. Whether you choose to disingenuously suggest that the subject of that intention is something other than humans makes no difference to the argument.

Which to me means that it doesn't have to be divine.

No one said it had to be divine. In fact, by the time we figure out what it was, even the most devoted believer would probably be disinclined to consider it divine. After all, we don't consider Gravity and Electromagnetism divine, even though prior to their discovery we considered their effects the work of a divine entity.

It's a perennial problem when enumerating possible solutions that some of them might not lend themselves to easy analysis.

I agree with Rocketdodger on this. Your statement demonstrates just why my concerns are relevant. From an ordinary rational/scientific approach, claims are being made and ideas are being defended which have little to no validity. The list you chose to publish is not a list of ideas which are generated by a scientific consideration of the anthropic principle, but rather a list generated once the principle is hijacked by religious interests. The anthropic principle itself has not been established to have any usefulness as a framework from which one can make predictions. The example given (Hoyle and carbon) does not need any relation between life and carbon in order to make the prediction. It only needs the observation that there is plenty of carbon about - the anthropic principle adds absolutely nothing to the prediction that mere observation doesn't already tell us.

And then you come up with the above statement, as though postulating a whole new set of layers of complexity with aliens and unknown technologies and omniverses, is something we have encountered as a matter of course (or ever) when "enumerating possible solutions", instead of pure ********.

We are presented with a list which hijacks a scientific principle, a scientific 'principle' which hasn't yet managed to be useful, defended by transparently lame comparisons to other ideas. It begs the question. What is the point of this exercise besides disingenuousness?

Linda

[westprog]

That could be somebody's dad. I don't think it represents



what we call "God".



Which to me means that it doesn't have to be divine.


Interestingly I'm listening to Richard Dawkins on the BBC right this second. He was just asked about the possibility of a sufficiently powerful alien being - wouldn't that be equivalent to God? He emphatically said no.

Not that it proves anything, but it's nice when the supreme being intervenes in that way.


It's a perennial problem when enumerating possible solutions that some of them might not lend themselves to easy analysis.

[westprog]

Well, no. It obviously couldn't.


I think your definition could.

[fls]

I think your definition could.

Like all definitions, if one wishes to entirely ignore the spirit of the definition, one can refuse to understand it.

It is unlikely that a dad (although I suppose at this point it is my duty to say "define dad") would be worthy as the subject of a religion, although the subject of a religion may happen to also be a dad.

I threw that in so that you could continue to avoid addressing any of the pertinent criticisms directed to you. I'm nice that way. But not nice enough to fail to notice what you are doing.

Linda

[westprog]

Like all definitions, if one wishes to entirely ignore the spirit of the definition, one can refuse to understand it.


I think I get the spirit of the definition, though I don't think it's remotely applicable, except in a vague Von Daniken sense, to Aliens of considerable but purely scientific capabilities that nobody is worshipping.


It is unlikely that a dad (although I suppose at this point it is my duty to say "define dad") would be worthy as the subject of a religion, although the subject of a religion may happen to also be a dad.


I suspect that small children may well regard one or both parents as godlike, though they get over it quick.


I threw that in so that you could continue to avoid addressing any of the pertinent criticisms directed to you. I'm nice that way. But not nice enough to fail to notice what you are doing.

Linda

Yes, it's all part of my plan to spread chaos among the atheists and to usher in a taliban-style theocracy.

[westprog]

The list you chose to publish is not a list of ideas which are generated by a scientific consideration of the anthropic principle, but rather a list generated once the principle is hijacked by religious interests.


You can verify exactly where I obtained the options by perusing the Wikipaedia article, where you will find that I simply pasted each option in. You might quibble as to the agenda of the cosmologists who compiled the lists, but for me to decide to censor the options would have been highly perverse. They were selected by Paul
Davies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies) so if you have a problem take it up with him.

[fls]

I think I get the spirit of the definition, though I don't think it's remotely applicable, except in a vague Von Daniken sense, to Aliens of considerable but purely scientific capabilities that nobody is worshipping.

I don't think we would worship aliens. What has that to do with it? The point is that "Creator" is an option that could be God whereas none of the others could be. It isn't that it is something we would necessarily worship, it's that it serves as something which believers and apologists could justify as being the thing that they have been worshiping or rationalizing all along. Regardless of whether "Creator" is aliens or God or Q, the option itself is simply a 'just so' story which is indistinguishable from the first option.

Linda

[fls]

You can verify exactly where I obtained the options by perusing the Wikipaedia article, where you will find that I simply pasted each option in. You might quibble as to the agenda of the cosmologists who compiled the lists, but for me to decide to censor the options would have been highly perverse. They were selected by Paul
Davies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies) so if you have a problem take it up with him.

Paul Davies has simply compiled a list of the various uses the anthropic argument has been put to. Of course it's going to include religious uses. It's not like anyone can get away with failing to consider God, especially in the United States.

Linda

[westprog]

I don't think we would worship aliens. What has that to do with it? The point is that "Creator" is an option that could be God whereas none of the others could be.


So you'd like your creator explicitly uncapitalised? Fine, differentiate between the two options. I see no need to discard one just in order to hide the other.


It isn't that it is something we would necessarily worship, it's that it serves as something which believers and apologists could justify as being the thing that they have been worshiping or rationalizing all along. Regardless of whether "Creator" is aliens or God or Q, the option itself is simply a 'just so' story which is indistinguishable from the first option.

Linda

It doesn't matter if it's a "just so" story. If the intention is to provide a comprehensive list of alternatives, the created universe option cannot be omitted.

There's no physical theory backing any of the explanations. All of them have their problems, especially "the universe is just the way it is".

[fls]

So you'd like your creator explicitly uncapitalised? Fine, differentiate between the two options. I see no need to discard one just in order to hide the other.

I was merely following the convention for capitalization (proper names, titles, religious terms). There is no need to distinguish (indeed, there is no way to distinguish them) between these options because they are all equivalently non-explanatory and useless. My point is that if one wonders why on earth anyone would think to include several useless and non-explanatory options on a list which purportedly is meant to be about searching for explanations, one need only consider whether its inclusion would serve the purpose of apologetics.

Your insistence on defending this particular option only increases the suspicion that this is your purpose as well.

It doesn't matter if it's a "just so" story. If the intention is to provide a comprehensive list of alternatives, the created universe option cannot be omitted.

Which makes it clear that this is not really meant to be a list which offers up rational alternatives to a question which doesn't even seem to need asking.

There's no physical theory backing any of the explanations. All of them have their problems, especially "the universe is just the way it is".

Exactly. There isn't any evidence that the question needs to be asked in the first place. And our attempts to answer the question anyway do not speak to any physical theories, nor do they generate any useful hypotheses. This tells us fairly clearly that this line of inquiry is baseless.

Linda