The "fine-tuned universe" argument

[TubbaBlubba]

Aside from the entire issue of begging the question, I've always found it a bit baffling that people take this argument seriously.

It's a bit akin to drawing a circle, and then claiming the following:

"Here is a circle. The diameter times pi is the circumference. Pi is an irrational number with a definitive value. It is slightly larger than 3.1415. Now, if pi was exactly 3.1415, drawing a circle would be impossible according to the mathematical rules. Thus, someone must have fine-tuned the value of pi. This someone must have been an unimaginably powerful being which we call God. Thus, God exists. Q.E.D."


Or, in a slightly less stale tone,

"Reality is reality, ergo God. Q.E.D."


I could maybe see the the point of someone claiming that the Earth is fine-tuned for life (however fallacious it is), but starting to argue from the very foundations of reality? I mean, isn't it incredibly thick-headed to think that you could possibly predict what changing, say, G or the strong force would amount to given the current state of physics?

[DC]

hehe i like that analogy.

[StuBob]

okay Tubba. Your clever circle argument has convinced my that God exists.

Actually, I like your analogy better than the lame one I usually use. Suppose you toss a dart across the room at a dartboard. There are so many possible locations it could land (but for me, of course, none of these possible locations includes the bullseye). What are the amazing chances it can land in the one spot it landed? Its a miracle.

[Earthborn]

The fine tuning argument is an argument made by physicists who note that certain universal constants have a specific value, but they don't know why those don't have another value. They can however predict what sort of universe might result from a different value (they are not thick headed) and predict that such a different universe is unlikely to contain life as we know it.

It is not really comparable to the value of Pi, which we know can only have one value in Euclidean geometry, and a different value certainly doesn't make circles impossible in other geometries.

What Creationists often forget about the fine tuning argument, is that it states that the universe seems fine tuned for the evolution of life.

[DC]

The fine tuning argument is an argument made by physicists who note that certain universal constants have a specific value, but they don't know why those don't have another value. They can however predict what sort of universe might result from a different value (they are not thick headed) and predict that such a different universe is unlikely to contain life as we know it.

It is not really comparable to the value of Pi, which we know can only have one value in Euclidean geometry, and a different value certainly doesn't make circles impossible in other geometries.

What Creationists often forget about the fine tuning argument, is that it states that the universe seems fine tuned for the evolution of life.

is it?

[Malerin]

The fine tuning argument is an argument made by physicists who note that certain universal constants have a specific value, but they don't know why those don't have another value. They can however predict what sort of universe might result from a different value (they are not thick headed) and predict that such a different universe is unlikely to contain life as we know it.

It is not really comparable to the value of Pi, which we know can only have one value in Euclidean geometry, and a different value certainly doesn't make circles impossible in other geometries.

What Creationists often forget about the fine tuning argument, is that it states that the universe seems fine tuned for the evolution of life life as we know it.

Small changes to just the fine-structure constant results in a universe that would be incapable of supporting every example of life we've ever discovered (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Delving_Into_The_Fine_Structure_Constant_999.html) .

[TubbaBlubba]

The fine tuning argument is an argument made by physicists who note that certain universal constants have a specific value, but they don't know why those don't have another value. They can however predict what sort of universe might result from a different value (they are not thick headed) and predict that such a different universe is unlikely to contain life as we know it.

Oh, but as we do not have a unified theory of physics (or anything in place of it) we have no way of predicting how changing those values would affect others.

[Earthborn]

Oh, but as we do not have a unified theory of physics (or anything in place of it) we have no way of predicting how changing those values would affect others.That's a bit like claiming that as long as we don't have solved all mathematical problems, we can't predict from the value of Pi that circles will be round. We know that a hypothetical universe with certain values won't form stars, or won't form elements higher than hydrogen and helium and stuff like that. Physicists can darn well predict some very fundamental characteristics of universes with different values for its fundamental constants. What a unified theory may do is answer what causes those values to be what they are.

[Earthborn]

is it?I imagine that an omnipotent being could create a universe with stars, planets and life in pretty much any sort of universe, even one where stars and planets would not arise naturally. The "fine tuned universe" idea suggests that the conditions were just right for those things to arise naturally.

[PDoug]

okay Tubba. Your clever circle argument has convinced my that God exists.

Actually, I like your analogy better than the lame one I usually use. Suppose you toss a dart across the room at a dartboard. There are so many possible locations it could land (but for me, of course, none of these possible locations includes the bullseye). What are the amazing chances it can land in the one spot it landed? Its a miracle.


And what established the laws and the complex world that we live in that makes it possible for you to throw darts in the first place? Did this utterly complex and sophisticated world arise by chance? Prove it. If we know that the only way for us to create simple to complex computer simulated worlds is via increasingly intelligent endeavor, why do think intelligent endeavor was not required to make our own world which is infinitely more complex?

[Lord Emsworth]

And what established the laws and the complex world that we live in that makes it possible for you to throw darts in the first place?

Well, what did? Be specific.

And what are the chances of just that happening?

And what do you conclude from it?

[TubbaBlubba]

That's a bit like claiming that as long as we don't have solved all mathematical problems, we can't predict from the value of Pi that circles will be round. We know that a hypothetical universe with certain values won't form stars, or won't form elements higher than hydrogen and helium and stuff like that. Physicists can darn well predict some very fundamental characteristics of universes with different values for its fundamental constants. What a unified theory may do is answer what causes those values to be what they are.

First, mathemathical equations and values arise from axioms. In mathemathics we expand them, in physics we try to end up with as few fundamental laws as possible. In maths, we don't only know the axioms, we define them. You could perhaps say that the goals of physics is to find the axioms that define reality.

Second, making cosmological simulations with various values of measured factors is valid. However, it is USELESS as an argument for an external power having "tuned" these factors, among other things because we don't know what those factors depend on.

[Earthborn]

However, it is USELESS as an argument for an external power having "tuned" these factors, among other things because we don't know what those factors depend on.Of course it is a useless argument for a Finetuner, no argument there. But it is not a useless argument because we supposedly could not "possibly predict what changing, say, G or the strong force would amount to given the current state of physics" because we can to some extend predict that.

[Dancing David]

This is the best critique of the FTA:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf

[paximperium]

Small changes to just the fine-structure constant results in a universe that would be incapable of supporting every example of life we've ever discovered (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Delving_Into_The_Fine_Structure_Constant_999.html) .
Yes indeed. Life exists within a very narrow band of the constants.
What about it?

[TubbaBlubba]

Of course it is a useless argument for a Finetuner, no argument there. But it is not a useless argument because we supposedly could not "possibly predict what changing, say, G or the strong force would amount to given the current state of physics" because we can to some extend predict that.

Yes, we can understand the immediate changes in the sense that increasing G would make gravity more powerful. However, we don't know if, for instance, G and the strong force relies on the same law. And unless we know how they would affect each other (if at all) we can't really have an existential discussion of their "fine-tuning".

[Skeptic Ginger]

Small changes to just the fine-structure constant results in a universe that would be incapable of supporting every example of life we've ever discovered (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Delving_Into_The_Fine_Structure_Constant_999.html) .But who's to say some bizarre universe simply wouldn't have a different life form in it? If you want to change physics, what stops you from changing the basics of life? Our inability to imagine?

[PDoug]

Well, what did? Be specific.

And what are the chances of just that happening?

And what do you conclude from it?


The scriptures assert that all things that exist are intelligent beings, and that creation is a gigantic assembly of these beings. In other words, things like thought are actually beings which we manipulate to contemplate our world. Now think about it. Thoughts resemble species we are familiar with, like e.g. dogs. There are dogs that have a range of capabilities, and excel in certain areas of endeavor. There are thoughts (e.g. about philosophy, art, science) that have ranges of capabilities, resemble one another, and have their own unique qualities when examined among people, etc. Thoughts aren't random. If you have a thought about philosophy, it is a virtual certainty that someone else, somewhere, has the same, or very similar thought. Therefore for all intents and purposes, thought can be considered a life form that lives within us symbiotically, and gives us certain capacities - just like many other physical organisms that live within us symbiotically.

Look at the thing called death. Death happens in what we familiarly call living organisms according to a set of rules. For you to die, a limited number of causes must cause your body to fail. And death only comes via these limited amount of causes. There is therefore organization behind death, and the claim that death is actually an organization of beings which establish death in familiarly living things, is consistent with what we see.

Therefore the scriptural claim that our universe is a complex organization of beings, that we perceive a certain way because of our limited perception, sounds reasonable to me, and is the best explanation I can find.

[paximperium]

The scriptures assert that all things that exist are intelligent beings, and that creation is a gigantic assembly of these beings. In other words, things like thought are actually beings which we manipulate to contemplate our world. Now think about it. Thoughts resemble species we are familiar with, like e.g. dogs. There are dogs that have a range of capabilities, and excel in certain areas of endeavor. There are thoughts (e.g. about philosophy, art, science) that have ranges of capabilities, resemble one another, and have their own unique qualities when examined among people, etc. Thoughts aren't random. If you have a thought about philosophy, it is a virtual certainty that someone else, somewhere, has the same, or very similar thought. Therefore for all intents and purposes, thought can be considered a life form that lives within us symbiotically, and gives us certain capacities - just like many other physical organisms that live within us symbiotically.

Look at the thing called death. Death happens in what we familiarly call living organisms according to a set of rules. For you to die, a limited number of causes must cause your body to fail. And death only comes via these limited amount of causes. There is therefore organization behind death, and the claim that death is actually an organization of beings which establish death in familiarly living things, is consistent with what we see.

Therefore the scriptural claim that our universe is a complex organization of beings, that we perceive a certain way because of our limited perception, sounds reasonable to me, and is the best explanation I can find.
Nothing beats unsupported assertions based on an interpretation of a myth and arguments from personal ignorance.

[NobbyNobbs]

Douglas Adams likens it to a puddle of water.The water looks around and thinks, ''What a marvelous place. So many beautiful, wonderous things. And this hole I'm in, it fits me perfectly! It's exactly suited to my particular dimensions. If it were deeper or narrower, I couldn't exist as I am now. If this street weren't here, the hole wouldn't be here at all! In fact, it seems as if the entire universe was designed in such a way just so I could exist.''

[Earthborn]

And unless we know how they would affect each other (if at all) we can't really have an existential discussion of their "fine-tuning".I think there is a good chance that even if we do know how they affect each other, we can't really have an existential discussion of their "fine tuning". If we know how they affect each other, we don't know how they started affecting each other in that exactly that way. And if we know that, there will undoubtedly be even more fundamental questions.

[Skwinty]

Douglas Adams likens it to a puddle of water.The water looks around and thinks, ''What a marvelous place. So many beautiful, wonderous things. And this hole I'm in, it fits me perfectly! It's exactly suited to my particular dimensions. If it were deeper or narrower, I couldn't exist as I am now. If this street weren't here, the hole wouldn't be here at all! In fact, it seems as if the entire universe was designed in such a way just so I could exist.''

That is a perfect summary of the egotistical idea that the the universe was created specifically for our existence.

Douglas Adams hit the jackpot with those words.

[TubbaBlubba]

I think there is a good chance that even if we do know how they affect each other, we can't really have an existential discussion of their "fine tuning". If we know how they affect each other, we don't know how they started affecting each other in that exactly that way. And if we know that, there will undoubtedly be even more fundamental questions.

Yes, exactly.

[Earthborn]

The scriptures assert that all things that exist are intelligent beings,Which scriptures are those? Which verses?

For you to die, a limited number of causes must cause your body to fail. And death only comes via these limited amount of causes.Actually there are a lot more ways to die than there are ways to stay alive. Even in this universe "fine tuned for life" your body has to work very hard to keep living.

[Cavemonster]

I suppose it depends on what scale you're looking at the universe.
From the perspective of an ant, if a million things hadn't happened exactly right, I would not have dropped my sandwich, and their colony would have starved to death. If the rock I tripped on had been a little smaller I wouldn't have tripped, if it had been a little bigger, I would have seen it. If the girl by the tree had been a little uglier, I wouldn't have been distracted, if she had been a little hotter, I would have been too intimidated to look. Clearly a god who loves the ant colony decided all these factors!

On the wide scale of the universe, life is a tiny accident. Everything we've ever built and even the highest mountains we climb still leave barely a bump on the surface of our planet which is smoother than a marble. If the universe is as large as we believe it is, there are likely other anomalies, strange chemical doohickies completely unlike life but with far more impact. Fine tuning presupposes the importance of life. "There must be a god because we're so unlikely!" The survival of the ant colony was unlikely too. Any arrangement of the universe is unlikely, therefore there is nothing unlikely about whatever arrangement happens to occur.

Any sequence of 1000 coinflips is astoundingly unlikely, if you calculate the odds the way fine tuning enthusiasts do. Yet I assure you, if you flip a coin 1000 times, you will get one of those sequences of heads and tails. It is pure narcissism to assume that our unlikely existence proves the universe purposeful, as opposed to the unlikely existence of any other phenomena.

[PDoug]

Nothing beats unsupported assertions based on an interpretation of a myth and arguments from personal ignorance.


The assertion comes from a credible source, is logically coherent, and is the best explanation there is. I certainly did not present everything, but if you look into the matter further, you will see where it is credible. Besides, do you have a better explanation? You cannot possibly tell me that the answer lies in science, because science is a bunch of blind guys hopelessly feeling around an elephant, trying to figure out what it is. Science categorically cannot tell us about our universe, because it cannot produce anything close to an accurate description - due our gross perception problems, and our imperfect minds (which can only produce imperfect results).

[Skwinty]

The assertion comes from a credible source, is logically coherent, and is the best explanation there is. I certainly did not present everything, but if you look into the matter further, you will see where it is credible. Besides, do you have a better explanation? You cannot possibly tell me that the answer lies in science, because science is a bunch of blind guys hopelessly feeling around an elephant, trying to figure out what it is. Science categorically cannot tell us about our universe, because it cannot produce anything close to an accurate description - due our gross perception problems, and our imperfect minds (which can only produce imperfect results).

This sounds like the explanation from a Baptist preacher.

[DC]

The assertion comes from a credible source, is logically coherent, and is the best explanation there is. I certainly did not present everything, but if you look into the matter further, you will see where it is credible. Besides, do you have a better explanation? You cannot possibly tell me that the answer lies in science, because science is a bunch of blind guys hopelessly feeling around an elephant, trying to figure out what it is. Science categorically cannot tell us about our universe, because it cannot produce anything close to an accurate description - due our gross perception problems, and our imperfect minds (which can only produce imperfect results).

so you agree that Genesis 1:27 is nonsense?

[rocketdodger]

There is no data concerning the likelihood of any value of any constant.

End of discussion.

[Resume]

The assertion comes from a credible source, is logically coherent, and is the best explanation there is. I certainly did not present everything, but if you look into the matter further, you will see where it is credible. Besides, do you have a better explanation? You cannot possibly tell me that the answer lies in science, because science is a bunch of blind guys hopelessly feeling around an elephant, trying to figure out what it is. Science categorically cannot tell us about our universe, because it cannot produce anything close to an accurate description - due our gross perception problems, and our imperfect minds (which can only produce imperfect results).

Yes. The mythology of Bronze Age goat-herders is much more logical and coherent.

[PDoug]

so you agree that Genesis 1:27 is nonsense?


Genesis is highly cryptic. The text, The Apocryphon of John (http://hidden-scriptures.blogspot.com/2006/04/apocryphon-of-john.html), gives a more straightforward account of creation.

[PDoug]

This sounds like the explanation from a Baptist preacher.


Then Baptist preachers are wise men indeed. :)

[PDoug]

Yes. The mythology of Bronze Age goat-herders is much more logical and coherent.


It is not so much the worldly credentials of a man you should look out for, it is his track record of deeds, behavior, and speech.

[Malerin]

But who's to say some bizarre universe simply wouldn't have a different life form in it?

You mean like this?

http://www.shared-vision.com/img/spaghetti1812.jpg

;)

[Bob Klase]

It is not so much the worldly credentials of a man you should look out for, it is his track record of deeds, behavior, and speech.

It must be impossible for anyone to evaluate track records of deeds, behavior or speech with the massive handicap of gross perception problems and imperfect minds.

[Resume]

It is not so much the worldly credentials of a man you should look out for, it is his track record of deeds, behavior, and speech.

Deeds like scapegoating and ritual human sacrifice? Words that appear to be the rambling utterances of a drifter with a messiah complex?

[Skeptic Ginger]

The assertion comes from a credible source, is logically coherent, and is the best explanation there is. I certainly did not present everything, but if you look into the matter further, you will see where it is credible. Besides, do you have a better explanation? You cannot possibly tell me that the answer lies in science, because science is a bunch of blind guys hopelessly feeling around an elephant, trying to figure out what it is. Science categorically cannot tell us about our universe, because it cannot produce anything close to an accurate description - due our gross perception problems, and our imperfect minds (which can only produce imperfect results).I understand that some very fine physicists and other scientists are nonetheless attempting to fit the evidence to the conclusion that the god they believe in exists. Do you know of any scientist who came up with the arbitrary concept the Universe is fine tuned who were in the category of objective agnostic?

I think the puddle analogy is a good one. The whole concept of the fine tuned universe only comes up as some contrived rationalization of 'evidence' something intelligent supposedly designed the universe.

How about this one: God must have been fine tuned to just the right specs to desire and be able to create the Universe just so including creating just exactly the human life forms. But from that point, it's turtles all the way down. :rolleyes:

In other words, if this discussion was about the Universe and not about claiming there is evidence of gods, then fine. Let's hear that argument.

[Malerin]

Douglas Adams likens it to a puddle of water.The water looks around and thinks, ''What a marvelous place. So many beautiful, wonderous things. And this hole I'm in, it fits me perfectly! It's exactly suited to my particular dimensions. If it were deeper or narrower, I couldn't exist as I am now. If this street weren't here, the hole wouldn't be here at all! In fact, it seems as if the entire universe was designed in such a way just so I could exist.''

Think of it this way: There's to be a special one-time million dollar lottery, just for you. You have to pick thirty numbers, each number being between one and 100. You have to get all thirty numbers right to win. You pick your numbers, and lo and behold you win. What's a more rational conclusion: that you got lucky or someone rigged fine-tuned the lottery in your favor?

[Cavemonster]

Think of it this way: There's to be a special one-time million dollar lottery, just for you. You have to pick thirty numbers, each number being between one and 100. You have to get all thirty numbers right to win. You pick your numbers, and lo and behold you win. What's a more rational conclusion: that you got lucky or someone rigged fine-tuned the lottery in your favor?

For that analogy to be appropriate, the existence of life needs to be viewed as the only possible "win".

[DC]

Genesis is highly cryptic. The text, The Apocryphon of John (http://hidden-scriptures.blogspot.com/2006/04/apocryphon-of-john.html), gives a more straightforward account of creation.
Chinese user manuals are also very cryptic and inaccurate.

and why should i believe those claims made by those ancient people?
they obviously didn't understand what light is.

[fossilhound]

This is a simple teleology or argument from design, and it's an informal logical fallacy.

[paximperium]

Think of it this way: There's to be a special one-time million dollar lottery, just for you. You have to pick thirty numbers, each number being between one and 100. You have to get all thirty numbers right to win. You pick your numbers, and lo and behold you win. What's a more rational conclusion: that you got lucky or someone rigged fine-tuned the lottery in your favor?
One time lottery? Say's who? Not Max Tegmark, or the multitude of cosmologist you love to misquote.

Nope. Here's the actual HONEST analogy based on the hypotheses that cosmologist use and not your cherry picked version:
You get to play the lottery.

You have to pick 30 numbers, some may in fact be totally dependent on another of other numbers that has already been chosen. Not only that, this lottery is played simultaneous, multiple times, in fact an infinite number of times...in fact it may been played before...in fact every possible variation of the outcome actually occurs or has occurred.

What's the rational conclusion:
1)Life was "fine tuned" for this one reality because all the others had other outcomes?
2)Magic man done it?

Anywho Puddle,
So what make's life so special anyway?
Since if we adjust those universal constants stars will cease to form. Since there are more stars than humans in the visible cosmos, it is more rational to conclude that the cosmos must have been "fine tuned" for the formation of stars. Or does the puddle think himself so very important?

[paximperium]

For that analogy to be appropriate, the existence of life needs to be viewed as the only possible "win".
The puddle thinks that only the puddle is important.

[porch]

Think of it this way: There's to be a special one-time million dollar lottery, just for you. You have to pick thirty numbers, each number being between one and 100. You have to get all thirty numbers right to win. You pick your numbers, and lo and behold you win. What's a more rational conclusion: that you got lucky or someone rigged fine-tuned the lottery in your favor?



How did you come to decide that this is in any way analogous to the universe?

Why is it only a "one-time" lottery?

How did you arrive at 30 numbers between one and a hundred, did you just make that up?

Why is it a lottery at all? Why are "random" or "rigged" the only two options? Can't you imagine any other options?

Also, what Cavemonster said.

And now for a free verse poem by a cockroach:




warty bliggens, the toad

i met a toad
the other day by the name
of warty bliggens
he was sitting under
a toadstool
feeling contented
he explained that when the cosmos
was created
that toadstool was especially
planned for his personal
shelter from sun and rain
thought out and prepared
for him

do not tell me
said warty bliggens
that there is not a purpose
in the universe
the thought is blasphemy
a little more
conversation revealed
that warty bliggens
considers himself to be
the center of the same
universe
the earth exists
to grow toadstools for him
to sit under
the sun to give him light
by day and the moon
and wheeling constellations
to make beautiful
the night for the sake of
warty bliggens

to what act of yours
do you impute
this interest on the part
of the creator
of the universe
i asked him
why is it that you
are so greatly favored

ask rather
said warty bliggens
what the universe
has done to deserve me
if i were a
human being i would
not laugh
too complacently
at poor warty bliggens
for similar
absurdities
have only too often
lodged in the crinkles
of the human cerebrum

archy

(Don Marquis, 1927)

[Malerin]

One time lottery? Say's who? Not Max Tegmark, or the multitude of cosmologist you love to misquote.

Nope. Here's the actual HONEST analogy based on the hypotheses that cosmologist use and not your cherry picked version:
You get to play the lottery.

You have to pick 30 numbers, some may in fact be totally dependent on another of other numbers that has already been chosen. Not only that, this lottery is played simultaneous, multiple times, in fact an infinite number of times...in fact it may been played before...in fact every possible variation of the outcome actually occurs or has occurred.

What's the rational conclusion:
1)Life was "fine tuned" for this one reality because all the others had other outcomes?
2)Magic man done it?

Anywho Puddle,
So what make's life so special anyway?
Since if we adjust those universal constants stars will cease to form. Since there are more stars than humans in the visible cosmos, it is more rational to conclude that the cosmos must have been "fine tuned" for the formation of stars. Or does the puddle think himself so very important?

Show me where I've misquoted, or retract the allegation please.

[Lord Emsworth]

The scriptures assert that all things that exist are intelligent beings, and that creation is a gigantic assembly of these beings.

Like rocks for instance?

Or ... What about the fine-tuning constants, huh?

In other words, things like thought are actually beings which we manipulate to contemplate our world. Now think about it. Thoughts resemble species we are familiar with, like e.g. dogs.

OK, let me think about it ... uhmmmm .... No.

There are dogs that have a range of capabilities, and excel in certain areas of endeavor. There are thoughts (e.g. about philosophy, art, science) that have ranges of capabilities, resemble one another, and have their own unique qualities when examined among people, etc. Thoughts aren't random. If you have a thought about philosophy, it is a virtual certainty that someone else, somewhere, has the same, or very similar thought. Therefore for all intents and purposes, thought can be considered a life form that lives within us symbiotically, and gives us certain capacities - just like many other physical organisms that live within us symbiotically.

Look at the thing called death. Death happens in what we familiarly call living organisms according to a set of rules. For you to die, a limited number of causes must cause your body to fail. And death only comes via these limited amount of causes. There is therefore organization behind death, and the claim that death is actually an organization of beings which establish death in familiarly living things, is consistent with what we see.

Therefore the scriptural claim that our universe is a complex organization of beings, that we perceive a certain way because of our limited perception, sounds reasonable to me, and is the best explanation I can find.

Seriously, no. Try again.

[paximperium]

Show me where I've misquoted, or retract the allegation please.
Oh it is completely 100% retracted. (mostly because I couldn't be bothered to find your prior Tegamark posts)

Now would you be so kind as to use this article you cherry picked:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Delving_Into_The_Fine_Structure_Constant_999.html
Oh please show how the findings of this article supports your false assertion about 30 random variables and only 1 single try.
And use it in your wonderful analogy.

How does the fact that life as we know exist within a narrow spectrum of the universal constants of this reality; evidence for a "fine tuner"?
While you're at it, you "forgot" something:
What's the rational conclusion:
1)Life was "fine tuned" for this one reality because all the others had other outcomes?
2)Magic man done it?

Anywho Puddle,
So what make's life so special anyway?
Since if we adjust those universal constants stars will cease to form. Since there are more stars than humans in the visible cosmos, it is more rational to conclude that the cosmos must have been "fine tuned" for the formation of stars. Or does the puddle think himself so very important?

[Lord Emsworth]

Think of it this way: There's to be a special one-time million dollar lottery, just for you. You have to pick thirty numbers, each number being between one and 100. You have to get all thirty numbers right to win. You pick your numbers, and lo and behold you win. What's a more rational conclusion: that you got lucky or someone rigged fine-tuned the lottery in your favor?

Why should anybody/anything rig fine-tune lotteries for no good reason?

[Lord Emsworth]

The assertion comes from a credible source,

The "assertion" comes from you. Or what am I missing?

[noreligion]

And what established the laws and the complex world that we live in that makes it possible for you to throw darts in the first place? Did this utterly complex and sophisticated world arise by chance? Prove it. If we know that the only way for us to create simple to complex computer simulated worlds is via increasingly intelligent endeavor, why do think intelligent endeavor was not required to make our own world which is infinitely more complex?

You do know that scientific laws are descriptions of reality don't you? Also you seem to misunderstand the difference between evidence and proof.

[porch]

I know the mind of God . . . but I'm not telling. Let's just say that We work in mysterious ways.

[rocketdodger]

Think of it this way: There's to be a special one-time million dollar lottery, just for you. You have to pick thirty numbers, each number being between one and 100. You have to get all thirty numbers right to win. You pick your numbers, and lo and behold you win. What's a more rational conclusion: that you got lucky or someone rigged fine-tuned the lottery in your favor?

After years and years of vomiting this (bad) analogy across internet forums, you still haven't explained where you get "each number being between one and 100."

But you brought up the analogy ... again ... so are we to assume that you finally found some evidence regarding the likelihood of any universal constant?

No ... of course we aren't to assume that ... because you and I and everyone else here with half a brain knows darn well that such evidence doesn't exist.

Yet you bring up the analogy again... maybe there are some new forum members that haven't seen your dishonesty yet, eh Malerin?

[marplots]

I think the Universe was rather slightly miss-tuned actually.

Had it been properly tuned, you would be running the Marplots7 OS and I would be a billionaire.

"Missed it by THAT much." -- Maxwell Smart

[Ron_Tomkins]

Aside from the entire issue of begging the question, I've always found it a bit baffling that people take this argument seriously.

It's a bit akin to drawing a circle, and then claiming the following:

"Here is a circle. The diameter times pi is the circumference. Pi is an irrational number with a definitive value. It is slightly larger than 3.1415. Now, if pi was exactly 3.1415, drawing a circle would be impossible according to the mathematical rules. Thus, someone must have fine-tuned the value of pi. This someone must have been an unimaginably powerful being which we call God. Thus, God exists. Q.E.D."

That's a great analogy and I think that if we were to broadcast that analogy, some people would be more eager to see where the fallacy of the fine tuning argument lies. The problem is that to us (even skeptics) it is really hard to "see" (meaning "understand"/"accept") that ALL OF THIS, this whole life and its infinite beauty and complexity wasn't planned nor designed. That none of this has a purpose and that it is as random as the forging of clouds. For someone to accept that argument, two things are required: 1) A basic understanding of science and differentiation of that and its arch-enemy pseudoscience; and 2) A willingness to accept it. The second one is the critical because a great deal of people seriously feel the need to believe that there is a purpose to this thing we call "life" and that without it, everything is meaningless. But once a person has gone beyond this, one can begin to develop a willingness to accept that nature is not that Disney concept that we grew up with. And then, the more complex and existentialist theories can be dealt with.

[Dancing David]

Small changes to just the fine-structure constant results in a universe that would be incapable of supporting every example of life we've ever discovered (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Delving_Into_The_Fine_Structure_Constant_999.html) .

Riddle me this malerin, who says it could be different and that it is possible?

And real evidence. No.

[Dancing David]

The assertion comes from a credible source,
which you didn't give


is logically coherent,

Coherency of nothing=zero, or infinity
and is the best explanation there is.
I certainly did not present everything,

You really did not present anything but speculative assertions.

but if you look into the matter further, you will see where it is credible.

In other words, you don't have anything so you want us to find it?

[Dancing David]

Think of it this way: There's to be a special one-time million dollar lottery, just for you.

That is a big assumption!
What evidence is there that there is any variation possible in the constants?

You have to pick thirty numbers, each number being between one and 100.

That is a big assumption!
What evidence is there that there is any variation possible in the constants?

You have to get all thirty numbers right to win.

That is a big assumption!
What evidence is there that there is any variation possible in the constants?

You pick your numbers, and lo and behold you win.

That is a big assumption!
What evidence is there that there is any variation possible in the constants?

What's a more rational conclusion: that you got lucky or someone rigged fine-tuned the lottery in your favor?

What evidence is there that it was a lottery?

[Dancing David]

Show me where I've misquoted, or retract the allegation please.

Show where there is any evidence of the possibility of variation in the constants?

[noreligion]

Show where there is any evidence of the possibility of variation in the constants?

I'll be surprised if they answer that question here. I been asking it to the wolfpack and unsurprisingly nobody answers but continue to go on as if they answered.

[Dancing David]

Well malerin has learned to be mopre cautious, he quoted some bad science in the past.
Now the fine structire constant is the ratio between the elementary charge esquared devided by the c speed of light time h bar the planck constant.

alpha=e2/(c x hbar)

Now when we have
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Delving_Into_The_Fine_Structure_Constant_999.html


Prof Geim, who in 2004 discovered graphene with Dr Kostya Novoselov, a one-atom-thick gauze of carbon atoms resembling chicken wire, says: "Change this fine tuned number by only a few percent and the life would not be here because nuclear reactions in which carbon is generated from lighter elements in burning stars would be forbidden. No carbon means no life."


There is this assumption that all the factors of the aplha fine structiure constant e, c, hbar and the underlying constants could be somehow different and are not related to each other. It may be that the ratio can not vary.

Now if you read the intro or first chapter to Alan Guth's Inflationary Universe (http://www.amazon.com/Inflationary-Universe-Alan-Guth/dp/0201328402) he talks about the idea that the constants may be the lowest possible energy state for the universe and that it might tend to these values.

[noreligion]

Well malerin has learned to be mopre cautious, he quoted some bad science in the past.
Now the fine structire constant is the ratio between the elementary charge esquared devided by the c speed of light time h bar the planck constant.

alpha=e2/(c x hbar)

Now when we have
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Delving_Into_The_Fine_Structure_Constant_999.html



There is this assumption that all the factors of the aplha fine structiure constant e, c, hbar and the underlying constants could be somehow different and are not related to each other. It may be that the ratio can not vary.

Now if you read the intro or first chapter to Alan Guth's Inflationary Universe (http://www.amazon.com/Inflationary-Universe-Alan-Guth/dp/0201328402) he talks about the idea that the constants may be the lowest possible energy state for the universe and that it might tend to these values.

:D

[paximperium]

Well malerin has learned to be mopre cautious, he quoted some bad science in the past.
Now the fine structire constant is the ratio between the elementary charge esquared devided by the c speed of light time h bar the planck constant.

alpha=e2/(c x hbar)

Now when we have
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Delving_Into_The_Fine_Structure_Constant_999.html



There is this assumption that all the factors of the aplha fine structiure constant e, c, hbar and the underlying constants could be somehow different and are not related to each other. It may be that the ratio can not vary.

Now if you read the intro or first chapter to Alan Guth's Inflationary Universe (http://www.amazon.com/Inflationary-Universe-Alan-Guth/dp/0201328402) he talks about the idea that the constants may be the lowest possible energy state for the universe and that it might tend to these values.I've already brought up the possibility of "self-tuning" variables as well. These so called universal constants are only capable of supporting life/or stars/or carbon etc. if YOU LEAVE ALL THE OTHER VARIABLES THE SAME.

If some of the other variables changes(ie self-tune), then the variables can be so different as to be absurd in our reality(as in tens of thousands of magnitude more or less) but perfectly capable supporting life.

Malerin is also falsely equating Fine tuning as used by cosmologists with whatever nonsense he is insinuating. Whenever they say "fine tuning"(and many of them refuse to use this term because of people like Malerin who love to misuse the term) they mean that the life exist only within a tiny sliver of these constants. They are almost all proponents of the multi-verse hypothesis.

[tsig]

The assertion comes from a credible source, is logically coherent, and is the best explanation there is. I certainly did not present everything, but if you look into the matter further, you will see where it is credible. Besides, do you have a better explanation? You cannot possibly tell me that the answer lies in science, because science is a bunch of blind guys hopelessly feeling around an elephant, trying to figure out what it is. Science categorically cannot tell us about our universe, because it cannot produce anything close to an accurate description - due our gross perception problems, and our imperfect minds (which can only produce imperfect results).

Unless they're inspired of god. Then we get it right.

[tsig]

Think of it this way: There's to be a special one-time million dollar lottery, just for you. You have to pick thirty numbers, each number being between one and 100. You have to get all thirty numbers right to win. You pick your numbers, and lo and behold you win. What's a more rational conclusion: that you got lucky or someone rigged fine-tuned the lottery in your favor?

You beat the odds

That's quite a trick

And God got into your daddy's dick?

[paximperium]

You beat the odds

That's quite a trick

And God got into your daddy's dick?
Of course. He's special. Imagine the odds of one sperm out of an untold bazillion creating his great great granddad. Now imagine next generation and so forth.

Malerin is way more special than any of his ancestor because his existence is even more impossible...using his "logic".

[MattusMaximus]

This is the best critique of the FTA:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf

Yes, Victor Stenger's criticism of the standard fine-tuning arguments are the best I've ever seen. For anyone, whatever your opinion on this topic, interested in really thinking hard about this stuff, Stenger is a must-read.

On another point, I always hear many people who make the FTA state that if this variable or that variable were off by just a tiny bit, then life wouldn't be possible - actually, according the Stenger's calculations (and others) life would be possible because it seems that "fine-tuning" isn't so fine-tuned. Why is it that they only want to look at adjusting one variable at a time? Why not tinker with more than one variable simultaneously and see what happens?

What ends up happening if you do tinker with more than one variable at a time is that you get a lot more possibilities where the universe can evolve for the eventual development of life; so much for "fine-tuning" (at least, it's not nearly so "fine" as many would like us to think). As a matter of fact, Scientific American magazine recently had a really good article on this very question... it's in the January 2010 issue, and the article is called "Looking for Life in the Multiverse" (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=looking-for-life-in-the-multiverse); a related article in the same issue is "Life Quest: Could Parallel Universes Be Congenial to Life?" (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=life-quest)

Cheers - MM

[MattusMaximus]

Small changes to just the fine-structure constant results in a universe that would be incapable of supporting every example of life we've ever discovered (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Delving_Into_The_Fine_Structure_Constant_999.html) .

As someone else pointed out, this assumes that the only form of life possible is that which we've already discovered. I'm not sure that's a good argument to hang your hat on, seeing as how we've only got one data point (Earth).

[paximperium]

Yes, Victor Stenger's criticism of the standard fine-tuning arguments are the best I've ever seen. For anyone, whatever your opinion on this topic, interested in really thinking hard about this stuff, Stenger is a must-read.

Malerin has blown off Stenger as a denialist. I don't know if he has even read any of Stenger's work or articles since he never states what Stenger's arguments are.

He then trots out Max Tegmark and a few other cosmologists that use the term "fine tuning" as a counter to Stenger. Of course once you read deeper into what these cosmologist actually say...

[AlBell]

Yes, Victor Stenger's criticism of the standard fine-tuning arguments are the best I've ever seen. ...


That's the best you've got? Ignoring the irrelevancies of "The Scriptures" and "Jehovah" it doesn't seem like much.

A few quotes from the monologue:

I have also examined the distribution of stellar lifetimes for these same 100 universes
(Stenger 1995, 2000). While a few are low, most are probably high enough to allow time for
stellar evolution and heavy element nucleosynthesis. Over half the universes have stars that live
at least a billion years. Long stellar lifetime is not the only requirement for life, but it certainly is
not an unusual property of universes.
I do not dispute that life as we know it would not exist if any one of several of the
constants of physics were just slightly different. Additionally, I cannot prove that some other
form of life is feasible with a different set of constants. But anyone who insists that our form of
life is the only one conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory.


While quintessence may not turn out to provide the correct explanation for the
cosmological constant problem, it demonstrates, if nothing else, that science is always hard at
work trying to solve its puzzles within a materialistic framework. The assertion that God can be
seen by virtue of his acts of cosmological fine-tuning, like intelligent design and earlier versions of
the argument from design, is nothing more than another variation on the disreputable God-of-thegaps
argument. These rely on the faint hope that scientists will never be able to find a natural
explanation for one or more of the puzzles that currently have them scratching their heads and
therefore will have to insert God as the explanation. As long as science can provide plausible
scenarios for a fully material universe, even if those scenarios cannot be currently tested they are
sufficient to refute the God of the gaps.

if many universes beside our own exist, then the anthropic coincidences are a
no-brainer. Within the framework of established knowledge of physics and cosmology, our
universe could be one of many in a super-universe or multiverse. Linde (1990, 1994) has
proposed that a background space-time "foam" empty of matter and radiation will experience
local quantum fluctuations in curvature, forming many bubbles of false vacuum that individually
inflate into mini-universes with random characteristics. Each universe within the multiverse can
have a different set of constants and physical laws. Some might have life of a form different from
ours; others might have no life at all or something even more complex or so different that we
cannot even imagine it. Obviously we are in one of those universes with life. Other multiverse
scenarios have been discussed by Smith(1990), Smolin(1992, 1997), and Tegmark(2003).

those who desire explicit signs of God in science now look deeper, to highly
sophisticated puzzles like the cosmological constant problem. But, once again, science continues
to progress, and we now have a plausible explanation that does not require fine-tuning. Similarly,
science may someday have a theory from which the values of existing physical constants can be
derived or at otherwise explained.

The fine-tuning argument would tell us that the Sun radiates light so that we can see
where we are going. In fact, the human eye evolved to be sensitive to light from the sun. The
universe is not fine-tuned for humanity. Humanity is fine-tuned to the universe.

Doesn't do much for me one way or the other.

[Java Man]

And what established the laws and the complex world that we live in that makes it possible for you to throw darts in the first place? Did this utterly complex and sophisticated world arise by chance?

I think you have chaos and randomness confused there. Random events are still confined to certain constraints. If you have a bag with 20 red balls and 20 blue balls you have a 50-50 chance of picking a red ball, but 0 (zero) chance of picking a green ball. The fact that things can be random doesn't mean anything can happen. If two pigs mate they will not give birth to a cat. They will also not give birth to a pig that doesn't share genes with his parents. This takes me to the next point in your post.



Prove it. If we know that the only way for us to create simple to complex computer simulated worlds is via increasingly intelligent endeavor, why do think intelligent endeavor was not required to make our own world which is infinitely more complex?

Uhh actually yes. There are genetic algorithms which are made to evolve. They are very helpful in many cases one of which is solving equations. While common mechanisms might fall pray to local minima genetic algorithms can explore the whole solution space (escaping local minima traps through mutation). As far as I understand they are guaranteed to converge to a solution (sooner or later).

Taking a quick glimpse at complexity take the Mandelbrot set defined by (zn+1 = zn2 + c). It is a very simple iteration that leads to a complex set. To quote Wikipedia "[Mandelbrot] set is seen to have an elaborate boundary which does not simplify at any given magnification"

So you have a simple operation that leads to a complex element. Actually so complex it keeps being so complex no matter how much you zoom into it.

Now take a step back and look a the whole picture:

-simple process : evolution by taking parts of a prior element (or two) and iterate once, repeat by taking outcome (offspring) of two said iterations

-lots of time : lots of iterations

You can see how this leads to the complexity we see today. Which isn't chaotic. It is a well defined simple process bound by certain randomness (gene mixing) which is also very well defined.

[rocketdodger]

I been asking it to the wolfpack and unsurprisingly nobody answers but continue to go on as if they answered.

This is pretty much standard behavior for every single individual on these forums who doesn't know what they are talking about.

[Dancing David]

That's the best you've got? Ignoring the irrelevancies of "The Scriptures" and "Jehovah" it doesn't seem like much.

A few quotes from the monologue:

It is a paper, so monlogue would be standard.

Doesn't do much for me one way or the other.

Well then you must be similar on the FTAs as it addresses those.

[refamat]

I imagine that an omnipotent being could create a universe with stars, planets and life in pretty much any sort of universe, even one where stars and planets would not arise naturally. The "fine tuned universe" idea suggests that the conditions were just right for those things to arise naturally.

this could be a ID creationists best argument! god made a bunch of mistakes before he got it right and just left the playground cluttered

[MattusMaximus]

That's the best you've got? Ignoring the irrelevancies of "The Scriptures" and "Jehovah" it doesn't seem like much.

You should also check out the Scientific American articles I referenced.

[MattusMaximus]

this could be a ID creationists best argument! god made a bunch of mistakes before he got it right and just left the playground cluttered

But that would mean they'd have to admit that their god wasn't perfect or somehow flawed - good luck with that :rolleyes:

[paximperium]

So many unanswered questions.

[rocketdodger]

Yep, and now that like 4 of us have called them on it in force, they won't be returning to this thread I bet.

[TimCallahan]

It seems to be the case with many of the six constants Martin Rees referred to in his 1999 book Just Six Numbers, that if they are off the universe that results is rather short-lived. For example, if the one designated by the Greek letter omega is too small, the big bang reverses into the Big Crunch. Perhaps the values of the six constants can only be what they are or the universe will collapse and have to start over.

However, let us say, for the sake of argument, that we know enough about these numbers to say without a doubt that either we are here because of either because of an extremely lucky chance outcome or because of a divine creator. Let us further argue that this creator is far more likely than an outrageous chance. What then?

Apparently, this is a very distant creator, else how can we account for mass extinctions? When I still clung to some shred of a rather deist belief system, I saw evolution as the working out of a divine plan, going from lifelessness to life, from simple to complex, from primitive to intelligent. The big problem with this view is mass extinctions, particularly the Permian extinction, which seems to have wiped out 90% of all land life and very nearly annihilated the mammal-like reptiles. As it was, the Permian extinction may well have forced the mammals to wait for nearly 120 million years before another mass extinction took out the dinosaurs. Thus, we have a 120 million year detour to the evolution of intelligence. this doesn't sound like the work of an intelligent designer. So, we would have fine-tuning of the universe, followed by chaos as a factor in the evolution of life.

Then there's the problem of genocide. I realize that the argument that God gave us free will implies that he doesn't intervene in human affairs. However, I think it's reasonable to posit a god who does limited interventions, allowing the everyday mayhem of murder, rape and robbery, but not allowing whole peoples to be wiped out.

So, if the universe is fine-tuned, the god who fine-tuned it apparently stopped there, allowing evolution to be impacted by massively chaotic events, and leaving us on our own when we are threatened by genocidal tyrants.

[I Am The Scum]

And what established the laws and the complex world that we live in that makes it possible for you to throw darts in the first place?

PDoug, you are arguing that there is some entity that put established these constants. Before we go any further, can you please explain to me what established the capacity for this being to establish these constants in the first place? In other words, who gave God the power to create universes?

[KingMerv00]

If the universe is so fine tuned for life why is the entire universe so good at killing it?

[Mister Agenda]

So the fine-tuned universe hypothesis is that IF the constants could have been other than they are, and IF the number of possible variations were great enough, THEN it would have been improbable for our universe to have come into existence, THEREFORE some being must have arranged for this particular universe to exist?

I must say I'm not very initmidated by this particular threat to the idea of a naturalistic origin for the universe.

[MattusMaximus]

Yep, and now that like 4 of us have called them on it in force, they won't be returning to this thread I bet.

I'm confused, could you be more specific?

[MattusMaximus]

If the universe is so fine tuned for life why is the entire universe so good at killing it?

Or, to put it another way, why is the universe not simply over-run with life? Why so much lifelessness?

[Malerin]

So the fine-tuned universe hypothesis is that IF the constants could have been other than they are, and IF the number of possible variations were great enough, THEN it would have been improbable for our universe to have come into existence, THEREFORE some being must have arranged for this particular universe to exist?

I must say I'm not very initmidated by this particular threat to the idea of a naturalistic origin for the universe.

The FT argument doesn't depend on the constants being fixed or not. As long as we can simuluate universes where the values are different (and we can do this), and the vast vast majority of those universes would not have complex structure and/or life as we know it (Tegmark, Rees, Davies, Hawking, etc.), the argument still works:
If the values of the constants are not set, the question arises: why do they have the life-permitting values they have?
If the values of the constants are set, the question remains: why are they set at the values we observe them to have?

For example, "A slightly stronger weak force, and the universe would be 100 percent hydrogen; all the neutrons in the early universe would have decayed, leaving none around to be saved in deuterium nuclei for later use in the synthesizing elements in stars. A slightly weaker weak force, and few neutrons would have decayed, leaving about the same numbers of protons and neutrons; then, all the protons and neutrons would have been bound up in helium nuclei, with two protons and two neutrons in each. This would have led to a universe that was 100 percent helium, with no hydrogen to fuel
the fusion processes in stars." http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf

So either way, you run into an anthropic problem: if the weak force is set, why is it set at the precise value to allow for a wide variety of elements?
If the constants are set, this would also lead to an odd observation about the ensemble universes in a multiverse: they would all be complex long-lasting stellar life-supporting universes. The impossibility of a life-less universe would actually confirm the anthropic principle.

Prima facie fine-tuning is not disputed. Theories to explain it include backwards causation (Davies, Hawking), parallel universes (Tegmark), and possible exotic life-forms (Stenger).


I posted this once. It's worth reposting (by Michio Kaku):

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/268924aa415c810e99.jpg


From the thread: http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5081152
where this was covered exhaustively.

I posted a lot of quotes from experts, which was ironic given the title of the thread.

[paximperium]

Hey a scientist said "fine tuned"!!!

[MattusMaximus]

So, basically, what Malerin just posted means that everything - no matter what - is evidence for a "fine-tuned" universe, as he defines it. Did I read that right?

If so, Malerin, what would falsify your view of the FTA?

[Malerin]

So, basically, what Malerin just posted means that everything - no matter what - is evidence for a "fine-tuned" universe, as he defines it. Did I read that right?

If so, Malerin, what would falsify your view of the FTA?

A sufficiently large number of parallel universes, or a cyclical universe (Big Bang->Big Crunch->Big Bang ad infinitum).

[MattusMaximus]

A sufficiently large number of parallel universes, or a cyclical universe (Big Bang->Big Crunch->Big Bang ad infinitum).

So, to be clear, your contention is that if we can only observe one universe (the one which we inhabit) then there is no way to falsify your view of the FTA?

Second question: define "sufficiently large number of parallel universes" - I'd like a number, please.

[noreligion]

Second question: define "sufficiently large number of parallel universes" - I'd like a number, please.

My bet is his requirement is that it always be 1 more than we see. Which as we all know means his view is not falsifiable ergo it is non-scientific ergo it is a religious belief based on wishful thinking (faith).

[MattusMaximus]

My bet is his requirement is that it always be 1 more than we see. Which as we all know means his view is not falsifiable ergo it is non-scientific ergo it is a religious belief based on wishful thinking (faith).

I was wondering about that, but I'd like to allow Malerin to answer for himself. Malerin, if you cannot pin it down to a specific number, could you toss out a range of numbers?

[Malerin]

I was wondering about that, but I'd like to allow Malerin to answer for himself. Malerin, if you cannot pin it down to a specific number, could you toss out a range of numbers?

Thanks for letting me speak for myself!

Tegmark liberally uses "infinity" to describe the multiverse (http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/multiverse_sciam.pdf). Of course that would defeat the fine-tuning argument. I don't think one parallel universe would be sufficient. Multiverse theories of the type that Tegmark subscribe to postulate a lot of other universes. Personally, if I found out there were millions or billions of parallel universes, I would think it reasonable to conclude we just got lucky. But I'm not an expert on any of this, so I can't give you a precise number. If we could conclusively prove the universe was cyclical, that would also defeat the argument, but as far as I read it, cyclical universe theory is not in the running, at this point.

[Malerin]

So, to be clear, your contention is that if we can only observe one universe (the one which we inhabit) then there is no way to falsify your view of the FTA?

Second question: define "sufficiently large number of parallel universes" - I'd like a number, please.

There's no way to falsify it at the moment, because there's no evidence of other universes. There might never be. Multiverse theory is just an elegant theory at this point. All the evidence we have points to just this one universe. Of course, all the evidence also points to life just existing on Earth. That doesn't make it true. I'm sympathetic to fine-tuning, but I realize that future discoveries may invalidate it.

[noreligion]

I'm sympathetic to fine-tuning, but I realize that future discoveries may invalidate it.

It has already been invalidated but some people are in denial.

[rocketdodger]

I'm confused, could you be more specific?

At least four of us have pointed out, in quite clear language, that all of the "lottery" analogies trolls keep vomiting on this thread -- and others similar to it -- are invalid because there is by definition zero available information about either the domain of any of the constants nor the likelihood of the constants being any value from those domains besides 1) we know the constants can be the value that they are now and 2) we know the likelihood of the constants being those values is nonzero.

In other words, four of us have pointed out that saying "imagine you could choose any number between 1 and 100" is utterly stupid at best and downright dishonest at worst because there is no information anywhere that suggests the value of any constant can be chosen, how it could be chosen, and from what possible values it could be chosen.

But I see that didn't stop Malerin from making the same old stupid post in total -- and intentional -- ignorance of this fact.

Whatever.

[rocketdodger]

If the values of the constants are set, the question remains: why are they set at the values we observe them to have?

But then it is no longer fine-tuning, don't you get that?

The only way it is "fine-tuning" is if the constants could be number of other values. The notion of "set" and "tuned" are not the same.

Basically all you are doing here is claiming "well, if the constants are set, I still want God around, so I say he somehow set the constants, even though it would be out of his control by definition."

Makes perfect sense, just like the rest of theism.

[ThunderChunky]

Hey a scientist said "fine tuned"!!!

Look up stuff by Sean M. Carrol and Roger Penrose.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/07/08/how-finely-tuned-is-the-universe/

I still don't buy it as a problem that the anthropic principle alone does not solve.

In a video lecture I saw, Carrol makes the argument (which I am very loosely restating) that a conscious floating brain transiently coming into existence, recognizing itself (and the anthropic principle), and then quickly vanishing would be the least entropically disfavorable way for the anthropic principle to be fulfilled, thus (since we are not transient floating brains) the fine tuned universe does raise questions.

The video lecture is out there if somewhere wants to try and understand what his argument is.

[MortFurd]

The assertion comes from a credible source, is logically coherent, and is the best explanation there is. I certainly did not present everything, but if you look into the matter further, you will see where it is credible. Besides, do you have a better explanation? You cannot possibly tell me that the answer lies in science, because science is a bunch of blind guys hopelessly feeling around an elephant, trying to figure out what it is. Science categorically cannot tell us about our universe, because it cannot produce anything close to an accurate description - due our gross perception problems, and our imperfect minds (which can only produce imperfect results).

The guys "feeling around on the elephant" actually have a chance of finding out that they are examining an elephant. The blind guy under the tent calling out to his fellow man to "join me in worshipping the holy whatsit" has absolutely no chance of finding out that it is an elephant. He already knows that it's a "whatsit" and must be worshipped. Who told him? Some old stories in a collection of myths that someone read to him, and that he forgot part of and didn't understand the rest of.

[Dancing David]

If the values of the constants are not set, the question arises: why do they have the life-permitting values they have?
If the values of the constants are set, the question remains: why are they set at the values we observe them to have?



So why do they have to be set, did you read the rest of the Stenger article?

You like the word set, what if "it just happened that way".

[Mister Agenda]

The physical constants ARE constant, the question at issue is whether they could have had other values given different initial conditions or whether they have to be what they are like the ratio of circumfrence to the diameter of a circle has to be pi.

If the latter, all possible universes could only have the same physical constants as ours. If they COULD have varied, we would have to know which ones, by how much, and how changing one affects the values of others before we could meaningfully speculate on odds of life being possible.

Of course if there ARE a very large number of possible universes AND they exist, AND nearly all of them would not permit life as we know it, we would still find ourselves in one that allows our type of life, QED, in which case the odds are pretty much irrelevant.

[rocketdodger]

thus (since we are not transient floating brains) the fine tuned universe does raise questions.

Err, actually, this is a distinct possibility, so no the FT does not raise anything.

[rocketdodger]

So why do they have to be set, did you read the rest of the Stenger article?

You like the word set, what if "it just happened that way".

He will say "but why did it just happen that way?"

It is obvious to an intelligent observer that the FT is really just the result of the inability of certain humans to admit that aspects of existence cannot be explained by mathematics or logic I.E. cannot be explained in a way humans can make sense of.

FT proponent: "I can't understand how this might have happened" --> "it must have been fine tuned to happen like this, because I refuse to accept that human knowledge has limits"

FT opponent: "I can't understand how this might have happened" --> "oh, well we know there are limits to what is understandable, so this must be one of those things."

[TimCallahan]

Let's cut to the chase on the "fine tuning" argument. It involves a series of logical quantum jumps, ultimately ending in:"You'd better accept Jesus as your savior or spend eternity in hell." Here's how the argument goes:

1) Fine Tuning means there must be a God.

2) Atheists only deny God so they can act as immorally as they please.

At this point, many of us who don't believe in God will object that our behavior is as ethical, if not more so, than that of believers. So the argument shifts:

3) Human beings cannot meet God's standard for perfection. No matter how ethically you behave, you will fall short and sin. Therefore, the only hope is to be saved by God's grace.

4) The only religion that understands this is Christianity.

5) Therefore, the fine tuning of the universe means you must accept Jesus.

(Remember, I did say there were quantum leaps in the logic of this argument.)

[paximperium]

I don't much care what version of woo that Malerin believes in. It could be Christianity or God of Urine for all I care.
It's ultimately the same old cowardly nonsense and tactics. It is an inability and refusal to ever spell out their claim. All they can ever do is insinuate.

"The chance of the cosmos is X therefore it is like really unlikely man."
So?
Have some balls to actually make your point instead of hiding behind insinuations.

[LarianLeQuella]

I find the "fine tuned" argument as weak as irriducible complexity... Someone goes out to break a system without really understanding it, and declares victory. QED, goddidit.

There was a fascinating article in Scientific American that discussed a universe that existed without the Weak Force. And it had viable chemistry and billion year stars. That sort of deflates the fine tune argument doesn't it? We totally removed a fundamental force, and things tick along just fine!

And I am looking forward to Victor Stenger's full book on the subject, although I may have to refresh my physics!

[TubbaBlubba]

The FT argument doesn't depend on the constants being fixed or not. As long as we can simuluate universes where the values are different (and we can do this), and the vast vast majority of those universes would not have complex structure and/or life as we know it (Tegmark, Rees, Davies, Hawking, etc.), the argument still works:
If the values of the constants are not set, the question arises: why do they have the life-permitting values they have?
If the values of the constants are set, the question remains: why are they set at the values we observe them to have?

For example, "A slightly stronger weak force, and the universe would be 100 percent hydrogen; all the neutrons in the early universe would have decayed, leaving none around to be saved in deuterium nuclei for later use in the synthesizing elements in stars. A slightly weaker weak force, and few neutrons would have decayed, leaving about the same numbers of protons and neutrons; then, all the protons and neutrons would have been bound up in helium nuclei, with two protons and two neutrons in each. This would have led to a universe that was 100 percent helium, with no hydrogen to fuel
the fusion processes in stars." http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf

So either way, you run into an anthropic problem: if the weak force is set, why is it set at the precise value to allow for a wide variety of elements?
If the constants are set, this would also lead to an odd observation about the ensemble universes in a multiverse: they would all be complex long-lasting stellar life-supporting universes. The impossibility of a life-less universe would actually confirm the anthropic principle.

Prima facie fine-tuning is not disputed. Theories to explain it include backwards causation (Davies, Hawking), parallel universes (Tegmark), and possible exotic life-forms (Stenger).


I posted this once. It's worth reposting (by Michio Kaku):

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/268924aa415c810e99.jpg


From the thread: http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5081152
where this was covered exhaustively.

I posted a lot of quotes from experts, which was ironic given the title of the thread.

Not really relevant. It's still possible that changing the weak force would for instance have some subtle chain effect that allows an entirely different world of chemistry to arise, with say, five quarks fitted together to form a hadron.

So really, you're reaching for an integer in a sea of infinity.

[Malerin]

Not really relevant. It's still possible that changing the weak force would for instance have some subtle chain effect that allows an entirely different world of chemistry to arise, with say, five quarks fitted together to form a hadron.

So really, you're reaching for an integer in a sea of infinity.

Anything's possible. Fairies might exist in a universe with only Hydrogen atoms. The experts, however, disagree with you:

The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Now, you started this thread. Are you actually going to present evidence, or just ramble some more?

[rocketdodger]

now, you started this thread. Are you actually going to present evidence, or just ramble some more?

lol !!!!!!!!!

[MattusMaximus]

There's no way to falsify it at the moment, because there's no evidence of other universes. There might never be. Multiverse theory is just an elegant theory at this point. All the evidence we have points to just this one universe. Of course, all the evidence also points to life just existing on Earth. That doesn't make it true. I'm sympathetic to fine-tuning, but I realize that future discoveries may invalidate it.

Okay, fine. But then, by your own admission above, you must also acknowledge that the FTA then falls outside the category of scientific investigation. If there's no way to currently falsify it (i.e. there's no way to test it), and you say that all evidence points to only one universe, and you say that is likely to never change, then you must also conclude that it is likely that the FTA, as presented here, will never be falsifiable and hence forever fall outside the realm of scientific investigation.

So, if that's the case, isn't everything you're saying here just mental masturbation at worst or basically just philosophizing at best? It's an interesting discussion, but one I never see being resolved, as you've put the question.

[MattusMaximus]

Anything's possible.

No. Not in this universe, at least.

Fairies might exist in a universe with only Hydrogen atoms.

:confused: What's the point here?

The experts, however, disagree with you:

The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Now, you started this thread. Are you actually going to present evidence, or just ramble some more?

Highlighted for emphasis.

Okay, so you have quoted the standard version of the FTA. And your point is... what, exactly?

[MattusMaximus]

I find the "fine tuned" argument as weak as irriducible complexity... Someone goes out to break a system without really understanding it, and declares victory. QED, goddidit.

There was a fascinating article in Scientific American that discussed a universe that existed without the Weak Force. And it had viable chemistry and billion year stars. That sort of deflates the fine tune argument doesn't it? We totally removed a fundamental force, and things tick along just fine!

Yup, I mentioned this article upthread a bit. It's in the Jan 2010 issue of SA.

And I am looking forward to Victor Stenger's full book on the subject, although I may have to refresh my physics!

When's that due to come out?

[ThunderChunky]

Err, actually, this is a distinct possibility, so no the FT does not raise anything.

But if we are just floating brains, we are floating brains that recognize more than just the anthropic principle...so the universe we are in is supporting more than the minimum fulfillment of the anthropic principle...why is that?

[Dancing David]

Anything's possible. Fairies might exist in a universe with only Hydrogen atoms. The experts, however, disagree with you:

The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Now, you started this thread. Are you actually going to present evidence, or just ramble some more?

Excuse me but this line is specious and you are aware of that:
"values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life"

Fine adjusted means intenet, and if you read the Stenger paper for comprehension you would know that those figure can be changed considerably and still have an existing universe, very much like this one.

So what evidence do you have for the 'adjustment'? Are you actually going to present evidence, or just ramble some more?

And quoting Wikipedia for a Stephen hawkings quote from A Brief History of Time is not evidence. SH has no evidence of 'adjustment' and neither do you.

[Dancing David]

No. Not in this universe, at least.



:confused: What's the point here?



Highlighted for emphasis.

Okay, so you have quoted the standard version of the FTA. And your point is... what, exactly?

he hasn't got a new argument, the arguments he uses were critiqued and found wanting, and there are not new ones.

[TubbaBlubba]

Anything's possible. Fairies might exist in a universe with only Hydrogen atoms. The experts, however, disagree with you:

The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Now, you started this thread. Are you actually going to present evidence, or just ramble some more?

Did you understand what I wrote?

1. Change of unknown effect
2. ?????????
3. Dragons and fairies


If we "change the strong force" we may also change other "fundamental numbers" since we do not know how they arise. Thus it is impossible to make any statements of what "changing the strong force" would amount to, other than the fact that changing the strong force and nothing else (WHICH WE CANNOT SAY IS POSSIBLE OR IMPOSSIBLE) amounts to a world with only hydrogen atoms or similar things.

[Java Man]

2) Atheists only deny God so they can act as immorally as they please.

....

3) Human beings cannot meet God's standard for perfection. No matter how ethically you behave, you will fall short and sin. Therefore, the only hope is to be saved by God's grace.


Actually atheists seem to be the less able to act immorally. Believers being "saved by God's grace" have freedom to act as immorally as they please. Salvation is a function of the acceptance of Jesus. Acceptance of Jesus can only take two values 0 or 1. You either accept him 1 or not 0.

Contrary to atheists and other religions that weigh in ones actions:

salvation=F(ones actions)

Where salvation is a stand in for well being, transcendence, salvation and what not and "ones actions" is the joint set of actions one takes in life. And F is that which takes one's actions and determines ones "salvation".

In the case of Jesus this complex relationship called "personal values" translates to

salvation=F(acceptance of Jesus)

Take into consideration that time is not present here. So I can be a real jerk all my life and still be saved. Pretty much allows you to be as immoral as possible as long as you accept Jesus in the end.

[Malerin]

Did you understand what I wrote?

1. Change of unknown effect
2. ?????????
3. Dragons and fairies


If we "change the strong force" we may also change other "fundamental numbers" since we do not know how they arise. Thus it is impossible to make any statements of what "changing the strong force" would amount to, other than the fact that changing the strong force and nothing else (WHICH WE CANNOT SAY IS POSSIBLE OR IMPOSSIBLE) amounts to a world with only hydrogen atoms or similar things.

Apparently it is possible:

Interesting hints of a Level II multiverse come from the observation that many constants of nature appear fine-tuned for life, having values in the narrow range allowing our existence (if they vary across the multiverse, we'll find ourselves in one of those places where we can exist, and there's no embarrassing fluke coincidence to explain). To check whether there really is fine-tuning, it's therefore interesting to compute what would happen if various constants were different, and I've looked at these effects:
•The effect of changing the dimensionalities of space and time: astro-ph/9702052
•The effect of changing the CMB fluctuation amplitude Q~10-5: astro-ph/9709058
•The effect of changing neutrino masses: astro-ph/0304536
•The effect on changing the dark matter density, dark energy density and CMB fluctuation amplitude: astro-ph/0511774
•The effect of changing the masses of elementary particles: arXiv:0903.1024
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html

It's true that a change in one constant could counteract a change in another. It's also true that aliens could be abducting people as we speak. Are you actually going to post any evidence to back up your claim? Or are you just assuming that whatever is possible is probable?


**It should be noted that unlike Victor Stenger, who is quoted extensively by many people here, Max Tegmark and Michio Kaku have not been retired for the last ten years. Quoting Stenger then must be likened to quoting some hack from the Heritage Foundation in a Global Warming debate. Can't you guys find someone a little more current?

A last quote by Tegmark is revealing:

The taboo of the "A-word'' seem to be weakening in the physics community, as you'll see if you click here to search for anthropic on arxiv.org.
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/anthroneutrino.html

[paximperium]

Apparently it is possible:

Interesting hints of a Level II multiverse come from the observation that many constants of nature appear fine-tuned for life, having values in the narrow range allowing our existence (if they vary across the multiverse, we'll find ourselves in one of those places where we can exist, and there's no embarrassing fluke coincidence to explain). To check whether there really is fine-tuning, it's therefore interesting to compute what would happen if various constants were different, and I've looked at these effects:
•The effect of changing the dimensionalities of space and time: astro-ph/9702052
•The effect of changing the CMB fluctuation amplitude Q~10-5: astro-ph/9709058
•The effect of changing neutrino masses: astro-ph/0304536
•The effect on changing the dark matter density, dark energy density and CMB fluctuation amplitude: astro-ph/0511774
•The effect of changing the masses of elementary particles: arXiv:0903.1024
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html
Yup. What about?

It's true that a change in one constant could counteract a change in another. It's also true that aliens could be abducting people as we speak. Are you actually going to post any evidence to back up your claim? Or are you just assuming that whatever is possible is probable? The irony and hypocrisy of this statement is truly hilarious.


**It should be noted that unlike Victor Stenger, who is quoted extensively by many people here, Max Tegmark and Michio Kaku have not been retired for the last ten years. Quoting Stenger then must be likened to quoting some hack from the Heritage Foundation in a Global Warming debate. Can't you guys find someone a little more current? The day you actually face Stenger's arguments instead of playing your dishonest ad hominem games is the day your "opinion" is even taken seriously.

A last quote by Tegmark is revealing:

The taboo of the "A-word'' seem to be weakening in the physics community, as you'll see if you click here to search for anthropic on arxiv.org.
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/anthroneutrino.htmlYes it is. What does Tegmark mean when he says Anthropic? Be specific. Very very specific.
I'm curious, is any of Tegmark's claims about this Anthropic thingy falsifiable?

[paiute]

Genesis is highly cryptic.

It is not. It is the unadulterated Word of the Lord as delivered to men infused with the Holy Spirit.

You are spreading the deceit of Satan.

[TubbaBlubba]

Apparently it is possible:

Interesting hints of a Level II multiverse come from the observation that many constants of nature appear fine-tuned for life, having values in the narrow range allowing our existence (if they vary across the multiverse, we'll find ourselves in one of those places where we can exist, and there's no embarrassing fluke coincidence to explain). To check whether there really is fine-tuning, it's therefore interesting to compute what would happen if various constants were different, and I've looked at these effects:
•The effect of changing the dimensionalities of space and time: astro-ph/9702052
•The effect of changing the CMB fluctuation amplitude Q~10-5: astro-ph/9709058
•The effect of changing neutrino masses: astro-ph/0304536
•The effect on changing the dark matter density, dark energy density and CMB fluctuation amplitude: astro-ph/0511774
•The effect of changing the masses of elementary particles: arXiv:0903.1024
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html

It's true that a change in one constant could counteract a change in another. It's also true that aliens could be abducting people as we speak. Are you actually going to post any evidence to back up your claim? Or are you just assuming that whatever is possible is probable?


**It should be noted that unlike Victor Stenger, who is quoted extensively by many people here, Max Tegmark and Michio Kaku have not been retired for the last ten years. Quoting Stenger then must be likened to quoting some hack from the Heritage Foundation in a Global Warming debate. Can't you guys find someone a little more current?

A last quote by Tegmark is revealing:

The taboo of the "A-word'' seem to be weakening in the physics community, as you'll see if you click here to search for anthropic on arxiv.org.
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/anthroneutrino.html

You DO realise that unifying all the forces and constants is what physicists have strived to do for several hundred years, right? It's not only possible that they're corellated, it's LIKELY based on what we've seen before (various physical laws emerge from eachother). We have no idea how the creation of a universe, if it even happens, happens. We don't know if these constants are "adjustable".

Sorry, but I don't think you have any understanding of physics based on your posts, you're just quoting a guy who says what you like.

[MattusMaximus]

Excuse me, Malerin, could you please address my question I asked you upthread a bit... (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6238531&postcount=108)

So, to be clear, your contention is that if we can only observe one universe (the one which we inhabit) then there is no way to falsify your view of the FTA?

Second question: define "sufficiently large number of parallel universes" - I'd like a number, please.

There's no way to falsify it at the moment, because there's no evidence of other universes. There might never be. Multiverse theory is just an elegant theory at this point. All the evidence we have points to just this one universe. Of course, all the evidence also points to life just existing on Earth. That doesn't make it true. I'm sympathetic to fine-tuning, but I realize that future discoveries may invalidate it.

Okay, fine. But then, by your own admission above, you must also acknowledge that the FTA then falls outside the category of scientific investigation. If there's no way to currently falsify it (i.e. there's no way to test it), and you say that all evidence points to only one universe, and you say that is likely to never change, then you must also conclude that it is likely that the FTA, as presented here, will never be falsifiable and hence forever fall outside the realm of scientific investigation.

So, if that's the case, isn't everything you're saying here just mental masturbation at worst or basically just philosophizing at best? It's an interesting discussion, but one I never see being resolved, as you've put the question.

Would you please respond to my last point? Specifically, to my charge that - as you have defined the FTA - it will be forever non-falsifiable and therefore not a scientific argument. Thanks in advance.

[Malerin]

Excuse me, Malerin, could you please address my question I asked you upthread a bit... (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6238531&postcount=108)







Would you please respond to my last point? Specifically, to my charge that - as you have defined the FTA - it will be forever non-falsifiable and therefore not a scientific argument. Thanks in advance.

Yeah, might not today though. First day of school and soccer and all.

[Malerin]

you do realise that unifying all the forces and constants is what physicists have strived to do for several hundred years, right? It's not only possible that they're corellated, it's likely based on what we've seen before (various physical laws emerge from eachother). We have no idea how the creation of a universe, if it even happens, happens. We don't know if these constants are "adjustable".

Sorry, but i don't think you have any understanding of physics based on your posts, you're just quoting a guy multiple experts who say what you like.

ftfy.

[TubbaBlubba]

ftfy.

Um, are you actually agreeing to that you don't have any understanding of physics? Can we end that argument here, then? Because multiple people have countered your points in various ways.

[rocketdodger]

But if we are just floating brains, we are floating brains that recognize more than just the anthropic principle...so the universe we are in is supporting more than the minimum fulfillment of the anthropic principle...why is that?

Probably because of the meta-anthropic principle, which is simply the anthropic principle applied to the recognition of the anthropic principle.

[Dancing David]

Apparently it is possible:

Interesting hints of a Level II multiverse come from the observation that many constants of nature appear fine-tuned for life, having values in the narrow range allowing our existence (if they vary across the multiverse, we'll find ourselves in one of those places where we can exist, and there's no embarrassing fluke coincidence to explain). To check whether there really is fine-tuning, it's therefore interesting to compute what would happen if various constants were different, and I've looked at these effects:
•The effect of changing the dimensionalities of space and time: astro-ph/9702052
•The effect of changing the CMB fluctuation amplitude Q~10-5: astro-ph/9709058
•The effect of changing neutrino masses: astro-ph/0304536
•The effect on changing the dark matter density, dark energy density and CMB fluctuation amplitude: astro-ph/0511774
•The effect of changing the masses of elementary particles: arXiv:0903.1024
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html

It's true that a change in one constant could counteract a change in another. It's also true that aliens could be abducting people as we speak. Are you actually going to post any evidence to back up your claim? Or are you just assuming that whatever is possible is probable?


**It should be noted that unlike Victor Stenger, who is quoted extensively by many people here, Max Tegmark and Michio Kaku have not been retired for the last ten years. Quoting Stenger then must be likened to quoting some hack from the Heritage Foundation in a Global Warming debate. Can't you guys find someone a little more current?

A last quote by Tegmark is revealing:

The taboo of the "A-word'' seem to be weakening in the physics community, as you'll see if you click here to search for anthropic on arxiv.org.
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/anthroneutrino.html

Nice spin there dude and still just fluff,.

IF the constants could change. That is a big assumtion, now isn't it and a point you refuse to address.


Are you actually going to post any evidence to back up your claim? Or are you just assuming that whatever is possible is probable?


BTW:

What do you think Tegmark's use of the word hints means?

As is possible suggestion but not proven?
Speculation afetr that.

[Dancing David]

Yeah, might not today though. First day of school and soccer and all.

Time enough for snark... no time for actual debate...

[Dancing David]

ftfy.

Mu, what color shoes do angels wear at the disco on the head of a pin.

[Malerin]

Um, are you actually agreeing to that you don't have any understanding of physics? Can we end that argument here, then? Because multiple people have countered your points in various ways.

I am quoting experts actually working in their fields to support my points. You are bloviating. Anyone reading this can judge for themselves who knows more about physics.

[Malerin]

There's no way to falsify it at the moment, because there's no evidence of other universes. There might never be. Multiverse theory is just an elegant theory at this point. All the evidence we have points to just this one universe. Of course, all the evidence also points to life just existing on Earth. That doesn't make it true. I'm sympathetic to fine-tuning, but I realize that future discoveries may invalidate it.

Okay, fine. But then, by your own admission above, you must also acknowledge that the FTA then falls outside the category of scientific investigation. If there's no way to currently falsify it (i.e. there's no way to test it), and you say that all evidence points to only one universe, and you say that is likely to never change, then you must also conclude that it is likely that the FTA, as presented here, will never be falsifiable and hence forever fall outside the realm of scientific investigation.

Not at all. Does SETI fall outside scientific investigation? We cannot currently confirm or falsify the proposition "aliens exist". Does make it non-scientific? What would SETI be then? Religious?

I have no idea if the evidence will ever point to other universes. It may do so tomorrow. I only know that there is no evidence right now. Scientists continue to write papers and books about fine-tuning. They would be surprised to find out they're not doing any scientific investigation.



So, if that's the case, isn't everything you're saying here just mental masturbation at worst or basically just philosophizing at best? It's an interesting discussion, but one I never see being resolved, as you've put the question.

It will be resolved when/if a sufficiently large multiverse is discovered or if the universe turns out to be cyclical.

[Mister Agenda]

Until then it is just interesting speculation.

[plumjam]

Is the proposition that there are multiple universes a falsifiable proposition?

Perhaps, some time off in the future, it may prove to be a confirmable proposition.
But how would it ever be falsifiable?

In that sense, positing the existence of other universes is a Multiverse Of The Gaps argument, and it is philosophical rather than scientific.

It is also inferior to the FTA in that it posits unkown, perhaps unknowable, and unfalsifiable hypothetical physical 'facts' and then makes a philosophical inference from these.

The FTA merely observes known physical facts and makes a philosophical inference from them... so its basis in reality (and let us not forget that reality includes science ;) ) is enormously stronger.

[TubbaBlubba]

I am quoting experts actually working in their fields to support my points. You are bloviating. Anyone reading this can judge for themselves who knows more about physics.

Aha. So, explain to me. How does the strong force arise, and how would changing the constant affect the physics of it?

[paximperium]

Is the proposition that there are multiple universes a falsifiable proposition?

Perhaps, some time off in the future, it may prove to be a confirmable proposition.
But how would it ever be falsifiable?

In that sense, positing the existence of other universes is a Multiverse Of The Gaps argument, and it is philosophical rather than scientific.

It is also inferior to the FTA in that it posits unkown, perhaps unknowable, and unfalsifiable hypothetical physical 'facts' and then makes a philosophical inference from these. Yup. It's all math.

Similar to all of this so called playing around with constants and stuff that is the basis for Mal's Fine Tuning claim. Looks like you think his claim is complete and utter bunk as well.

The FTA merely observes known physical facts and makes a philosophical inference from them... so its basis in reality (and let us not forget that reality includes science ;) ) is enormously stronger.
Really? What may those "facts" be? Be specific.

[Mister Agenda]

I can tell you what is not a known physical fact: that the physical constants could have been other than what they are.

[DC]

This planet does not have the conditions he has because we are here, we are here because this planet has the conditions it has.

[Mister Agenda]

Note that if the physical constants only have one possible configuration, it doesn't rule out other universes, it just means those universes would have the same physical constants as our own.

[Robin]

Is the proposition that there are multiple universes a falsifiable proposition?
Is the proposition that there is only one universe a falsifiable proposition.
Perhaps, some time off in the future, it may prove to be a confirmable proposition. But how would it ever be falsifiable?
There might be any number of ways it would be falsiable if physical evidence was ever forthcoming.

But at the moment neither the multiverse nor the "fine tuner" are anything more than speculation.
In that sense, positing the existence of other universes is a Multiverse Of The Gaps argument, and it is philosophical rather than scientific.

It is also inferior to the FTA in that it posits unkown, perhaps unknowable, and unfalsifiable hypothetical physical 'facts' and then makes a philosophical inference from these.

The FTA merely observes known physical facts and makes a philosophical inference from them... so its basis in reality (and let us not forget that reality includes science ;) ) is enormously stronger.
Actually both conjectures observe known physical facts and make philosophical inferences from them.

They both posit unknown and perhaps unknowable 'facts'.

Or is an intelligent fine-tuner a known fact?

The two conjectures differ only in parsimony. They both posit some sort of universe causing mechanism.

The intelligent fine tuner conjecture posits that the mechanism has a vast intelligent brain.

The multiverse conjecture posits only that the mechanisms operation is something that can happen many times. That makes it more parsimonious.

If the known fact is "there is at least one X", then the conjecture "there is exactly one X" is just as unparsimonious as "there are more than one X".

In fact I don't think we have need of either conjecture. There is still a lot more proper science that has to be done before we will have enough knowledge to make hypotheses about such things.

[Robin]

It will be resolved when/if a sufficiently large multiverse is discovered or if the universe turns out to be cyclical.
Or if we find that the Universe can be explained entirely in terms of itself.

Or if we find that time really did begin at the Big Bang.

Or if we find that the question of what exists apart from our Universe (if anything) turns out not to easily dovetail with the intuitions derived from naive realism.

[plumjam]

Is the proposition that there is only one universe a falsifiable proposition.
I think this is unkown at present. Like I said, other universes may be confirmable in the future.

There might be any number of ways it would be falsiable if physical evidence was ever forthcoming.
You are talking about falsifying the multiverse theory.
To falsify the multiverse theory, logically, any physical evidence would be coming from this universe.
How would physical evidence from this universe be capable of falsifying the existence of other universes?

But at the moment neither the multiverse nor the "fine tuner" are anything more than speculation.
The multiverse is speculation about imaginary physical facts.
The atheistic conclusion drawn from the imagined existence of the multiverse is the philosophical inference being made.

The FTA is a philosophical inference being made about known physical facts in this universe.

Actually both conjectures observe known physical facts and make philosophical inferences from them.
No, they don't.
Has a multiverse been observed yet?
No.
So no.

They both posit unknown and perhaps unknowable 'facts'.
I was referring to physical facts in the universe. If you want to try to twist that into a description of God, then that's not only wrong, but dishonest too.

Or is an intelligent fine-tuner a known fact?
It is to some people. But that is a different type of knowledge from the knowledge we glean about the physical universe. You are playing word games, and it hasn't worked.

The two conjectures differ only in parsimony. They both posit some sort of universe causing mechanism.
How does the multiverse theory posit some sort of universe causing mechanism?
And what is it?


The intelligent fine tuner conjecture posits that the mechanism has a vast intelligent brain.
Not at all. The inference simply posits intelligence at work. A brain is a physical object within this universe, that is associated with intelligent behaviours.
If God was a physical object with a big brain then he would be within space-time-matter-energy, would be a contingent being, and thus would not fit the definition of God.
But you were just being silly, (I hope).

The multiverse conjecture posits only that the mechanisms operation is something that can happen many times. That makes it more parsimonious.
What 'mechanism' ?
If the 'mechanism' is God, God may equally have created an enormous number of other fine tuned universes.
So it doesn't help you.

I propose one mechanism (God), you propose another (that you haven't described).
1-1
No parsimony in your favour.

If the known fact is "there is at least one X", then the conjecture "there is exactly one X" is just as unparsimonious as "there are more than one X".
Except that in the multiverse theory its only 'explanatory' power is derived from the X of this universe being not the same X as other multiple universes.
The Xs have to be different wrt universal constants or the argument doesn't work.
Therefore, each different universe is the addition of a new and different entity.. and usually these entities are quoted as being in numbers upwards of billions.
So that's a terrible parsimony fail.

In fact I don't think we have need of either conjecture. There is still a lot more proper science that has to be done before we will have enough knowledge to make hypotheses about such things.
Unfortunately for your position, the more that's learnt about this physical universe the more these constants resemble what one would expect from a fine tuner at work. Science is pushing things in my direction.
Yee-haa.

[paximperium]

What 'mechanism' ?
If the 'mechanism' is God, God may equally have created an enormous number of other fine tuned universes.
So it doesn't help you.

I propose one mechanism (God), you propose another (that you haven't described).
1-1
No parsimony in your favour.

Robin proposes an unknown mechanism.
You propose an unknown mechanism burdened with garbage and a desire to justify your worthless delusion. Yup, no parsimony in Robin's favor, just honesty.

[paximperium]

Really? What may those "facts" be? Be specific.
No answer Plum?

[Dancing David]

I am quoting experts actually working in their fields to support my points. You are bloviating. Anyone reading this can judge for themselves who knows more about physics.

No, you took the words 'hints' and pretend that speculation has meaning. And you are now just repeating an appeal to authority.

[Dancing David]

Unfortunately for your position, the more that's learnt about this physical universe the more these constants resemble what one would expect from a fine tuner at work. Science is pushing things in my direction.
Yee-haa.

You find a mountian ridge that is narrow, does that mean there was a fine tuner?
You find a valley with steep sides and it comes to a very narrow place, does that mean there was a fine tuner?

[Christian Klippel]

If the values of the constants are not set, the question arises: why do they have the life-permitting values they have?
If the values of the constants are set, the question remains: why are they set at the values we observe them to have?


Are you really that thick? These questions already contain the answers. Are you really unable to see that? Or is it unwillingness?

For the first question: Since this universe has life in it, it follows that it must have the right conditions. However, that does in no way mean that other conditions would not work also.

For the second question: We observe the conditions that allow life because, well, we are here to observe it. We could not do that if it had the wrong conditions, because then we would not be here. But again, that does in no way mean that these conditions are the only ones possible to allow life, let alone the only ones to allow a universe to exist.

You know, it could have come out as a universe that does not allow for life. And guess what: If that would have been the case, we would not be here to think about it.

And as others have said, there is no evidence that there is only one set of conditions that allow life. We simply have nothing to compare against. We have no idea what forms life could have, besides the forms we know from earth. Our theories describe _our_ universe with _that_ universe's conditions. We can only experiment as much as these conditions allow for. We base most of our simulations on physics that _we_ know, from _this_ universe.

The only way to know if other conditions are possible or not would be to simulate every combination of every value. But that is not possible, since the number of combinations is infinite.

Let's get hypothetical and assume there is the possibility of universes with different conditions. If another one would exist with different conditions, it is highly unlikely that we would even detect it. And if we would, the next problem would be to explore it. Because whatever we would send in there, it would be something that is made to fit into a universe with _our_ conditions. It could annihilate when getting into a different universe. It could cease to exist. And even if it would continue to exist, the conditions in that universe could be far beyond of what that thing would be able to detect or measure.

The whole "fine tuned universe" argument is complete nonsense, in my opinion. It's like the example with the puddle, which was posted in this thread already.

Greetings,

Chris

[Cavemonster]

I got mugged in Nashville once.
My friends and I had just gotten home from an evening of poetry, we were standing outside, a few blocks from my girlfriend's house, talking while our friend smoked a cigarette. We'd stopped there because my GF was on a one way street, and he had taken a slightly wrong turn, so he'd dropped us off there instead of making the tedious drive around to get right to her house. It was about 2:30am.

Two guys, came charging around the corner after we'd been there about 10 minutes, one with a gun, demanding everything we had.

I'm not normally out that late, I'm normally a homebody, so out of all the hours in the day, this was among the most rare for me to be out. That's one variable. Actually a great number of variables that led me to be out that evening. My Gf and I had been fighting and were sort of getting closer again. If we had stopped fighting one day later, we wouldn't have been there.

Had we been a couple blocks down, we would have been directly under a streetlight and right in front of our apartment. We would have most likely invited our friend in to chat, or onto our roof where he could smoke, I had never before loitered at that spot for any length of time.

Had her friend not started smoking a cigarette, we would have brought him into the house to continue the conversation anyway, but since he'd already started, we didn't want him to have to smoke it through the house just to end up at the roof. The bvast majority of my friends don't smoke. If it had been any of them, we would not have been outside at that moment. If he had had a before we left, he wouldn't have needed one then.

And what was I doing in Nashville? I was born in Massachusetts, and have no affinity for the south or country music. I was there because I took a job as a puppeteer. What percentage of the population are puppeteers? What were the odds I would actually be offerered the job out of the many applicants. If I had graduated college a year in either direction, the job would not have been available, and I would never have moved there.

All that is just the tiny tip of an iceberg of likely billions if not trillions of distinct values, that changing any one of them at least slightly would have resulted in me never being mugged in Nashville.

So clearly, there is a designer, and it was very important to him that I be mugged that night.

[The Platypus]

If the universe was "fine tuned" it obviously isn't tuned primarily for us when you consider that, 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe seems to be unsuited for supporting life itself let alone human life.

It's seems to me that it is much more "fine tuned" for stellar objects, such as stars, neutron stars, black holes and such, and beyond that, even moreso "fine tuned" for empty space.

[I Am The Scum]

Malerin, for the sake of argument, I will agree that if the universal constants were the slightest bit different, then life would not have formed. Given that, I still fail to see how we can conclude the constants were made the way they are by the will of some conscious entity.

You've spent a great deal of time presenting evidence that my initially granted premise is true. Take that, and lead me to the conclusion that there is a fine tuner.

[Dancing David]

If the universe was "fine tuned" it obviously isn't tuned primarily for us when you consider that, 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe seems to be unsuited for supporting life itself let alone human life.

It's seems to me that it is much more "fine tuned" for stellar objects, such as stars, neutron stars, black holes and such, and beyond that, even moreso "fine tuned" for empty space.

And neutrinos! And other dark matter!

[plumjam]

You find a mountian ridge that is narrow, does that mean there was a fine tuner?
You find a valley with steep sides and it comes to a very narrow place, does that mean there was a fine tuner?

A fine tuner for the existence of what?

[plumjam]

If the universe was "fine tuned" it obviously isn't tuned primarily for us when you consider that, 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe seems to be unsuited for supporting life itself let alone human life.

It's seems to me that it is much more "fine tuned" for stellar objects, such as stars, neutron stars, black holes and such, and beyond that, even moreso "fine tuned" for empty space.

Shoddy reasoning.

Are mansions somehow less designed for people to live in than are bedsits?
And if I were to live on a small Pacific island would the universe be less designed for me than people living in the middle of Europe?

The spatial consideration is a red herring.

[paximperium]

A fine tuner for the existence of what?
Yes Plummy. What?

Really? What may those "facts" be? Be specific.
Still no answer?

Shoddy reasoning.

Are mansions somehow less designed for people to live in than are bedsits?If 99.999999999999999999999999999% of it will kill you. Then yes.

And if I were to live on a small Pacific island would the universe be less designed for me than people living in the middle of Europe?Yes little egotistical puddle. The puddle would think so.

The spatial consideration is a red herring.Your Shoddy Reasoning is red herring. Try again.

[TubbaBlubba]

It's not really that it's fit for life, it's that it's very diverse in terms of elements and such. With diversity, things like natural selection eventually come to work.

Of course, there's nothing saying there can't be other ways a universe can work with comparable results, with different chemistry and particles, etc.

[Bob Klase]

You find a mountian ridge that is narrow, does that mean there was a fine tuner?
You find a valley with steep sides and it comes to a very narrow place, does that mean there was a fine tuner?

A fine tuner for the existence of what?

I'd think the answer is obvious. A fine tuner for the existence of mountains and ridges. A fine tuner for valleys. A fine tuner allowing steep sides to come to a very narrow space.

Why would any of those things require less fine tuning than life?

[BabyHeadedMan]

Alright, I'm coming a little late to the game, but here's my two cents on the "Fine-Tuning Argument":

The basic premise of the argument is typically presented as being that life exists and can exist only when the fundamental physical constants have values which fall within a certain range and that it is highly improbable that the constants should have such values. It is then purported that the premise upon which the argument sits is too unlikely to be true by chance and must therefore have been made to be true by an intelligent creator. Perhaps the first thing that is wrong with this argument is that while life as we know it may only be able to exist within a universe such as our own, the possibility cannot be ruled out that life can adapt to the conditions of other universes and that life as we know it is therefore not the only kind of life which could exist.

Examining the logic of the argument on a deeper level, it is not clear that the premise of the argument is unlikely to be fulfilled simply because our particular universe might be unlikely and might be the only one that can harbor life. In order to communicate what I mean, I have to construct a more generic version of the premise, which goes something like this: there exists an improbable set of conditions which yielded a result unique to those conditions. This is the most fundamental way of expressing the premise underlying the "Fine-Tuning Argument." To say that our particular unique result is life as we know it really adds no significance to the premise since it would only be a subjective judgment to say life as we know it has greater importance than any other result which arose out of improbable conditions and could be said to be unique to those conditions.

A hypothetical scenario can then be constructed around this generic premise to show the incoherence of the "Fine-Tuning Argument": Let's say there is a giant toy chest with 10,000 toys with not one toy being identical to any other. A child reaches in without looking and takes out a Superman action figure (yes, I like Superman). Now that the Superman action figure has been chosen, it can be said that the child's having taken it from the chest was the unique consequence of improbable conditions since the Superman action figure was only 1 out of 10,000 unique toys that were there to be taken. From this, one could invoke the "Fine-Tuning Argument" and say that because the selecting of the Superman action figure was very unlikely, the generic premise is too unlikely to be true by chance and must have been made to be true by some kind of intelligence. Obviously, there is something wrong because we know the child picked out the Superman doll by accident.

When we allow the child to select more toys at random, the problem causing these clearly erroneous conclusions becomes more apparent, for whenever the child picks a toy, the generic premise is true, despite each toy's selection by itself being an improbable occurrence. Ironically, it is really because each toy is improbable that the premise will always be true since the premise concerns itself with something improbable and unique happening. From this, one could infer that even if our particular universe is an improbable event, the premise on which the "Fine-Tuning Argument" is based may conversely be true in 100% of all cases, or at least a good number of them.

Another problem is that as we learn more about the universe, we may discover that the fundamental physical constants are all set by some as yet unknown natural mechanism where they can't conceivably deviate from the values at which they are currently set. However, it might still be that on some fundamental level, things are just going to exist because they do. This brings me to the next problem: It would occur to me that on some level, a god would be an arbitrary entity in the same way the universe might be. Why is there a god rather than some other hypothetical entity or thing? Would that mean a god would have to be fine-tuned too? If there is something which prevents the conclusion that a god would have to be fine-tuned, then what is there to say that this something can never apply to other possibilities that don't include a god? For example, it is often said that the order of god is different from the order of the universe because the universe had a beginning, whereas god didn't. Aside from this not answering why the order of god always existed as opposed to something else, we also have to consider that while the Big Bang was the beginning of our universe, we do not know that it is the beginning of all of reality as well. Perhaps there is some aspect of reality unknown to us which simply always existed and which is responsible for the Big Bang but has nothing to do with a god.

[Robin]

Actually both conjectures observe known physical facts and make philosophical inferences from them. No, they don't.
Has a multiverse been observed yet?
No.
So no.
The multiverse conjecture is observing the same known facts as the intelligent fine tuner conjecture.

Neither a multiverse nor a God have been observed yet.

So my statement is true.
I was referring to physical facts in the universe. If you want to try to twist that into a description of God, then that's not only wrong, but dishonest too.

I see - so it is OK to posit unknowable facts as long as you attach the label "non-physical" to them?

Nonsense. Both conjectures posit unknown and possibly unknowable facts. Positing an unknown non-physical fact is no stronger than positing an unknown physical fact. "Physical" is just a label.
Or is an intelligent fine-tuner a known fact?
It is to some people. But that is a different type of knowledge from the knowledge we glean about the physical universe. You are playing word games, and it hasn't worked.
I am playing word games? :rolleyes: Your claim is the most preposterous piece of special pleading that I have ever read.

It is patently absurd for you to claim that God is a known fact on the basis of a claim that some people "know" God using some different, unspecified definition of the word "know".

A multiverse is an unknown fact. So is God.
Not at all. The inference simply posits intelligence at work. A brain is a physical object within this universe, that is associated with intelligent behaviours.
If God was a physical object....
You are the one making the distinction between "physical" and "non-physical", not me. I don't really know what you mean by the terms and I expect you don't either.

By "brain" I mean whatever it is that is doing the thinking and planning that you are positing. If you like I will use the word "mind". Better?
What 'mechanism' ?
If the 'mechanism' is God, God may equally have created an enormous number of other fine tuned universes.
So it doesn't help you.
On the contrary it helps me quite a lot. Presumably a God could choose to create non-fine-tuned universes.

If God may have created an enormous number of unverses then the "mind" loses any explanatory power.
I propose one mechanism (God), you propose another (that you haven't described).
1-1
No parsimony in your favour.
No, we both propose a mechanism that may equally have created an enormous number of other universes. Yours is labelled "God", mine "multiverse".

That is 1-1.

You propose further that this mechanism has a purposeful mind. That is one more entity for you.

I don't posit that the mechanism has a mind.

That makes my speculation, by definition, more parsimonious than yours.

And yes - it is just word games, on both our parts. Neither of our word games is science nor even philosophy - just fun speculation.

[Robin]

Think of it this way: There's to be a special one-time million dollar lottery, just for you. You have to pick thirty numbers, each number being between one and 100. You have to get all thirty numbers right to win. You pick your numbers, and lo and behold you win. What's a more rational conclusion: that you got lucky or someone rigged fine-tuned the lottery in your favor?
From which we derive the conclusion that the Universe was not the result of a special one-time lottery just for us.

[Dancing David]

A fine tuner for the existence of what?

That narrow ridge or valley.

[Dancing David]

Shoddy reasoning.

Are mansions somehow less designed for people to live in than are bedsits?
And if I were to live on a small Pacific island would the universe be less designed for me than people living in the middle of Europe?

The spatial consideration is a red herring.

So the vast majority of the universe appears to be dark matter, ie WIMPs. So this small portion that is something else was fine tuned.

How so?

[plumjam]

The multiverse conjecture is observing the same known facts as the intelligent fine tuner conjecture.
Conjecture is not observation, they are fundamentally different things.
In this example the observation would be science measuring the constants, and the conjecture would be the philosophical inferences made from those observations.
Yet again you mix terms up in a great swamp of confusion.

Neither a multiverse nor a God have been observed yet.
By whom?
Many people claim to have experienced God, no one AFAIK has claimed to have experienced a multiverse.
So God's in the lead on that one.

So my statement is true.
No, if anything, it's false.

I see - so it is OK to posit unknowable facts as long as you attach the label "non-physical" to them?
So you are claiming that God is unknowable?
I guess that makes you....God?
Nice to meet you.

Nonsense. Both conjectures posit unknown and possibly unknowable facts. Positing an unknown non-physical fact is no stronger than positing an unknown physical fact. "Physical" is just a label.
I know what you're doing. You're trying your darndest to avoid admitting that the physical facts of the constants of this universe are indeed observed facts, while trying to avoid the embarrassing fact that supposed physical facts about an imaginary multiverse are indeed only imaginary. Rather, you seek to create confusion in order to try to present the two as somehow equivalent.
So long as you keep trying this you'll be seen to be dishonest.

I am playing word games? :rolleyes: Your claim is the most preposterous piece of special pleading that I have ever read.

It is patently absurd for you to claim that God is a known fact on the basis of a claim that some people "know" God using some different, unspecified definition of the word "know".
So are you saying there is only one type of knowledge to be had in this universe? If so, what would it be, and why would knowledge be so tightly restricted (to your personal prejudices)?


A multiverse is an unknown fact. So is God.
Again, no one has ever AFAIK claimed experience of a multiverse.
Can you provide evidence of anyone who has?
Millions have done so wrt God. For you to dismiss such knowledge/experience out of hand simply emphasises your arrogance.

You are the one making the distinction between "physical" and "non-physical", not me. I don't really know what you mean by the terms and I expect you don't either.
I guess, then, you can't distinguish the physical from the mental, and thus believe your daydreams are accurate representations of reality...
etc..
Jeez, that's pretty desperate of you.

By "brain" I mean whatever it is that is doing the thinking and planning that you are positing. If you like I will use the word "mind". Better?
Yes, it's better. Stops you setting up transparent 'traps'.

On the contrary it helps me quite a lot. Presumably a God could choose to create non-fine-tuned universes.
Would you like to explain what your 'mechanism' is?
So far you have simply stated 'multiverse'.
Multiverse is not a mechanism that would bring universes into being, with the same or varying constants, it is simply a series of universes.
If there was one universe and I asked what the mechanism for its origin was, and was answered 'universe', that would be no answer at all.
No mechanism is being offered at all... only a description of the problem.


If God may have created an enormous number of unverses then the "mind" loses any explanatory power.
How?

No, we both propose a mechanism that may equally have created an enormous number of other universes. Yours is labelled "God", mine "multiverse".
You have proposed no mechanism at all.



That is 1-1.

You propose further that this mechanism has a purposeful mind. That is one more entity for you.
Why is that one more entity for me?
Do you not yourself have a purposeful mind? We know that these already exist, billions of times over in this universe.
Yet we have no evidence of a single other universe, yet we have evidence of billions of minds.
Poor show old chap.

I don't posit that the mechanism has a mind.
You don't say anything at all about your 'mechanism'.
You literally have no idea what it is you're talking about.

That makes my speculation, by definition, more parsimonious than yours.
Seeing as you've said nothing then I guess that's parsimonious, yeah :rolleyes:

And yes - it is just word games, on both our parts. Neither of our word games is science nor even philosophy - just fun speculation.
You would like it to be simply word games, but you have studiously avoided the reality (and sought to obfuscate the fact) that the FTA is based on physical reality, while the multiverse theory is based on pure imagination, driven by the ideology of naturalism.

[plumjam]

That narrow ridge or valley.

So the vast majority of the universe appears to be dark matter, ie WIMPs. So this small portion that is something else was fine tuned.

How so?

David, you're not making any sense.

[noreligion]

4 pages of utter nonsense from the FTA side. Why is it that some people never seem able to comprehend that an appearance of 'fine-tuning' does not mean there was fine-tuning? Look at it like this, water is non-flammable so going by appearances hydrogen and oxygen should both be non-flammable. Anybody want to argue that point? The FTA is mistaken at best and deliberate lies at worst, besides it is a misnamed argument for the existence of god.

[Robin]

If God may have created an enormous number of unverses then the "mind" loses any explanatory power.
How?
I should have thought it was obvious. If some process outputs the number 314159 I should conclude that it is not a random process.

If I learn that the process has been outputting billions of numbers then I would not know whether or not it was a random process since the billions of other numbers alters the probability.

You have posited a universe causing mechanism which you term "God". If this mechanism produced one or a small number of universes then we might suppose that if the constants were variables then it must have deliberately chosen those constants.

If it produces an enormous number of universes then it might have produced the "just so" universe by chance.
Why is that one more entity for me?
Do you not yourself have a purposeful mind?
Do you seriously think that a human mind is a serious candidate for your universe producing mind?
Yet we have no evidence of a single other universe...
But the other universes were your premiss, not mine. I simply accepted your premiss. Remember, I don't think we have a need for either speculation.

Here are your premisses:

1. That the universe, if randomly caused, might have turned out in an enormous number of ways only a vanishingly tiny proportion of which would support life.
2. This might be explained by a universe producing mechanism which can produce an enormous number of universes
3. This universe producing mechanism would need to have a mind.

I have not independently posited any entities, only accepted - for the sake of argument - the ones that you have posited.

I merely point out that in the above list 1 and 2 alone have sufficient explanatory power to explain the presence of a life supporting universe and that 3 is superfluous.
I guess, then, you can't distinguish the physical from the mental...
Too right I can't and if you can then the philosophic community would very much like to hear from you
, and thus believe your daydreams are accurate representations of reality...
A statue of a mermaid is not an accurate representation of reality - so is a statue of a mermaid non-physical?

[ThunderChunky]

Probably because of the meta-anthropic principle, which is simply the anthropic principle applied to the recognition of the anthropic principle.

I do not see how a meta-anthropic principle can explain why the anthropic principle is fulfilled beyond the minimum.

[marplots]

Try the same question with the Earth. We know about some other planets, and some quite well. Is the Earth fine-tuned? Certainly if some set of numbers were off, there would be no chance for life emerging.

Or does this mini-version lack the appeal of the Universal version?

[Robin]

Try the same question with the Earth. We know about some other planets, and some quite well. Is the Earth fine-tuned? Certainly if some set of numbers were off, there would be no chance for life emerging.

Or does this mini-version lack the appeal of the Universal version?
No, because of the vastness of the Universe and the sheer number of stars, it is not really that improbable that there should be life supporting planets.

[Dancing David]

David, you're not making any sense.

What makes you think the universe might appear to be fine tuned?

the vast majority of mass/energy/matter is WIMPs, so the universe was fine tuned to allow for life to develop around little specks of stars on tiny dust motes? The places like earth where we think life might be able to exist comprise less than a fraction of one percent of the universe in terms of energy, much less spatial terms. In terms of mass ~4% appears to be baryonic, of that 99% is tied up in stars and interstellar and especially intergalactic gas, so we have .04 x .01 or ~ .04% of the matter/energy of the universe that might be available for the support of life. And of that probably 10% (at most, more like >1%) might support life, so more like ~.004% of the universe would be available to support life.

So lets us see, the values of the 'constants' of the universe have some wide latitude and some narrow latitude in the values that they can possibly assume (if it is possible for them to vary at all).

Just so in spatial terms the area on top of a narrow mountain ridge is constrained and the open space in the bottom of a steep valley is constrained. Should we assume that narrow constraints on a ridge or valley implies fine tuning?

[Dancing David]

Try the same question with the Earth. We know about some other planets, and some quite well. Is the Earth fine-tuned? Certainly if some set of numbers were off, there would be no chance for life emerging.

Or does this mini-version lack the appeal of the Universal version?

How many stars and how many planets exist? How many have the conditions that might support life?

There are a number places in our solar system that are considered candidates outside of the earth.

[Malerin]

I should have thought it was obvious. If some process outputs the number 314159 I should conclude that it is not a random process.

If I learn that the process has been outputting billions of numbers then I would not know whether or not it was a random process since the billions of other numbers alters the probability.

It depends. If the billions of numbers it spits out are all 314159, then you would conclude two things:

1. It's obviously a non-random process (the machine is "set" to spit out a Pi result each time).
2. Some intelligence with a knowledge of mathematics designed the machine to give a Pi result.

[Mister Agenda]

It's a double-miracle: the Universe is so fine-tuned for life that God must be invoked to explain it, and so hostile to life that God must be invoked again to explain how we can have life on Earth.

[rocketdodger]

It's a double-miracle: the Universe is so fine-tuned for life that God must be invoked to explain it, and so hostile to life that God must be invoked again to explain how we can have life on Earth.

.... this is a fantastic point. I haven't thought of it that way before.

[rocketdodger]

I do not see how a meta-anthropic principle can explain why the anthropic principle is fulfilled beyond the minimum.

Well it is simple:

The observation of a universe that fullfills more than the minimum requirements for the anthropic principle is only compatible with a universe that fullfills more than the minimum requirements for the anthropic principle.

[Malerin]

Is the proposition that there are multiple universes a falsifiable proposition?

Perhaps, some time off in the future, it may prove to be a confirmable proposition.
But how would it ever be falsifiable?

In that sense, positing the existence of other universes is a Multiverse Of The Gaps argument, and it is philosophical rather than scientific.

It is also inferior to the FTA in that it posits unkown, perhaps unknowable, and unfalsifiable hypothetical physical 'facts' and then makes a philosophical inference from these.

The FTA merely observes known physical facts and makes a philosophical inference from them... so its basis in reality (and let us not forget that reality includes science ;) ) is enormously stronger.

This is the crux of the issue. It is very amusing to see hardcore atheists fall all over themselves believing in something without a shred of evidence to support it. Like fundamentalists, they trot out Methuselah-esque "experts" who haven't worked in the field for years, ignoring highly respected practicing experts who disagree with them. If it were any other topic, they would be ridiculing their own behavior.

[Dancing David]

This is the crux of the issue. It is very amusing to see hardcore atheists fall all over themselves believing in something without a shred of evidence to support it. Like fundamentalists, they trot out Methuselah-esque "experts" who haven't worked in the field for years, ignoring highly respected practicing experts who disagree with them. If it were any other topic, they would be ridiculing their own behavior.

Except that some of us don't subscibe to the multiverse theory. Your own source who you quoted does. And the one source you quoted used the word 'hints'.

So since you can't actually make a coherent argument, you just drag out political spin rhetoric and pretend you have engaged in a debate. When all you did was misrepresent someone else's point of view.

Your 'highly respected practicing experts ' haven't made much of a case either, and since you don't have a coherent argument you appeal to authority.

So, how do you propose to show that the constants could have some other values?

[Dancing David]

So who are these highly respected practicing experts whom Malerin has quoted !

Enquiring minds want to know!

We have in this thread 4 posts where in Malerin quoted anyone specifically.

Post 166 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6241946&postcount=116)
Post 91 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6234344&postcount=91)
Post 84 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6233943&postcount=84)
Post 6 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6227207&postcount=6)

Two are from Tegmark, one from Stenger (who is the "Methuselah-esque "experts" ), and one from Andre Geim.


There is also one from Michio Kaku, who is s tring theorist, not a cosmologist.

Now what did they actually say? Well that is even more interesting!

Andre Geim:"Change this fine tuned number by only a few percent and the life would not be here because nuclear reactions in which carbon is generated from lighter elements in burning stars would be forbidden. No carbon means no life."

Stenger: (who Malerin ridicules but quotes none the less)
""A slightly stronger weak force, and the universe would be 100 percent hydrogen; all the neutrons in the early universe would have decayed, leaving none around to be saved in deuterium nuclei for later use in the synthesizing elements in stars. A slightly weaker weak force, and few neutrons would have decayed, leaving about the same numbers of protons and neutrons; then, all the protons and neutrons would have been bound up in helium nuclei, with two protons and two neutrons in each. This would have led to a universe that was 100 percent helium, with no hydrogen to fuel the fusion processes in stars."

Tegmark: In post 91 is talking about Multiverses!

What was it that Plumjam said and Malerin said was the "crux of the argument"?

In that sense, positing the existence of other universes is a Multiverse Of The Gaps argument, and it is philosophical rather than scientific.


Hmmmm?

Tegmark from his sources
"Some superstring theories have more than one effective low-energy limit, corresponding to classical spacetimes with different dimensionalities. We argue that all but the 3+1-dimensional one might correspond to ``dead worlds'', devoid of observers, in which case all such ensemble theories would actually predict that we should find ourselves inhabiting a 3+1-dimensional spacetime. With more or less than one time-dimension, the partial differential equations of nature would lack the hyperbolicity property that enables observers to make predictions. In a space with more than three dimensions, there can be no traditional atoms and perhaps no stable structures. A space with less than three dimensions allows no gravitational force and may be too simple and barren to contain observers. "

"We explore the qualitative changes that would occur if the amplitude Q ~ 10-5 of cosmological density fluctuations were different. If is less than about 10-6 , the cosmological objects that form would have so low virial temperatures that they may be unable to cool and form stars, and would be so loosely bound that even if they could produce a supernova explosion, they might be unable to retain the heavy elements necessary for planetary life. If Q is greater than about 10-4, dense supermassive galaxies would form, and biological evolution could be marred by short disruption timescales for planetary orbits. If Q were still larger, most bound systems would collapse directly to supermassive black holes. These constraints on Q can be expressed in terms of fundamental constants alone, and depend only on the electromagnetic and gravitational coupling constants, the electron-proton mass ratio and the matter-to-photon ratio. We discuss the implications for inflation and defect models, and note that the recent anthropic upper bounds on the cosmological constant Lambda would be invalid if both Q and Lambda could vary and there were no anthropic constraints on Q. The same applies to anthropic bounds on the curvature parameter Omega. "

"It is argued that small values of the neutrino masses may be due to anthropic selection effects. If this is the case, then the combined mass of the three neutrino species is expected to be ~1eV, neutrinos causing a non-negligible suppression of galaxy formation. "

"We identify 31 dimensionless physical constants required by particle physics and cosmology, and emphasize that both microphysical constraints and selection effects might help elucidate their origin. Axion cosmology provides an instructive example, in which these two kinds of arguments must both be taken into account, and work well together. If a Peccei-Quinn phase transition occurred before or during inflation, then the axion dark matter density will vary from place to place with a probability distribution. By calculating the net dark matter halo formation rate as a function of all four relevant cosmological parameters and assessing other constraints, we find that this probability distribution, computed at stable solar systems, is arguably peaked near the observed dark matter density. If cosmologically relevant WIMP dark matter is discovered, then one naturally expects comparable densities of WIMPs and axions, making it important to follow up with precision measurements to determine whether WIMPs account for all of the dark matter or merely part of it. "

"We make an estimate of the likelihood function for the Higgs vacuum expectation value by imposing anthropic constraints on the existence of atoms while allowing the other parameters of the Standard Model to also be variable. We argue that the most important extra ingredients are the Yukawa couplings, and for the intrinsic distribution of Yukawa couplings we use the scale invariant distribution which is favored phenomenologically. The result is successful phenomenologically, favoring values close to the observed vev. We also discuss modifications that could change these conclusions. Our work supports the hypothesis that the anthropic constraints could be the origin of the small value of the Higgs vev. "

[Dancing David]

Now this leads us to the two main questions which malerin will refuse to answer:

You can post them yourselves and see if her responds.

1. What evidence is there that the constants of the universe can be anything other than what they are?
2. If there is a range of values for the contents that do not leads to non-life universes, how many variations within that range could possible exist?


Then I will again point out that what Tegmark said was "Interesting hints of a Level II multiverse come from the observation that many constants of nature appear fine-tuned for life" in the page that Malerin Quoted!

What was that that Plumjam said and that Malerin said was the crux of the argument?

In that sense, positing the existence of other universes is a Multiverse Of The Gaps argument, and it is philosophical rather than scientific.

So again we have Malerin quoting something and then agreeing that his "experts" opinion is "philosophical rather than scientific".

Funny that he quotes someone that is "philosophical rather than scientific" and then quotes Stenger who is one of the "Methuselah-esque "experts".

[socalsurferdude95]

Concerning the OP.

I've always liked Christopher Hitchens' take on the fine tuning argument. Basically (and i'm paraphrasing) that if an all powerful, all knowing god created the universe...why the hell would he or she create it teetering on the brink of destruction?? Or worse, on the brink of non-existence?? The argument has never made any sense to me.

Cheers

[marplots]

From what I've read, the argument seems to be that the Universe is fine-tuned, not so life can exist, but so that stars can form. Maybe God likes sparkly.

This whole business of life forming on star poo, and that being the 'point', strikes me as hubris.

[Dancing David]

Well the issue is an appeal to emotion, for the following reason, and Malrin know this which is why he avoids it.

1. Say that a 'contant' can vary (not a good assumtion), especially if they are the lowest energy state in the system.

2. And lest us further say it can vary 1% before there is some collapse that does not aloow the universe to function as conducive to life.

3. Within that 1%, what is the number of possible states?

Answer and Malerin knows this, infinite.

If we devide by .1 we get 10
if we devide by .01 we get 100
if we devide by .001 we get 1000
....

So Malerin if the constant can vary by 1%, what is the number of rational numbers within that range?

[westprog]

Concerning the OP.

I've always liked Christopher Hitchens' take on the fine tuning argument. Basically (and i'm paraphrasing) that if an all powerful, all knowing god created the universe...why the hell would he or she create it teetering on the brink of destruction?? Or worse, on the brink of non-existence?? The argument has never made any sense to me.

Cheers

Yes, this is a popular argument against the anthropic principle. Basically, it involves the assumption that whatever motivation an omnipotent being might have in creating a universe would be entirely apparent to any intelligent being that exists in that universe.

I never think that this objection is actually meant seriously. Too many hypotheticals. If it is meant seriously, then it massively overvalues the ability of human intelligence to figure everything out.

[paximperium]

Yes, this is a popular argument against the anthropic principle. Basically, it involves the assumption that whatever motivation an omnipotent being might have in creating a universe would be entirely apparent to any intelligent being that exists in that universe.

I never think that this objection is actually meant seriously. Too many hypotheticals. If it is meant seriously, then it massively overvalues the ability of human intelligence to figure everything out.
Hilarity

[Robin]

Yes, this is a popular argument against the anthropic principle..
It is not an argument against the anthropic principle.

It is an argument against the argument for an intelligent creator from apparent fine-tuning.

The various anthropic principles are different.

[Robin]

It depends. If the billions of numbers it spits out are all 314159, then you would conclude two things:

1. It's obviously a non-random process (the machine is "set" to spit out a Pi result each time).
2. Some intelligence with a knowledge of mathematics designed the machine to give a Pi result.
You are changing the example. I never said that the billions of numbers are all 314159.

It is quite interesting to me that you sought to alter my example like that.

[Malerin]

You are changing the example. I never said that the billions of numbers are all 314159.

It is quite interesting to me that you sought to alter my example like that.

No, I'm not altering it! At least, that's not my intent.

However, suppose you did come across a machine that spit out the numbers 314159265 over and over again. What would you conclude about it? Do you think it would be big news if SETI found a repeating Pi signal from a star?

[westprog]

It is not an argument against the anthropic principle.

It is an argument against the argument for an intelligent creator from apparent fine-tuning.

The various anthropic principles are different.

That's true - though I notice that when discussing the anthropic principle, it's usually the claim that the existence of God is proven by said fine-tuning that is picked on to refute. Where the arguments tend to drift is in deciding exactly who is claiming what.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Michael Shermer explained it very sparsely and brilliantly: The Universe is not fine tuned for us. We are fine tuned for it.

[Malerin]

Michael Shermer explained it very sparsely and brilliantly: The Universe is not fine tuned for us. We are fine tuned for it.

That works up to a certain point. For life to "fine tune" itself, it has to get started in the first place. You could speculate that life might arise in a universe without carbon, for example (although even this speculation is contradicted by all observed life forms). But life existing in a universe without molecules? Or stars? Or just helium and hydrogen? That's a bit of a stretch.

[Robin]

No, I'm not altering it! At least, that's not my intent.
In any case, your example added something to mine - the numbers being all the same.

If we did not know that then we would not be able to draw any conclusion. There is the possibility that the numbers were randomly distributed. Or you might find the previous numbers were 314159264, 314159263, 314159262 etc...
However, suppose you did come across a machine that spit out the numbers 314159265 over and over again.
I still wouldn't be in a position to conclude that the designer of the machine knew what pi was without knowing the nature of the machine.

Ten false theories fit Castle Glengyle...
Do you think it would be big news if SETI found a repeating Pi signal from a star?
It might depend upon how pi was represented in the signals. If it was a set of symbols representing a number expansion of pi then we would no doubt conclude there was an intelligent source.

If, on the other hand, it were two signals with a short and a longer gap between them, and on dividing the long by the short we get pi, then it might not be intelligence.

[Dancing David]

That works up to a certain point. For life to "fine tune" itself, it has to get started in the first place. You could speculate that life might arise in a universe without carbon, for example (although even this speculation is contradicted by all observed life forms). But life existing in a universe without molecules? Or stars? Or just helium and hydrogen? That's a bit of a stretch.

What evidence is there that the constants could be any different from what they are?

That is the longer stretch.

[noreligion]

What evidence is there that the constants could be any different from what they are?

That is the longer stretch.

You're not going to get any evidence so don't waste your ebreath asking.

[Steve001]

No. Not in this universe, at least.



:confused: What's the point here?



Highlighted for emphasis.

Okay, so you have quoted the standard version of the FTA. And your point is... what, exactly?

Just leave out "seemed to have been" and you'll have the answer.

[Steve001]

No, I'm not altering it! At least, that's not my intent.

However, suppose you did come across a machine that spit out the numbers 314159265 over and over again. What would you conclude about it? Do you think it would be big news if SETI found a repeating Pi signal from a star?

I would not conclude there is a watch maker.
I would conclude it was a neutron star with a rotational period of 3.14159265 ms/s

[westprog]

That works up to a certain point. For life to "fine tune" itself, it has to get started in the first place. You could speculate that life might arise in a universe without carbon, for example (although even this speculation is contradicted by all observed life forms). But life existing in a universe without molecules? Or stars? Or just helium and hydrogen? That's a bit of a stretch.

If life in some form would exist without heavy elements, or inside stars, or in neutronium, or diffuse clouds of hydrogen or helium - then it would exist such a form in this universe, where all these things are available in vastly greater quantities than planetary surfaces where chemical reactions happen. Unless the values of the constants which ensure that planetary systems and heavy elements are created somehow manages to inhibit hydrogen life forms from existing in some way.

[Malerin]

No, I'm not altering it! At least, that's not my intent.


In any case, your example added something to mine - the numbers being all the same.

Because it sets up an interesting hypothetical.

If we did not know that then we would not be able to draw any conclusion. There is the possibility that the numbers were randomly distributed. Or you might find the previous numbers were 314159264, 314159263, 314159262 etc...

Well, let's stick to the hypothetical.

However, suppose you did come across a machine that spit out the numbers 314159265 over and over again.

I still wouldn't be in a position to conclude that the designer of the machine knew what pi was without knowing the nature of the machine.

I don't buy that. I think at some point, if the sequence of numbers the machine generates over and over again was 31415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751 for example,
it would be irrational to conclude the designer(s) of the machine didn't know about Pi.

You can show this with Bayes Theorem:

H= The output of the machine is influenced by some kind of intelligence.
E= A repeating Pi sequence

Pr(H/E) = Pr(E/H) x Pr(H) / (Pr(E/H) x Pr(H) + Pr (E/~H) x Pr(~H))

Pr(E/H) is going to be >> than Pr(E/~H). Given that the output of the machine is influenced by some kind of intelligence, it's not surprising that we get a Pi result. There are a lot of sequences that would be suggestive of intelligent tinkering, of course (e.g., 1234567...), and Pi is part of this set.

Pr(E/~H) is easy to figure out. Given that the output of the machine was not influenced by some kind of intelligence, there's a
.000000000000000000000000000...1 chance of getting a Pi result.

If Pr(E/H) is >> than Pr(E/~H), H will be confirmed to a high degree. It would be irrational to believe the machine just happens to generate the same 50 digit Pi result over and over again.


This is where it's helpful to bring in SETI as a working analogy. A radio signal from a star that beeps three times...pause...one time....pause...four times...all the way to the 50th decimal of Pi, and repeats over and over would be instant confirmation that intelligent alien life exists. Without knowing anythign about the nature of whatever is sending out the radio pulses, we would automatically conclude the radio signal was sent by something with a knowledge of the significance of Pi.


How this all relates to the multiverse solution to the FT problem is that not just any old multiverse will suffice: it has to be sufficiently large, and the physical constants have to be able to vary. If they can't vary, then you're just postulaing a repeating non-random sequence- an ensemble of universes that are all life-permitting. It would be like the example I gave of a lottery created just for me, and I end up winning over and over again. The multiple lotteries would only reinforce the conclusion that it was rigged in my favor.

[Malerin]

If life in some form would exist without heavy elements, or inside stars, or in neutronium, or diffuse clouds of hydrogen or helium - then it would exist such a form in this universe, where all these things are available in vastly greater quantities than planetary surfaces where chemical reactions happen. Unless the values of the constants which ensure that planetary systems and heavy elements are created somehow manages to inhibit hydrogen life forms from existing in some way.

Right, the fact that we haven't observed any life of this type underscores what a leap of faith postulating ultraexotic life-forms is. Of course, proponents could always say these kind of life forms are hiding from us...

[Dancing David]

Just like the evidence that the constants of the universe could be different!
-that this universe could have been made with fewer dimensions.
-that the cosmological density fluctuations could have been different
-nuetrino masses could be different
-that the ratio of axions and nuetrinos could be different from the unknown values
-that the Higgs bosn and Yukawa couplings could be different

[rocketdodger]

You can show this with Bayes Theorem:


Anyone notice how history has a tendancy to repeat itself?

*bored*

[Malerin]

Anyone notice how history has a tendancy to repeat itself?

*bored*

Sure, remember this thread?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=132789&highlight=malerin+wrong

I thought this response was pretty funny:

since we exist we know P(E|H) + P(E|~H) must sum to 1.
buh buh what?

This is just very, very wrong. I can't even figure out what went wrong in your head to make you think it is right. Can you tell us what you think E and H are so we can help you figure out your mistake?

Since history is repeating itself, I guess you'll make another "Why Malerin is Wrong" thread? :)

RD, if you're bored just leave the thread. Haven't you noticed yet that there's like two people I'm seriously responding to at this point and neither of them are you?

[Dancing David]

So the evidence that there is could be variation in the constants is?

[Robin]

Well, let's stick to the hypothetical.
That is just what I was doing - sticking to my hypothetical.

You are the one that keeps changing it. For example:
I don't buy that. I think at some point, if the sequence of numbers the machine generates over and over again was 31415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751 for example,
it would be irrational to conclude the designer(s) of the machine didn't know about Pi.
How did we get from 314159265 to 31415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751 ???

Did you start to think the value in the original hypothetical was insufficiently improbable?

And my original example had 314159.

Let us suppose that there is a machine, part of which is a large drum rotating slowly around a horizontal axis.

In order to test whether this machine buckles during a single rotation there are a number of magnetic devices attached to the inside of the drum at various places and another device detecting their movement.

One of the tests it does it to detect the distance travelled upwards and the distance travelled downwards and then take the first value multiplied by 2 and divide it by the second.

For each device this produces a readout of 2.000000 for each device and maybe 2.000014 if it warps during the rotation.

But the person monitoring it is surprised to find that one of the devices starts returning 3.141593 instead. The person knows that this value is nowhere encoded in the program.

So could some mechanical glitch have caused the readout to have produced this number?

Or would it have to be an intelligent agent who introduced this number - perhaps a practical joke by a co-worker?
You can show this with Bayes Theorem:
A classic example of how the Bayes Theorem can sometimes return nonsense.
How this all relates to the multiverse solution to the FT problem is that not just any old multiverse will suffice: it has to be sufficiently large, and the physical constants have to be able to vary.
If the physical constants can't vary then there is no fine tuning argument.

If we discovered an ensemble of universes with just the same physical laws as our own a better conclusion would be that the constants have to have the values they do.

The fine tuning argument depends upon the premiss that these constants can vary.

It is like I said to plumjam - I don't see the need for either speculation since I don't know whether or not these constants can vary or whether there is some reason they have to be like that.

But if you accept all the premisses of the fine tuning argument then you find that the purposeful intelligence adds no more explanatory power.

[rocketdodger]

Sure, remember this thread?

Yeah I do. That was the thread where I was wrong, and I learned a lot. I am glad I made it.

That was also (one of) the thread(s) where a ton of people much smarter than me completely annihilated your bayesian analysis argument.

RD, if you're bored just leave the thread. Haven't you noticed yet that there's like two people I'm seriously responding to at this point and neither of them are you?

As long as you post invalid arguments that are dishonest in nature there are plenty of individuals who will be here to call you out, Malerin.

[rocketdodger]

A classic example of how the Bayes Theorem can sometimes return nonsense.


See Malerin, you are the only person on the entire JREF forum with a glimmer of intelligence that thinks this argument of yours is valid.

Everyone else here that knows even remotely what they are talking about can show -- mathematically -- why you are wrong.

I hate to use the argument from authority, but if you won't listen to reason ...

[Malerin]

Well, let's stick to the hypothetical.

That is just what I was doing - sticking to my hypothetical.

You are the one that keeps changing it. For example:

I don't buy that. I think at some point, if the sequence of numbers the machine generates over and over again was 31415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751 for example,
it would be irrational to conclude the designer(s) of the machine didn't know about Pi.

How did we get from 314159265 to 31415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751 ???

Did you start to think the value in the original hypothetical was insufficiently improbable?

You don't need a long sequence for the Bayesian analysis to work. 314159265
is plenty long enough for Pr(E/H) to be >> Pr(E/~H). Often times (and I know you've seen this before), one will use an extreme example to elucidate a point. If the machine outputs 31415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751 , it more clearly illustrates that a non-random factor is at work. But by all means, we can stick with 314159265 or 314159 if large numbers make you uncomfortable. The point is, that significant statisical results tend to favor non-random explanations. It could be a Pi result when rolling 10 D10's, 20 heads in a row, a dealer dealing himself four royal flushess, etc.

Let us suppose that there is a machine, part of which is a large drum rotating slowly around a horizontal axis.

In order to test whether this machine buckles during a single rotation there are a number of magnetic devices attached to the inside of the drum at various places and another device detecting their movement.

One of the tests it does it to detect the distance travelled upwards and the distance travelled downwards and then take the first value multiplied by 2 and divide it by the second.

For each device this produces a readout of 2.000000 for each device and maybe 2.000014 if it warps during the rotation.

But the person monitoring it is surprised to find that one of the devices starts returning 3.141593 instead. The person knows that this value is nowhere encoded in the program.

So could some mechanical glitch have caused the readout to have produced this number?

It's interesting to note the hypothetical has changed to include the nature of the machine itself. Before, we just had a machine that outputted a Pi result. This is analogous to the Big Bang because there is no agreed upon theory to explain why the constants have the values they do. If they are set, we don't know why they're set for the values they have.

I'ts also not clear to me how the machine operates exactly. It sounds like you're setting up a situation where a common (or not so rare) mechanical process can produce a very precise Pi result. If that is true, then it might be reasonable to conclude mechanical defect alone was the cause.

But suppose that instead of Pi, the machine returns 1.2345678910111213. I think you would conclude someone was having a bit of fun with you.

But to bring this back to the FT argument, we don't know if the constants are fixed or not, or if they are fixed, why they're set for the values they have. Our situation is like observing a mysterious box that shows a Pi sequence. Your argument is that repeated sequences of numbers would make the chance hypothesis rational to believe. I pointed out that it depends on the numbers. If the box just displays Pi over and over again, we're right back to square one.

This is analagous to observing a rock on Mars that has dashes on it that correspond to a long repeating Pi sequence. Now, it could just be random weathering on the Martian rock, just as 30 heads in a row could be the result of a fair coin. But the odds are so long in each of these cases that the rational conclusion is that a non-random process is at work. Finding more Martian rocks with the same Pi-pattern of dashes wouldn't confirm the randomness hypothesis.


You can show this with Bayes Theorem:

A classic example of how the Bayes Theorem can sometimes return nonsense.

Mere assertion. You need to argue why Pr(E/H) is not >> Pr(E/~H), not just assert that it's nonsense. You could also argue that Pr(H) (theism) is initially so low that even high confirmation doesn't make it a compelling theory. I don't think you'll have much luck with arguing for extreme strong-atheism though. OTOH, the FT argument doesn't confirm any particular religion.


How this all relates to the multiverse solution to the FT problem is that not just any old multiverse will suffice: it has to be sufficiently large, and the physical constants have to be able to vary.

If the physical constants can't vary then there is no fine tuning argument.

Sure there is, because we can still ask the question: why are they set for the values they have? If the weak force is set, why is it set at just the right value so that elements heavier than hydrogen and helium can form? And as I've often said, if the constants are fixed, then that means that all the ensemble universes in the macroverse exhibit complex structure and are life-permitting. Strange that there would not be a boring failed barren universe in the whole ensemble, isn't it? I think this is Paul Davies resolution: that there is some kind of life-favoring principle at work.

If we discovered an ensemble of universes with just the same physical laws as our own a better conclusion would be that the constants have to have the values they do.

But that doesn't answer the question of why they're set for those particular values. This is like trying to explain why I won a special lottery created just for me by postulating a trillion more lotteries, and I win them all. That would totally confirm the hypothesis that the lotteries were rigged in my favor.

The fine tuning argument depends upon the premiss that these constants can vary.

Assertion.

It is like I said to plumjam - I don't see the need for either speculation since I don't know whether or not these constants can vary or whether there is some reason they have to be like that.

But if you accept all the premisses of the fine tuning argument then you find that the purposeful intelligence adds no more explanatory power.

Sure it does: it explains why the constants have the value they have. As Plumjam also pointed out, the existence of a very powerful life-favoring intelligence not bound by the laws of the universe would go far explaining phenomena like universal spiritual experience, NDE's, and reliable anecdotal accounts of supernatural experiences.

[Malerin]

See Malerin, you are the only person on the entire JREF forum with a glimmer of intelligence that thinks this argument of yours is valid.

Everyone else here that knows even remotely what they are talking about can show -- mathematically -- why you are wrong.

I hate to use the argument from authority, but if you won't listen to reason ...

That's ironic considering all the agreement I have from physicists like Davies, Rees, Tegmark, Hawking, Kaku. I seem to be the only one actually posting anything from authorities. You, OTOH, consider the people who post here to be authorities. That is the kind of argument you would find on a Christian website, is it not? All the so-called scientists who believe in evolution can't hold a candle to the many MB "experts" who know the Earth is only 7,000 years old. ;)

Paul Davies has stated "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe#cite_note-1

For some reason, on this topic, the blinders go up and I could literally post a dozen experts who all agree with me (and I have in other threads), and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. People with a strong emotional investment in a particular belief are loathe to give up that belief.

[brantc]

But who's to say some bizarre universe simply wouldn't have a different life form in it? If you want to change physics, what stops you from changing the basics of life? Our inability to imagine?

:);):D:p Absolutely. Lets not be limited by human imagination. The universe is far more interesting than that.:cool:

[marplots]

This is analagous to observing a rock on Mars that has dashes on it that correspond to a long repeating Pi sequence. Now, it could just be random weathering on the Martian rock, just as 30 heads in a row could be the result of a fair coin. But the odds are so long in each of these cases that the rational conclusion is that a non-random process is at work.

Suppose we found some rocks on Mars that looked like a face? Could that be random weathering or should we make the rational conclusion that some non-random process was at work?

[Dancing David]

But to bring this back to the FT argument, we don't know if the constants are fixed or not, or if they are fixed, why they're set for the values they have.

And the FTA is based upon the idea that they could be different.
Something that you haven't shown to be true.

'Set' implies intent.

Our situation is like observing a mysterious box that shows a Pi sequence.

No it is not, you have not shown that at all, that is asserting your conclusion.

Your argument is that repeated sequences of numbers would make the chance hypothesis rational to believe. I pointed out that it depends on the numbers. If the box just displays Pi over and over again, we're right back to square one.

That has nothing to do with the FTA, although it does have to do with Tubba Bubba's argument.







Sure there is, because we can still ask the question: why are they set for the values they have?

That assumes that they are set, what if they just happened, like they are the lowest energy states.

If the weak force is set, why is it set at just the right value so that elements heavier than hydrogen and helium can form?

How much could it vary, how many states exist within that variance?

And as I've often said, if the constants are fixed, then that means that all the ensemble universes in the macroverse exhibit complex structure and are life-permitting. Strange that there would not be a boring failed barren universe in the whole ensemble, isn't it?

Yup, that is like saying "Strange that the angels in the disco on the head of a pin don't wear sneakers."

I think this is Paul Davies resolution: that there is some kind of life-favoring principle at work.



But that doesn't answer the question of why they're set for those particular values. This is like trying to explain why I won a special lottery created just for me by postulating a trillion more lotteries, and I win them all. That would totally confirm the hypothesis that the lotteries were rigged in my favor.

You don't know the range of possible states for the constants, do you?



Assertion.

Oh, so now you say that the assumption "There could be different values for the constants of the universe." is not an assumption and necessary condition for the FTA?

Really Malerin?
that is far fetched and illogical, even for you.




Sure it does: it explains why the constants have the value they have. As Plumjam also pointed out, the existence of a very powerful life-favoring intelligence not bound by the laws of the universe would go far explaining phenomena like universal spiritual experience, NDE's, and reliable anecdotal accounts of supernatural experiences.

Nonsense.

[Dancing David]

The fine tuning argument depends upon the premiss that these constants can vary.

Assertion.




This is just too prime to pass in a set of quotes.

So Malerin, how does that work?

If that is the value they have then one must really be stretching to ask "Why?", can you see past t >= 10-36 seconds?

You have now reduced your argument to "The universe exists, therefore it is fine tuned for life."

[Malerin]

Suppose we found some rocks on Mars that looked like a face? Could that be random weathering or should we make the rational conclusion that some non-random process was at work?

It depends on how much it looks like a face:

http://www.firstscience.com/home/images/stories/editorials/Martian_face.jpg

Has rudimentary facial features. Given that there's millions of other rocks, you'll get some suggestive looking features. This is the macroverse solution: given a large enough set of parallel universes, some will be life-permitting, even if the odds are really long. But what would we conclude if every rock on Mars looked like that? That would be quite strange, wouldn't it?

What would you think if we found a Martian Mt. Rushmore?

[Dancing David]

It depends on how much it looks like a face:

http://www.firstscience.com/home/images/stories/editorials/Martian_face.jpg

Has rudimentary facial features. Given that there's millions of other rocks, you'll get some suggestive looking features. This is the macroverse solution: given a large enough set of parallel universes, some will be life-permitting, even if the odds are really long. But what would we conclude if every rock on Mars looked like that? That would be quite strange, wouldn't it?

What would you think if we found a Martian Mt. Rushmore?

And in no way have you shown a Fine Tuning Mount Rushmore. :D

[paximperium]

And in no way have you shown a Fine Tuning Mount Rushmore. :D
Pssst...does Malerin actually believe that it is a face?

[Ron_Tomkins]

That works up to a certain point. For life to "fine tune" itself, it has to get started in the first place. You could speculate that life might arise in a universe without carbon, for example (although even this speculation is contradicted by all observed life forms). But life existing in a universe without molecules? Or stars? Or just helium and hydrogen? That's a bit of a stretch.

So life got started, so what?

The only reason you're pondering on "how come life got started" is, paradoxically, because you're alive. If you were dead, or then if you were alive but didn't have a fully developed conscious mind, you wouldn't be speculating things solely on the base that "Hey, life did get started when it perfectly well could not have... it must mean something, right?"

Living creatures with a conscience really like the idea that the fact that they exist must mean something really significant and important.

[Robin]

It's interesting to note the hypothetical has changed to include the nature of the machine itself. Before, we just had a machine that outputted a Pi result.
I am not changing it, merely illustrating my previous answer.

I said that we could not conclude that an intelligent designer had introduced PI to the display without knowing more about the operation of the machine. You disagreed and said that we could conclude this without knowing any more about the machine.

So I produced an example where PI could have been produced by a purely mechanical glitch.

We cannot conclude on the mere basis that PI was outputted on a display that it had been encoded there by the machine's designer. We need more information.
This is analogous to the Big Bang because there is no agreed upon theory to explain why the constants have the values they do. If they are set, we don't know why they're set for the values they have.
In which case we are obviously very premature in drawing conclusions. We need more information.
But to bring this back to the FT argument, we don't know if the constants are fixed or not, or if they are fixed, why they're set for the values they have. Our situation is like observing a mysterious box that shows a Pi sequence. Your argument is that repeated sequences of numbers would make the chance hypothesis rational to believe.
I didn't say that at all. I merely said that we could no longer conclude that it was improbable.

In fact I have stated all along that I don't think we have a need for either conjecture.

We have insufficient information to conclude that there is a problem in the first place, never mind to suggest an answer to the problem.
I pointed out that it depends on the numbers.
And I already agreed several posts back - it depends upon the numbers. And as I also pointed out, it depends upon the nature of the machine and what it is doing.

You will remember that plumjam's original question was why the presence of an enormous number of universes would affect the inference of intelligent design.
A classic example of how the Bayes Theorem can sometimes return nonsense. Mere assertion. .
Are you saying that it is mere assertion that the Bayes Theorem in general can sometimes return nonsense?

Or are you saying that in this particular example it could not return nonsense. I think I have described a machine where your Bayesian analysis, applied blindly, would return nonsense.
You need to argue why Pr(E/H) is not >> Pr(E/~H), not just assert that it's nonsense
Shifting burden of proof. You need to show that your contention is the case, not assume that it is true unless someone can prove it false.

You appear to have set up H="pi was chosen by an intelligent agent" and ~H="pi was chosen randomly".

False dichotomy. ~H should be "pi was not chosen by an intelligent agent".

As I have shown there could be a case where pi was neither chosen by an intelligent agent, nor was chosen randomly but was a consequence of the particular data set that the machine was working on.

If you are working with a black box then you just don't know and can't assume.
But if you accept all the premisses of the fine tuning argument then you find that the purposeful intelligence adds no more explanatory power. (Bolding yours, underlining mine)
Sure it does: it explains why the constants have the value they have.
See you forgot the operative phrase. A conjecture has no explanatory power if there is already sufficient explanation in the assumptions upon which the conjecture depends.

The "fine-tuning" problem depends upon the assumptions:
1. The universe might have taken on an enormous number of different forms, only a few of which are life permitting.
2. There is some sort of universe producing agent.

You will recall that plumjam said that the universe producing agent might have produced an enormous number of universes and said that this was a big problem to my argument.

I pointed out that, on the contrary, if you accept the assumptions:

1. The universe might have taken on an enormous number of different forms, only a few of which are life permitting.
2. There is some sort of universe producing agent.that might have produced an enormous number of universes

Then "the agent has a purposeful intelligence" does not add extra explanatory power.

Your suggestion seems to add further information:

3. The universe producing agent produces only life permitting unverses.

This would obviously require more explanation. But, as I point out in my example, intelligence/randomness is not necessarily a dichotomy.

And in any case, since 1 and 2 are wll into the territory of conjecture and speculation already, further speculation and conjecture hardly firms the case up.

[Robin]

If the physical constants can't vary then there is no fine tuning argument.
Sure there is, because we can still ask the question: why are they set for the values they have. If the weak force is set, why is it set at just the right value so that elements heavier than hydrogen and helium can form? And as I've often said, if the constants are fixed, then that means that all the ensemble universes in the macroverse exhibit complex structure and are life-permitting. Strange that there would not be a boring failed barren universe in the whole ensemble, isn't it?
The FTA is based on improbability. But you are saying that the argument still stands even if there is no improbability. That does not make sense.

Your argument seems to be:

1. If the constants could have been otherwise then God.
2. If the constants could not have been otherwise then God.

Yes?

What is the precise form of reasoning that leads you to the conclusion?

[Dancing David]

Pssst...does Malerin actually believe that it is a face?

Only if there are four in a row. I hope! :D

[westprog]

That is just what I was doing - sticking to my hypothetical.

You are the one that keeps changing it. For example:

How did we get from 314159265 to 31415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751 ???

Did you start to think the value in the original hypothetical was insufficiently improbable?

And my original example had 314159.

Let us suppose that there is a machine, part of which is a large drum rotating slowly around a horizontal axis.

In order to test whether this machine buckles during a single rotation there are a number of magnetic devices attached to the inside of the drum at various places and another device detecting their movement.

One of the tests it does it to detect the distance travelled upwards and the distance travelled downwards and then take the first value multiplied by 2 and divide it by the second.

For each device this produces a readout of 2.000000 for each device and maybe 2.000014 if it warps during the rotation.

But the person monitoring it is surprised to find that one of the devices starts returning 3.141593 instead. The person knows that this value is nowhere encoded in the program.

So could some mechanical glitch have caused the readout to have produced this number?

Or would it have to be an intelligent agent who introduced this number - perhaps a practical joke by a co-worker?


Or just a coincidence. No reason for it, just the number that came up. To look for an explanation would be irrational. Maybe there are millions of such machines, each producing a different random number.

There seem to be two extreme positions on "fine-tuning". One is to assume that the only way that these numbers could hold these values is if God - not just any God, the specific God of the Bible, or some similar deity - put them there. The other is to say that there is nothing to even consider - that the values of the constants are what they are, they couldn't have been anything else.

The middle ground would appear to be that there is something odd going on, which would bear further investigation. The relationship between the constants could turn out to be as spurious as the relationship between planetary orbits and regular geometric shapes. Or it could be a clue to some deeper understanding of reality. To claim that the issue shouldn't even be considered on philosophical grounds, or should be considered as resolved, is IMO an odd way to look at it.



A classic example of how the Bayes Theorem can sometimes return nonsense.

If the physical constants can't vary then there is no fine tuning argument.

If we discovered an ensemble of universes with just the same physical laws as our own a better conclusion would be that the constants have to have the values they do.

The fine tuning argument depends upon the premiss that these constants can vary.

It is like I said to plumjam - I don't see the need for either speculation since I don't know whether or not these constants can vary or whether there is some reason they have to be like that.

But if you accept all the premisses of the fine tuning argument then you find that the purposeful intelligence adds no more explanatory power.

[dasmiller]

The middle ground would appear to be that there is something odd going on, which would bear further investigation. The relationship between the constants could turn out to be as spurious as the relationship between planetary orbits and regular geometric shapes. Or it could be a clue to some deeper understanding of reality. To claim that the issue shouldn't even be considered on philosophical grounds, or should be considered as resolved, is IMO an odd way to look at it.

Concur, and that's about where I am on the issue. To me, it does look like "something odd is going on," which usually means that we're missing some bigger picture. Based on the meager data available, I can't rule out the non-tuner approaches (e.g. there is a quasi-infinite number of universes with different constants, or "life" can exist in radically forms in a wide variety of universes, or . . . something else). Nor can I rule out a "fine tuner," but even if I postulate the fine-tuner, I can't find any way to infer any particular deity (Yahweh vs. Vishnu vs. Yggdrasil vs some bored lab tech twirling the knobs and pushing the "Make Universe" button vs. a pimply uber-teenager running a pirated copy of SimUniverse vs. a committee trying to balance the demand for more shiny things against the complaints that the last universe had too much vermillion).

If I had to bet, I'd favor one of the non-tuner approaches, but . . . I'm really stuck at "it looks like there's something odd going on" and haven't been able to reason my way beyond that.

[westprog]

Concur, and that's about where I am on the issue. To me, it does look like "something odd is going on," which usually means that we're missing some bigger picture. Based on the meager data available, I can't rule out the non-tuner approaches (e.g. there is a quasi-infinite number of universes with different constants, or "life" can exist in radically forms in a wide variety of universes, or . . . something else). Nor can I rule out a "fine tuner," but even if I postulate the fine-tuner, I can't find any way to infer any particular deity (Yahweh vs. Vishnu vs. Yggdrasil vs some bored lab tech twirling the knobs and pushing the "Make Universe" button vs. a pimply uber-teenager running a pirated copy of SimUniverse vs. a committee trying to balance the demand for more shiny things against the complaints that the last universe had too much vermillion).

If I had to bet, I'd favor one of the non-tuner approaches, but . . . I'm really stuck at "it looks like there's something odd going on" and haven't been able to reason my way beyond that.

The trouble with this topic is that as soon as you say "it looks like there's something odd going on" then it is interpreted as "so you claim that the only explanation is God". I certainly don't think that was what Fred Hoyle was claiming when he said that it looked as if the universe were a put-up job.

[dasmiller]

The trouble with this topic is that as soon as you say "it looks like there's something odd going on" then it is interpreted as "so you claim that the only explanation is God".

Ah, yes, the old "If we use the conventional interpretations of these esoteric bits of data, we get inconsistent results, therefore God" argument. That certainly wouldn't be my intent. But it does get interpreted that way, which makes this a messy topic.

I certainly don't think that was what Fred Hoyle was claiming when he said that it looked as if the universe were a put-up job.

I haven't read enough of Hoyle's writings on the matter. I had the impression that he suspected some intelligent intervention, but never interpreted that intelligence to be necessarily divine, but I could be way off.

[westprog]

Ah, yes, the old "If we use the conventional interpretations of these esoteric bits of data, we get inconsistent results, therefore God" argument. That certainly wouldn't be my intent. But it does get interpreted that way, which makes this a messy topic.


I find it odd that most of the people arguing the topic do so as if there is no middle ground - that it's either creationists, or "nothing to see here, move along."



I haven't read enough of Hoyle's writings on the matter. I had the impression that he suspected some intelligent intervention, but never interpreted that intelligence to be necessarily divine, but I could be way off.

He actually made a scientific prediction using the anthropic principle, which at least demonstrates that it's not valueless. I don't know what his philosophical position was. I know he went a bit odd in later life.

[Ron_Tomkins]

The trouble with this topic is that as soon as you say "it looks like there's something odd going on" then it is interpreted as "so you claim that the only explanation is God".

No real skeptic is drawing that conclusion. If they did, they would be making a strawman argument.

And if you were indeed claiming that the only explanation is God, you would be making the Watchmaker Fallacy.

[westprog]

No real skeptic is drawing that conclusion. If they did, they would be making a strawman argument.

No Real Skeptic, eh?

I just get the impression that for all the noise and excitement, very little real argument is going on, because people don't seem to have a clear position.

Is Malerin arguing that the existence of God is proven by the anthropic coincidences? Is Dancing David really saying that the constants are what they are, and that's it? I'm not really sure what either of them are actually claiming.


And if you were indeed claiming that the only explanation is God, you would be making the Watchmaker Fallacy.

Yes. If I were.

[I Am The Scum]

The fine tuning argument depends upon the premiss that these constants can vary.
Assertion.

Wait wait wait. If the constants cannot vary, then how could they possibly be fine-tuned? How can you adjust something that is impossible to change?

[westprog]

Wait wait wait. If the constants cannot vary, then how could they possibly be fine-tuned? How can you adjust something that is impossible to change?

If you found a radio with no tuning knob, set to BBC radio 4, wouldn't you call it fine-tuned?

[Dancing David]

Is Malerin arguing that the existence of God is proven by the anthropic coincidences? Is Dancing David really saying that the constants are what they are, and that's it? I'm not really sure what either of them are actually claiming.





I am saying that:
1. We do not know if the constants can vary IE they be the lowest energy state situation.
2. Even if there is variation possible, and it is limited an infinite number of possible states exist within that variation.
3. Any inference of 'fine tuning' is therefore speculation.

[Ron_Tomkins]

I am saying that:
1. We do not know if the constants can vary IE they be the lowest energy state situation.
2. Even if there is variation possible, and it is limited an infinite number of possible states exist within that variation.
3. Any inference of 'fine tuning' is therefore speculation.

Exactly.

[I Am The Scum]

If you found a radio with no tuning knob, set to BBC radio 4, wouldn't you call it fine-tuned?

That really depends on how far you want your analogy to go. I have knowledge that radios can be adjusted independent of any knobs, so in that case, it's variable anyways and this doesn't really apply. If you would prefer that I approach the radio from a standpoint of ignorance, and I don't know how the radio is the way it is, then how could I possibly say it's fine-tuned?

[paximperium]

If you found a radio with no tuning knob, set to BBC radio 4, wouldn't you call it fine-tuned?
Fine tuned to what? All the cosmos and everything ever known is essentially BBC Radio 4.
Are you claiming to know about other radio stations or how a radio actually works? It can be tuned?

[westprog]

I am saying that:
1. We do not know if the constants can vary IE they be the lowest energy state situation.
2. Even if there is variation possible, and it is limited an infinite number of possible states exist within that variation.
3. Any inference of 'fine tuning' is therefore speculation.

Of course it's speculation. That doesn't mean that it's invalid speculation.

[westprog]

That really depends on how far you want your analogy to go. I have knowledge that radios can be adjusted independent of any knobs, so in that case, it's variable anyways and this doesn't really apply. If you would prefer that I approach the radio from a standpoint of ignorance, and I don't know how the radio is the way it is, then how could I possibly say it's fine-tuned?

You could approach it from the pov of someone who's used to radios, and finds out that (a) it's not possible to change the tuning and (b) it's already precisely tuned to a particular station. Whether or not one chooses to call that "fine-tuned" doesn't seem like a deal-breaking issue.

[I Am The Scum]

You could approach it from the pov of someone who's used to radios, and finds out that (a) it's not possible to change the tuning and (b) it's already precisely tuned to a particular station. Whether or not one chooses to call that "fine-tuned" doesn't seem like a deal-breaking issue.

Let me go with a little analogy of my own. Samantha was in a severe car crash. We will concern ourselves primarily with two indisputable facts:

A. Samantha was wearing a seat belt at the time.
B. Samantha survived the crash.

Let's analyze this from the obvious cause-and-effect point of view. We would be naturally predisposed to say that the seat belt caused her survival. Now, whether or not this is true doesn't really matter. We are only going to focus on the coherency of this statement.

When we say that A is causing B, this necessarily entails is that B has to be variable. If B is not variable, then A doesn't matter. How could it? In fact, I could replace A with literally anything.

A. The price of tea in China is higher than it was yesterday.
A. Obama is a reptilian.
A. God does not exist.
A. Samantha was not wearing her seatbelt at the time.

So then I would ask you, if the constants of the universe are not variable, on what grounds can you state that there must necessarily be some entity making them what they are?

[Mister Agenda]

The speculation isn't invalid. Using it to argue probabilities is invalid, because the possibility space is based on speculation. The most you can say is that IF the speculation turns out to be true, AND we obtain evidence of the actual range of possibilities, THEN maybe a particular probability estimate might be justified. If somone doesn't agree the speculation is likely to be true, then the whole argument is a non-starter. Given the state of the evidence, both positions (constants could have been different/constants couldn't have been different) are speculative...not to mention the difficulties of determining odds when the range of possibilities is speculative, for instance, assumed to be 1 or ten trillion.

[westprog]

So then I would ask you, if the constants of the universe are not variable, on what grounds can you state that there must necessarily be some entity making them what they are?

Why would I claim any such thing?

[ThunderChunky]

The "fine-tuning" problem depends upon the assumptions:
1. The universe might have taken on an enormous number of different forms, only a few of which are life permitting.
2. There is some sort of universe producing agent.

Why do you think assumption two required? There could be a "natural" explanation that requires no agent.

[Dancing David]

Of course it's speculation. That doesn't mean that it's invalid speculation.

And so what does it contribute to theory? I can also hypothsize that invisible fairies that can't be detected do the cha cha on Monday nights.

[KingMerv00]

To summarize: We don't know enough to speculate, so don't. The current correct answer is "I don't know why the constants have the values they do and neither do you."

[bluskool]

As Plumjam also pointed out, the existence of a very powerful life-favoring intelligence not bound by the laws of the universe would go far explaining phenomena like universal spiritual experience, NDE's, and reliable anecdotal accounts of supernatural experiences.

What's wrong with the natural explanations we already have for them?

[KingMerv00]

What's wrong with the natural explanations we already have for them?

They are natural.

[dasmiller]

To summarize: We don't know enough to speculate, so don't.

I don't like to discourage speculation, so I'd probably phrase it is "We don't know enough to speculate, so don't be surprised if nobody takes your speculations seriously. And you shouldn't, either."

The current correct answer is "I don't know why the constants have the values they do and neither do you."

True.

[KingMerv00]

I don't like to discourage speculation, so I'd probably phrase it is "We don't know enough to speculate, so don't be surprised if nobody takes your speculations seriously. And you shouldn't, either."

True.

I'm also waiting for someone to explain to me why this particular configuration of the universe is special and therefore requires a special explanation. So far, everyone assumes that life is somehow the defining characteristic of a universe. That's very egocentric. Maybe the universe was fine-tuned to make hydrogen and void? If so, I have to congratulate God on a job well done.

[bluskool]

You could approach it from the pov of someone who's used to radios, and finds out that (a) it's not possible to change the tuning and (b) it's already precisely tuned to a particular station. Whether or not one chooses to call that "fine-tuned" doesn't seem like a deal-breaking issue.

But then it's not really analogous if the person knows that other stations exist. We are interested in whether the constants could have been another way, not whether they can be changed now.

[Malerin]

No Real Skeptic, eh?

I just get the impression that for all the noise and excitement, very little real argument is going on, because people don't seem to have a clear position.

Is Malerin arguing that the existence of God is proven by the anthropic coincidences? Is Dancing David really saying that the constants are what they are, and that's it? I'm not really sure what either of them are actually claiming.



Yes. If I were.

I think Robin and I are actually close to agreement on this: the FT argumnent is interesting, but inconclusive. However, a theist is justified in rejecting the multiverse hypothesis due to lack of evidence. Conversely, an atheist could reject the fine-tuner hypothesis also due to lack of evidence (I think there is other evidence that could be brought to bear, but that is for another thread).

Robin, if I have time, I'll address your last points, because I don't believe the FT argument is based on improbablity, but rather the appearance of improbablity. That's an important distinction.

[rocketdodger]

That's ironic considering all the agreement I have from physicists like Davies, Rees, Tegmark, Hawking, Kaku. I seem to be the only one actually posting anything from authorities. You, OTOH, consider the people who post here to be authorities. That is the kind of argument you would find on a Christian website, is it not? All the so-called scientists who believe in evolution can't hold a candle to the many MB "experts" who know the Earth is only 7,000 years old. ;)

Paul Davies has stated "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe#cite_note-1

For some reason, on this topic, the blinders go up and I could literally post a dozen experts who all agree with me (and I have in other threads), and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. People with a strong emotional investment in a particular belief are loathe to give up that belief.

I apologize for not being clear, but I didn't mean the FT argument, I meant your specific bayesian analysis argument -- where you assume a value of 0.5 for the prior probability of a creator existing.

[Malerin]

I apologize for not being clear, but I didn't mean the FT argument, I meant your specific bayesian analysis argument -- where you assume a value of 0.5 for the prior probability of a creator existing.

Where did I assign a probability to H?

[Beth]

I apologize for not being clear, but I didn't mean the FT argument, I meant your specific bayesian analysis argument -- where you assume a value of 0.5 for the prior probability of a creator existing.

What would be the problem with assigning a probability of .5? It's the usual assignment for a binomial variable in the absence of any other evidence on which to base the prior.

[Malerin]

What would be the problem with assigning a probability of .5? It's the usual assignment for a binomial variable in the absence of any other evidence on which to base the prior.

The usual counter to that is the tea cup example: If we're agnostic about God, shoulnd't we be agnostic about tea cups orbitting Jupiter? The problem with this counter is that it supposes something with very specific properties being found in a very odd place. Hidden in the tea cup analogy are the following assumptions:
A) that there is an intelligence capable of putting a tea cup in orbit around Jupiter
B) that said intelligence would want to put a tea cup in orbit around a planet
c) that said planet is Jupiter

Pr(A) is low because there's only one intelligence we know of capable of making a tea cup: us. And while we technically have the capability of putting one there, we would never do so. That leaves an alien race as the only live possibility...
Pr(B) is low because it supposes an alien race can make tea cups (we don't even know if they would have the concept of one), and that an alien race woudl waste resources putting a useless object in orbit around a planet.
Pr(C) is low because there are seven other planets that could have tea cups.
Pr (H), which is Pr(A) x Pr(B) x Pr(C) is very low, because it has these built in specific assupmtions, one of which is absurd.

If you generalize the tea cup example, you actually get something interesting: What is the probability that there is some alien artifact orbitting a nearby planet (either in our solar system or maybe a nearby system)? It's not clear at all to me that the probability of this is low. It's quite possible aliens exist and that they are capable of putting things around planets, just as we do when we launch satellites.

So the only way you can really lowball the existence of an intelligent designer is if you get very specific, and posit an absurd reason for the fine-tuning.

[TubbaBlubba]

the fine-tuning.

The supposed fine-tuning depending on variables we don't know enough about. It's pointless to make any statement about the origins of these "constants" at this point.

[Malerin]

The FTA is based on improbability. But you are saying that the argument still stands even if there is no improbability. That does not make sense.

Your argument seems to be:

1. If the constants could have been otherwise then God.
2. If the constants could not have been otherwise then God.

Yes?

What is the precise form of reasoning that leads you to the conclusion?

Actually, it makes sense. Let's look at something very straightforward: a cheating dealer. So the dealer deals himself X amount of royal flushes and you eventually conclude he's cheating. You would agree there is no actual improbability if the dealer is cheating, correct? If he's cheating, then by definition he's not relying on a random process to generate the hands he's getting. He's picking the cards he wants. He could also cheat by rigging the deck to "set" the hands that he's getting. Again, a non-random process.

In either case, we can still conclude he's cheating because we can compare his hands counterfactually with what we think the kind of results a random process would produce. This comparison is enough to convince us the dealer is cheating.

If we can conclude the dealer is cheating, even though the hands he dealt himself were "set" because he rigged the deck, it's possible to conclude the values of the physical constants are fine-tuned, even if they're "set" in some way. The fine-tuner simply "set" them to be whatever value they are. As Westprog pointed out, if a radio without any knobs is "set" for a BBC station, we would still conclude it probably didn't happen by chance.

It's not enough to posit a multiverse as an explanation. It has to be the right kind of multiverse.

[marplots]

Actually, it makes sense. Let's look at something very straightforward: a cheating dealer. So the dealer deals himself X amount of royal flushes and you eventually conclude he's cheating. You would agree there is no actual improbability if the dealer is cheating, correct? If he's cheating, then by definition he's not relying on a random process to generate the hands he's getting. He's picking the cards he wants. He could also cheat by rigging the deck to "set" the hands that he's getting. Again, a non-random process.

In either case, we can still conclude he's cheating because we can compare his hands counterfactually with what we think the kind of results a random process would produce. This comparison is enough to convince us the dealer is cheating.

If we can conclude the dealer is cheating, even though the hands he dealt himself were "set" because he rigged the deck, it's possible to conclude the values of the physical constants are fine-tuned, even if they're "set" in some way. The fine-tuner simply "set" them to be whatever value they are. As Westprog pointed out, if a radio without any knobs is "set" for a BBC station, we would still conclude it probably didn't happen by chance.

It's not enough to posit a multiverse as an explanation. It has to be the right kind of multiverse.

The only problem I see with the analogy is that we already know the dealer has some purpose and goal in mind. This is probably the root issue. Does the universe we see represent some goal? If you think that yes, life and intelligent life are important and significant enough that they count as a goal -- you get the possibility at least of purpose and a cheating dealer. But if you don't believe life embodies this property, then it's all just happenstance and no stacking of the deck is needed. It doesn't solve anything -- the dealer could just as well stack meaningless hands, but the idea of arrangement falls away as being indistinguishable from chance.

[Beth]

The usual counter to that is the tea cup example: If we're agnostic about God, shoulnd't we be agnostic about tea cups orbitting Jupiter? The problem with this counter is that it supposes something with very specific properties being found in a very odd place. Hidden in the tea cup analogy are the following assumptions:
A) that there is an intelligence capable of putting a tea cup in orbit around Jupiter
B) that said intelligence would want to put a tea cup in orbit around a planet
c) that said planet is Jupiter

So the only way you can really lowball the existence of an intelligent designer is if you get very specific, and posit an absurd reason for the fine-tuning.

Yes, I can understand why the prior probability for tea cup orbiting Jupiter would be assumed to be quite low. I don't understand why the prior probability of a creator for the universe is similarly low. Could you explain your reasoning?

eta: Never mind. I just reread your post and realized I had misinterpreted it. Sorry.

[westprog]

And so what does it contribute to theory? I can also hypothsize that invisible fairies that can't be detected do the cha cha on Monday nights.

So you would equate, say, the multi-universe hypothesis with invisible fairies?