Fine Tuning

[Yerda]

But we didn't decide on a particular outcome beforehand - i.e. before the universe was created.

We can only look backward, so what you're describing is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy... which is still fallacious.

An even if we were able to make a prediction like you describe for the next time a universe was created and that prediction came true, I wouldn't say you were being irrational for suggesting that a "chooser" should be one of the explanations to be considered, but I probably would say you were being irrational if you jumped to that conclusion and said there must be a "chooser" without establishing why it's a better answer than all the other potential explanations.

You know what, I think you're right.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think the physicists are saying that there would be no chemistry in most of the parameter landscape.

Some of them also say that the universe could be more life-friendly. We aren't in the optimal life-making universe.

They can't really know that because they don't know how many expressions of life with how many chemicals could be given other parameters. Or different ways life could have adapted to different stimuli.

Or, and this was Dawkin's response to fine tuning, in a universe with enough varied parameters, life of some would be a statistical certainty given time. And that, again, is just known life. We don't have any sort of framework for how life could have formed to other environments we haven't observed.

 

[firedragon]

Yet the possibility of a long line of staggering precise events is inevitable, because some sequence has to happen with a vast range of possibilities.

Believing or not is a different question, but this argument is not based on possibilities but probability.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If we specified a tiny subspace of the entire possible outcome space before hand, and said unless we land in this subset the shuffle is invalid, and then we proceeded to shuffle and did infact land in the specific subspace I'm sure we'd both be looking for an explanation.

Maybe, the cards had been shuffled an infinite amount of times. Maybe it was just preposterously lucky. Maybe the deck is rigged. Or maybe someone chose the cards. You wouldn't claim I was begging the question if I proposed a chooser, would you?

By adopting the strong anthropic principle, and the implied support for multiverse theories, a probabilistic irrelevance becomes a near certainty, by virtue of a uniform cosmos like ours emerging from among a multiplicity of more chaotic universes. It alters the odds so that the (near) impossible becomes inevitable. This is one of the strongest metaphysical arguments in favour of the various multiverse theories, but it is problematic for a number of reasons, which I haven’t got time to articulate now.

Regards the observation that the universe appears to have been set up for the creation of black holes rather than life stable supporting galaxies such as ours, the mystery appears to be why density fluctuations in the the early universe didn’t create far more black holes, causing the universe to collapse in on itself entirely.

Suggested reading; A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking
In Search of the Multiverse, John Gribbin

 

[osgart]

Believing or not is a different question, but this argument is not based on possibilities but probability.

Don't possibilities play into probabilities though?

 

[firedragon]

Don't possibilities play into probabilities though?

So many things could be logically possible mate. Even a person called osgart, playing a game boy behind the moon is also logically possible. They are not good arguments to posit.

This whole argument, even if you believe it or not, is based on probabilities. Not possibilities. So saying this or that is possible is an invalid argument. It's not even a valid proposition.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Don't possibilities play into probabilities though?

Indeed. The probability of something impossible is zero.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Indeed. The probability of something impossible is zero.

But we appear to live in a probabilistic universe, whereby only in exceptional cases is probability ever equal either to zero or to unity. To think in terms of certainty, is to misunderstand the fundamental nature of the world around (and within) us.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Indeed. The probability of something impossible is zero.

How do you know this? Doesn't possibility need to be demonstrated?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How do you know this?

By definition.

Doesn't possibility need to be demonstrated?

Sure.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

By definition.


Sure.

Ok, I think I misunderstood your statement.

 

[rational experiences]

The theme my man human thoughts only.... since man lived memory after saviour ice age on earth.

I am not comparable to created creation. Creations activities my thesis are still non stop reactive.

As earth still is naturally. Reactive.
As it's heavens still is naturally. Reactive.

Created creation. Designer man inventor false creator false creator story. Just a human.

I build a machine I compared my thoughts to getting the machine. From creation still reacting.

Machine came out of history the creation.

I live oxygen water life bio. My life body mainly water I liken to a gas spirit.

Not created creation in any theme.

So living I build a machine. To manifest the machine my thoughts quote recording my memory living. That bio living I have given machine its body life presence. By using my life lived by status the heavens.

It's a direct falsified memory.

The machine however status is static bodily does not live or react. Already used living heavens to be a machine body.

Exact comparing false memory you look back on. Theist inventor.

And not first in creation are two humans mother father human. Reason you own life itself the human.

You might talk theories about them it's only stories by legal law human status. Stories only. Not reality. Legal as humans use words and lie. Known behaviour.

As thesis is direct to machine. Creation.
As thesis is direct how to time shift machine to make it bodily disappear but saved in a reaction of the same mass history. Within the space you cause to react inside body. Machine.

You hence then lie saying machine is creating creation. And it is your lie.

Lost in your own fake science of man memories. A human psychic healer review....I'm aware. I realise.

Legal said. Right at that moment no Alchemy science. All science.

From man deceased life to many lives lived deceased now. Legally you reinvented illegally science.

You still look back over all dead human men destroyed as light and energy both are destroyed equally. As a life once lived.

Today life is waiting for human man to instantly no longer biologically exist by those terms a thesis looking back.

 

[Clara Tea]

I've been reading about the fine-tuning recently. In summary, this is the idea that...

...the universe is able to support life depends delicately on various of its fundamental characteristics, notably on the form of the laws of nature, on the values of some constants of nature, and on aspects of the universe’s conditions in its very early stages.

From Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

It seems that the incredible unlikelihood of our existence given different values require some sort of response. The common ones appear to be,

1. The values of parameters in the standard model and other theories couldn't have been any different as far as we know.
2. There are a near infinite number of possible universes and some of them would be likely to have life supporting constants.
3. It's just a coincidence.
   
4. It isn't fine tuned.
   
5. God did it.

Sabine Hossenfelder takes approach 1 in the public discussions I've seen and I have to say that this seems to me to be the most reasonable (disclaimer - I'm an atheist and it is fair to assume I'm biased towards explanations of the world that doen't require gods). Roughly, what she argues is that we can't construct probability distribution for events that we can never observe more than once. I find that compelling.

(2) is something I've seen often and I had accepted as plausible until recently but reasoning from a speculative "hypothesis" seems to be cheating. Explaining a scientific discovery regarding fine tuning with an unscientific proposal isn't a reasonable way to deal with the issue.

(3) seems to be fine, in principle, but completely unsatisfying. Like saying, "of course the universe is suitable for life or we wouldn't be here". This doesn't attempt to engage with the problem. Poor form if you ask me.

(4) is straight up bonkers. Just denial as far as I can see.

(5) is a stretch as I see it. I think the fine-tuning argument is the strongest one for gods but even if we could show that the universe could've been different we wouldn't be showing that some god choose for it to be life friendly. Also, it wouldn't favour any particular conception of a creator over any other, imo. That said, I could be persuaded that it is evidence for some sort of goddish thing under the right conditions.

Here's a couple of vids for anyone interested in looking into it:

- chat between physicists Sabine Hossenfelder and Luke Barnes.

- Luke Barnes, Geraint Lewis (physicist) and philosopher Philip Goff.

- short video on theologian David Lane Craig's channel.

- Closer To Truth episode


Please share your thoughts, arguments, angry denouncements, unhinged rants etc.

SETI established the rarity of life. The only confirmed life in the universe is here on earth. All life on earth is related by DNA. In other words, if life did spontaneously develop on earth more than once, we would (or should) see DNA that is not related.

Some theists say that if they don't see radical mutations in short periods, then evolution doesn't exist. Hypothetically, they think that the cat should be able to change into a Volkswagon in the next 45 minutes. But evolution is a slow process.

We can observe mutations in nature. This is why the flu requires a new vaccine every year. So, flu germs do mutate quickly.

However, I don't think that the conditions for life (as we know it) are rare. I think that the planets (around our sun) formed from a ring of dust around the sun. But some parts of that ring freeze due to the distance from the sun. Thus, earth is a water planet, in which the three phases of water are present (vapor, liquid, and ice). This, I think, is because the earth was at a precise distance for mud to form from frozen particles of ice. Similarly, I think that Jupiter formed from frozen carbon dioxide (dry ice). Therefore, if we look at some distance solar system, it is likely to have a water planet (where life as we know it can start or flourish).

 

[nPeace]

I've been reading about the fine-tuning recently. In summary, this is the idea that...

...the universe is able to support life depends delicately on various of its fundamental characteristics, notably on the form of the laws of nature, on the values of some constants of nature, and on aspects of the universe’s conditions in its very early stages.

From Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

It seems that the incredible unlikelihood of our existence given different values require some sort of response. The common ones appear to be,

1. The values of parameters in the standard model and other theories couldn't have been any different as far as we know.
2. There are a near infinite number of possible universes and some of them would be likely to have life supporting constants.
3. It's just a coincidence.
   
4. It isn't fine tuned.
   
5. God did it.

Sabine Hossenfelder takes approach 1 in the public discussions I've seen and I have to say that this seems to me to be the most reasonable (disclaimer - I'm an atheist and it is fair to assume I'm biased towards explanations of the world that doen't require gods). Roughly, what she argues is that we can't construct probability distribution for events that we can never observe more than once. I find that compelling.

(2) is something I've seen often and I had accepted as plausible until recently but reasoning from a speculative "hypothesis" seems to be cheating. Explaining a scientific discovery regarding fine tuning with an unscientific proposal isn't a reasonable way to deal with the issue.

(3) seems to be fine, in principle, but completely unsatisfying. Like saying, "of course the universe is suitable for life or we wouldn't be here". This doesn't attempt to engage with the problem. Poor form if you ask me.

(4) is straight up bonkers. Just denial as far as I can see.

(5) is a stretch as I see it. I think the fine-tuning argument is the strongest one for gods but even if we could show that the universe could've been different we wouldn't be showing that some god choose for it to be life friendly. Also, it wouldn't favour any particular conception of a creator over any other, imo. That said, I could be persuaded that it is evidence for some sort of goddish thing under the right conditions.

Here's a couple of vids for anyone interested in looking into it:

- chat between physicists Sabine Hossenfelder and Luke Barnes.

- Luke Barnes, Geraint Lewis (physicist) and philosopher Philip Goff.

- short video on theologian David Lane Craig's channel.

- Closer To Truth episode


Please share your thoughts, arguments, angry denouncements, unhinged rants etc.

Thanks for the videos. I'll look at them later.

I just want to comment on #5.
The reason why this conclusion is plausible, and not a 'god-of-the-gaps' idea, is based on what we know from experience and observation.

Every purposeful design - even the most useless - required a designer, with some measure of intelligence.

Check out the Baya Weaver's home.

Small brained creatures are not excluded.

Then there is the bee, and of course, man.

WOW!

To think that these designs of far less intricacy, obviously requires a designer, but far more intricate systems does not require an intelligent designer, does not seem logical to me.

If these designs did not require a designer, then the only logical conclusion, to my mind, would be that they always were in that state... which they weren't.

There is good reason then for #5 to be a reasonable conclusion. Hebrews 4:3
Of course on the basis of other evidence for God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Small brained creatures are not excluded.

You do realize that the ants and termites build these by just removing the dirt that's easy to remove, right?

"Load-bearing dirt" is under a lot of pressure, which makes it hard for the ant to move it, so they leave it and look for a piece of dirt that's easier to move.

This is not "design" the way you're suggesting it is.

 

[nPeace]

You do realize that the ants and termites build these by just removing the dirt that's easy to remove, right?

"Load-bearing dirt" is under a lot of pressure, which makes it hard for the ant to move it, so they leave it and look for a piece of dirt that's easier to move.

This is not "design" the way you're suggesting it is.

The way I am suggesting it? How am I suggesting it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The way I am suggesting it? How am I suggesting it?

I believe the words you used were "purposeful design" with "some measure of intelligence."

The process that the ants and termites follow is just:

- remove the loose soil
- leave the soil that's hard to remove.

This is almost the exact same process as erosion by wind or rain. Do you think the wind has intelligence or is doing purposeful design?

 

[nPeace]

I believe the words you used were "purposeful design" with "some measure of intelligence."

The process that the ants and termites follow is just:

- remove the loose soil
- leave the soil that's hard to remove.

This is almost the exact same process as erosion by wind or rain. Do you think the wind has intelligence or is doing purposeful design?

You are saying that termites do not have a purpose because they must, or have no choice but to use what they have, or work with the conditions available to them. Seriously?

That's like saying, birds have no purpose for building their nest in the way they do. They choose the twigs and leaves they do because they can't lift boards. Seriously?
Have you ever actually watched a bird choose its building materials?

I really do wonder where some Atheists come up with their arguments. Seriously.
I think you don't know as much as you think you do about termites... or animals.
Either that, or you simply want to make any argument against.

Or maybe you really don't know what you are talking about.
Go here, to learn.

I'll cite one I picked at random for you.
TERMITE INSPIRED ARCHITECTURE
What can we learn from the animal kingdom in regards of constructing buildings? Termites build intriguing and climate controlled mounds. They need to control their environment meticulously as they are very sensitive beings that cannot survive unless it is warm and humid. The architecture of a termite mound creates a natural a/c. There are likely a lot to learn from these termite creations and to take with us in the human construction and architectural sector. There is already a termite inspired building, how is it built and what makes it so unique?


An ant can move any soil particle it wants.
It can break it down to what it wants, if it wants.

Our saliva was not designed for that purpose, but each creature was designed with what it needs to get the job done.
That's why termites dont have hands... or do they.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are saying that termites do not have a purpose because they must, or have no choice but to use what they have, or work with the conditions available to them. Seriously?

No, I'm saying that your arguments in this thread are nonsense.

 

[nPeace]

No, I'm saying that your arguments in this thread are nonsense.

Thank you. Have a good day.
I'm not sore.