How do you detect "design"?

[shunyadragon]

Has cosmic fine-tuning been refuted? « Math Scholar

I'm sure that the overall consensus is that the universe is anomalously fine tuned.

The concept of Fine Tuning is not meaningful, because Natural Laws, natural processes, and the nature of out physical existence is simply as it is nothing less and nothing more, Trying to hard to explain things beyond what can be explained does not answer questions. I like Buddha's view on "Fine Tuning."

"If the string is too tight it breaks. If it is too loose no music."

Buddha

 

[Subduction Zone]

Has cosmic fine-tuning been refuted? « Math Scholar

I'm sure that the overall consensus is that the universe is anomalously fine tuned.

You got that from that article? I would not trust him. The one scientist who's position on fine tuning that I am aware of he got wrong. Sean Carroll argues against fine tuning, not for it. How many others did he get wrong?

 

[shunyadragon]

You got that from that article? I would not trust him. The one scientist who's position on fine tuning that I am aware of he got wrong. Sean Carroll argues against fine tuning, not for it. How many others did he get wrong?

Victor j. Stenger wrote a good book opposing "Fine Tuning."

 

[osgart]

The concept of Fine Tuning is not meaningful, because Natural Laws, natural processes, and the nature of out physical existence is simply as it is nothing less and nothing more, Trying to hard to explain things beyond that can be explained does not answer questions. I like Buddha's view on "Fine Tuning."

"If the string is too tight it breaks. If it is too loose no music."

Buddha

Or someone is trying too hard to explain fine tuning away.

A string is part of a designed instrument, so that analogy would not hold.

Anyways the appearance of forethought, and planning of living organisms is apparent. I suspect that nature has trial and error plans baked into it. I would not call it design, but I do believe natural processes have some baked in natural intelligence. Although calling on an ideal design from a perfect God is easily refutable, there are middle roads to cosmic purpose between atheism and theism; maybe panpsychism, perhaps idealism, or some form of dualism is naturally occuring.

 

[osgart]

You got that from that article? I would not trust him. The one scientist who's position on fine tuning that I am aware of he got wrong. Sean Carroll argues against fine tuning, not for it. How many others did he get wrong?

At the very least it is a matter of contention and debate.

I'm very skeptical about dismissing it.

Perhaps the article is subtly misleading and I didn't able recognize it.

Here's what Wikipedia has:

Motivation. Physicist Paul Davies said: "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life.

 

[shunyadragon]

Or someone is trying too hard to explain fine tuning away.

That's easy there is no evidence for :Fine tuning.. It is meaningless speculation to try and explain what cannot be explain, and no it is not widely accepted in science, though many with religious motives try to justify it without evidence

A string is part of a designed instrument, so that analogy would not hold.

It is an analogy not a music instrument,

Anyways the appearance of forethought, and planning of living organisms is apparent.

Not it is not, There is only objective evidence of cause and effect outcomes based on Natural Laws and processes.

I suspect that nature has trial and error plans baked into it. I would not call it design, but I do believe natural processes have some baked in natural intelligence. Although calling on an ideal design from a perfect God is easily refutable, there are middle roads to cosmic purpose between atheism and theism; maybe panpsychism, perhaps idealism, or some form of dualism is naturally occuring.

There is nothing random or 'trial and error' observed in the outcomes of cause and effect events in nature out side the limits of Natural Laws and natural processes. Nature does not have Intelligence. That is a human quality and sometimes unfortunate,

There are no imaginary middle roads, and atheism and Theism has absolutely nothing to do with science.

 

[osgart]

That's easy there is no evidence for :Fine tuning.. It is meaningless speculation to try and explain what cannot be explain, and no it is not widely accepted in science, though many with religious motives try to justify it without evidence

It is an analogy not a music instrument,

Not it is not, There is only objective evidence of cause and effect outcomes based on NAtural LAws and processes.


There is nothing random or 'trial and error' observed in the outcomes of cause and effect events in nature out side the limits of Natural Laws and natural processes. Nature does not have Intelligence. That is a human quality and sometimes unfortunate,

There are no imaginary middle roads, and atheism and Theism has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Then what do you make of scientist's Geraint Lewis and Luke Barnes book, ' A Fortunate Universe, Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos ' .

Why would I take your word for it over what this book articulates?

 

[shunyadragon]

Then what do you make of scientist's Geraint Lewis and Luke Barnes book, ' A Fortunate Universe, Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos ' .

The conclusions of this book is based on religious assumptions, and NOT science.

victor j. stenger book against Fine Tuning is based on science from a non-believer perspective and it is a good argument.

I reject both arguments and take the neutral ground based on science that the arguments are mute. Our physical existence is simply as it is without religious assumptions without evidence beyond what we can observe objectively, We cannot observe directly whether our universe id fine tuning or not.

Why would I take your word for it over what this book articulates?

The book articulates a Theist view, some in between "some appearance of fine tuning" some like Victor J Stenger presents a good argument the no fine tuning, I take the middle road "absolutely no direct evidence for either argument."

I most definitely do not agree with the justification of design in nature based on the belief in finetuning without direct evidence, and use it for the argument for the existence of God.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

My previous post covered this completely. When communicating in the English language you should not redefine terms to suite yourself. It creates overlapping meanings. "Intelligent Design" is a specific concept defined in a previous post, whether you use the word Intelligent or not which clear and specific terms refers to "design" in nature, by a "Designer" outside Nature. In terms of science it is important to differentiate "Design" by human or Alien(?) influences from causes of Natural Laws and Natural processes.

Greetings,

I appreciate the definition you provided. My point is that even with the one source you provided for the definition of the word “design” it is not complete. As we all know, languages evolve and definitions are often not static or stationary in any language. I will have to separate my response in segments that I know up front will be debatable from any side.

For example, in the below are article the word design is used in the same way I intended.

All of this could be considered arguementative, but as we know with definitions sometimes it depends on which one a person picks and how the language evolves to use them.

 

[osgart]

The conclusions of this book is based on religious assumptions, and NOT science.

victor j. stenger book against Fine Tuning is based on science from a non-believer perspective and it is a good argument.

I reject both arguments and take the neutral ground based on science that the arguments are mute. Our physical existence is simply as it is without religious assumptions without evidence beyond what we can observe objectively, We cannot observe directly whether our universe id fine tuning or not.


The book articulates a Theist view, some in between "some appearance of fine tuning" some like Victor J Stenger presents a good argument the no fine tuning, I take the middle road "absolutely no direct evidence for either argument."

I most definitely do not agree with the justification of design in nature based on the belief in finetuning without direct evidence, and use it for the argument for the existence of God.

One is a theist, the other is a non theist. I'm not sure what religious assumptions you are referring to though.

 

[shunyadragon]

One is a theist, the other is a non theist. I'm not sure what religious assumptions you are referring to though.

There are too many agendas involved and I can easily reject them all without objective evidence. It remains hypothetical that the Theist position of intentional 'fine tuning' or the excellent argument by Victor J Stenger for no fine tuning. Why should I reject his argument or accept either?

The book you referred to articulates a Theist view, some in between "some appearance of fine tuning" some like Victor J Stenger presents a good argument the no fine tuning, I take the middle road "absolutely no direct evidence for either argument."

The agenda of your book is an obvious Theist agenda I most definitely do not agree with the justification of design in nature based on the belief in finetuning without direct evidence, and use it for the argument for the existence of God.

The reality remains these a Theological/Philosophical arguments based on speculation of Theist purpose in Creation versus argument of no fine tuning no purpose other than the nature of out physical existence,

Remember, one reference stated that there was "an appearance of some 'fine tuning," and that is not a very good evidence for an endorsement. Science is not based on "appearance."

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I believe you are unnecessarily 'arguing from ignorance' as to what Aliens could be.

You have to clarify what you mean by "other designing entities," could possibly be.

You arguing from unreasonable speculation.

Actually, I am not argueing anything. I asked a question. Also, of course I am ignorant of TagliatelliMonster's response, that is why I asked a question.

Thus,

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually, I am not argueing anything. I asked a question. Also, of course I am ignorant of TagliatelliMonster's response, that is why I asked a question.

View attachment 91058

Thus,

View attachment 91059

I simply do not believe the word design by definition has any constructive meaning in science.

It becomes a severe problem leading to beliefs such as Intelligent Design, the argument for intentional fine tuning by Godas your reference argued.

Your relying on a reference that justifies a Theist perspective takes away your neutrality.

 

[LuisDantas]

You could, but the audience world be small. He presents arguments against the existence of God. His book on the Fine Tuning Argument is well done.

Indeed. He deserves a lot more attention that he has had so far.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry, I don’t see how aren’t these synonymous?...........obviously evidence for manipulation would be evidence for design, evidnce for patters that could likely have been created by nature would be evidence for nature.

Then what? what is your point? What am I missing?

I don't know what else to tell you dude.

Consider a fire.
What would be evidence of a fire having raged?
Would it not be signs of fire? Like ashes and alike?

If your point is that we know that spears are design, because we have seen people carving spears, I would disagree…………I would argue that we can know that they were design independently of that prior observation………….And I could defend my position

Then defend that position. Don't just claim you can. Do it.
Note also that I didn't just say that we know what spears are.

We off course do know what spears are so we would instantly recognize them.
But there's more to it then that. Suppose that for some reason the concept of spears were lost in the pages of history.
We would still recognize a spear as a designed object.

It would bear all the hallmarks of manipulation / manufacturing.
The pointed end would for example exhibit signs of carving.
If the point was made out of rock and stick out of wood, we would instantly recognize that someone attached that rock to that stick.
Because we know what wood is and we know what rocks are and we know that rocks don't grow on trees.

There's a whole bunch of knowledge that tells us that that object is not a natural object but rather a manufactured one.


But go ahead, tell us all how we would recognize a spear as a designed / manufactured object without knowing any of these things.

 

[osgart]

There are too many agendas involved and I can easily reject them all without objective evidence. It remains hypothetical that the Theist position of intentional 'fine tuning' or the excellent argument by Victor J Stenger for no fine tuning. Why should I reject his argument or accept either?

Things like the Penrose number for the initial conditions of the universe, or the cosmological constant, how do you deny those are fine tuned? I'm not familiar with Stenger, but it sounds like people do not regard the precision of those numbers.

Lewis is an atheist, Barnes is a theist. They converse throughout the book from those two perspectives. They are both scientists.

The book you referred to articulates a Theist view, some in between "some appearance of fine tuning" some like Victor J Stenger presents a good argument the no fine tuning, I take the middle road "absolutely no direct evidence for either argument."

Lewis is an atheist. The claim is that it is anomalous fine tuning, anything beyond that is philosophical.

The agenda of your book is an obvious Theist agenda I most definitely do not agree with the justification of design in nature based on the belief in finetuning without direct evidence, and use it for the argument for the existence of God.

What would that kind of direct evidence look like? All science has philosophical underpinnings.

The reality remains these a Theological/Philosophical arguments based on speculation of Theist purpose in Creation versus argument of no fine tuning no purpose other than the nature of out physical existence,

Remember, one reference stated that there was "an appearance of some 'fine tuning," and that is not a very good evidence for an endorsement. Science is not based on "appearance."

Ignoring appearance is a mistake, it has to be investigated. Methodological naturalism doesn't even consider anything about any intelligence in nature. It assumes it's own conclusion. Science isn't built to explain nature, it's built to evidence how processes work, and predict results. Math and observation are the limits of science.

If you want to actually explain phenomena then philosophy is the tool.

 

[leroy]

I don't know what else to tell you dude.

Consider a fire.
What would be evidence of a fire having raged?
Would it not be signs of fire? Like ashes and alike?






Then defend that position. Don't just claim you can. Do it.
Note also that I didn't just say that we know what spears are.

We off course do know what spears are so we would instantly recognize them.
But there's more to it then that. Suppose that for some reason the concept of spears were lost in the pages of history.
We would still recognize a spear as a designed object.

It would bear all the hallmarks of manipulation / manufacturing.
The pointed end would for example exhibit signs of carving.
If the point was made out of rock and stick out of wood, we would instantly recognize that someone attached that rock to that stick.
Because we know what wood is and we know what rocks are and we know that rocks don't grow on trees.

There's a whole bunch of knowledge that tells us that that object is not a natural object but rather a manufactured one.


But go ahead, tell us all how we would recognize a spear as a designed / manufactured object without knowing any of these things.

I dont disagree, my only question is why do you act as if you are making some “interesting” point?

Obviously evidence for manipulation / manufacture is evidence for design……………then what? What is your point?


For example it seems to me that you wouldn’t object the design hypothesis if the spear is made out of the bone of some unknown animal, because the evidence for manipulation would still be there.

it seems to me that You wouldn’t object the design hypothesis even if we don’t know who de designer is, nor where did it come from, you wouldn’t object the design hypothesis even if there is no prior evidence for any designer living in that area where the spear was found, and you would object the design hypothesis even if this where the firs spear ever found in the planet .

So do we have any point of disagreement? It seems to me that we don’t

 

[shunyadragon]

Things like the Penrose number for the initial conditions of the universe, or the cosmological constant, how do you deny those are fine tuned? I'm not familiar with Stenger, but it sounds like people do not regard the precision of those numbers.

If your not familiar with Steiger, you ar enot considering all the arguments,

The Pentose argument is based on philosophical assumptions of the math Penrose uses and not science.

Lewis is an atheist, Barnes is a theist. They converse throughout the book from those two perspectives. They are both scientists.

Again, again, again and many times again. I reject them all, because their arguments are based on theological/ philosophical arguments and NOT science.

Lewis is an atheist. The claim is that it is anomalous fine tuning, anything beyond that is philosophical.

I do not care what their religious beliefs are I reject them all, because their arguments are based on theological/ philosophical arguments and NOT science.

What would that kind of direct evidence look like? All science has philosophical underpinnings.

Careful the philosophical underpinnings are based on "objective verifiable evidence," Popper's philosophy is the basis of Methodological Naturalism, which is the falsification of theories and hypotheses based on the predictability of objective verifiable evidence. No such basis to falsify a hypothesis for fine tuning.

It is a matter of fact that our universe is simply naturally as it is. Fine Tuning makes assumptions of the necessity of the nature of the origins of our physical existence, The only thing that can be concluded ie the Natural Laws and natural processes determined the nature of our physical existence, beyond that there is no evidence. If you want to call the Natural Laws and natural processes as tuned, so what?!?!?!

Calling an apple an apple does not change the fact that it is an apple.

Ignoring appearance is a mistake, it has to be investigated. Methodological naturalism doesn't even consider anything about any intelligence in nature. It assumes it's own conclusion. Science isn't built to explain nature, it's built to evidence how processes work, and predict results. Math and observation are the limits of science.

Science is justified in not considering superficial "appearance" without evidence

If you want to actually explain phenomena then philosophy is the tool.

No, philosophy relies to much on assumptions without objective verifiable evidence when considering physical phenomena..

 

[shunyadragon]

Then what do you make of scientist's Geraint Lewis and Luke Barnes book, ' A Fortunate Universe, Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos ' .

Why would I take your word for it over what this book articulates?

To add I do not believe science can base anything on what some call "fortunate." Too anthropomorphic.

 

[Pogo]

What would that kind of direct evidence look like?

Something that could be done by a known entity with known capabilities that thus stands out from the background undesigned.