How rational are you?

[Heyo]

In cosmology? In a nutshell, there are several properties of the universe (the strength of gravity, the mass of an electron, the asymmetry of matter and anti-matter particles, the cosmological constant, critical density, etc..) in regard to which, were the parameters or values to deviate even slightly from what they are observed to be, the universe would not have been able to support the formation of galaxies, complex chemistry, or life.

Put another way, according to theoretical models of cosmology, the probability of a bio-compatible universe emerging from the Big Bang is astronomically low. Though above zero, obviously, since we are here; which is where the anthropic principle comes in. The anthropic principle, however, is a tautology, and deeply unsatisfying even to those cosmologists like Hawking, who mobilised it as a philosophical argument to explain away the impossible odds against our being here.

Nope. What you are describing is roughly the fine tuning argument for a god. It has nothing to do with cosmology.

The fine tuning problem, in physics, from which the fine tuning argument is constructed, is that there is no theory to explain the values of the basic constants. We have to measure them. A comprehensive Theory of Everything would have laws that determine the values of the constants and tell us why the cosmos has to be like it is.
This gap in our knowledge is where the fine tuning argument tries to squeeze in a god who set the values.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Nope. What you are describing is roughly the fine tuning argument for a god. It has nothing to do with cosmology.

The fine tuning problem, in physics, from which the fine tuning argument is constructed, is that there is no theory to explain the values of the basic constants. We have to measure them. A comprehensive Theory of Everything would have laws that determine the values of the constants and tell us why the cosmos has to be like it is.
This gap in our knowledge is where the fine tuning argument tries to squeeze in a god who set the values.

The problem is identical in both instances. There is as yet no solution from physics, and certainly none from theology that would be acceptable in cosmology; so the problem remains, as does the observation that the odds against us ever being here appear utterly prohibitive.

The observation that the universe appears as if it were fine tuned to support life, is an observation made by astronomers, which they generally find most unpalatable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope. What you are describing is roughly the fine tuning argument for a god. It has nothing to do with cosmology.

The fine tuning problem, in physics, from which the fine tuning argument is constructed, is that there is no theory to explain the values of the basic constants. We have to measure them. A comprehensive Theory of Everything would have laws that determine the values of the constants and tell us why the cosmos has to be like it is.
This gap in our knowledge is where the fine tuning argument tries to squeeze in a god who set the values.

That sounds like philosophy. Can you rephrase that?

 

[Heyo]

That sounds like philosophy. Can you rephrase that?

I don't know what is unclear. Scientists like to have theories that describe the universe. We are lacking a theory that determines the basic constants. That's the problem. It is on the edge between science and philosophy, with philosophy describing what we want and science what we have,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know what is unclear. Scientists like to have theories that describe the universe. We are lacking a theory that determines the basic constants. That's the problem. It is on the edge between science and philosophy, with philosophy describing what we want and science what we have,

I don't understand that in terms of how a theory works. It doesn't determine anything that is not based on observation/tests/measurements as I understand it.

 

[crossfire]

Warning: this poll is based on making a subjective judgment call.

 

[Heyo]

I don't understand that in terms of how a theory works. It doesn't determine anything that is not based on observation/tests/measurements as I understand it.

A theory explains the observation and the measurements confirm the theory, yes. And a comprehensive theory can explain all the observation and set them in relations. Special Relativity explains (and calculates) all phenomena like time dilation, length contraction etc. and they are confirmed by measurements. There is only one basic constant that is not explained by the theory and that is c.
We would like to have explanations why the natural constants are what they are, describing one through a formula by others. Like in maths where we can calculate one unknown in a set of unknowns by the others through a formula. But we don't have these formulas.
If we can describe one constant by other constants the arguments that the constants must have been "fine tuned" goes away. Then they are what they are because of laws of nature.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A theory explains the observation and the measurements confirm the theory, yes. And a comprehensive theory can explain all the observation and set them in relations. Special Relativity explains (and calculates) all phenomena like time dilation, length contraction etc. and they are confirmed by measurements. There is only one basic constant that is not explained by the theory and that is c.
We would like to have explanations why the natural constants are what they are, describing one through a formula by others. Like in maths where we can calculate one unknown in a set of unknowns by the others through a formula. But we don't have these formulas.
If we can describe one constant by other constants the arguments that the constants must have been "fine tuned" goes away. Then they are what they are because of laws of nature.

Yeah, the laws of nature . Well, it is not certain that they are there as a perfect model as I can tell.

 

[bobhikes]

Simple question: How rational do you think you are?

By beliefs I mean things that are at least contested/debatable to some degree: political beliefs, contested scientific beliefs, religious or irreligious beliefs, beliefs relating to culture, history, psychology, etc. rather than obvious fact like water freezes at 0c, or injecting creme de menthe into your testicles is likely to be painful.

Is being rational important to you? What are the limits of human rationality (or your rationality)?

As I believe everything in life is random, and rationality is just an illusion we use for coping, I don't do things very rationally in fact at times I go out of my way to do things irrationally. I literally get more anxiety from planning something then I do just going at it blind. Substitute each t with an r.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I still think it's funny anyone picked the first option.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Put another way, according to theoretical models of cosmology, the probability of a bio-compatible universe emerging from the Big Bang is astronomically low.

False conclusion. We don't even know if these values even could be different.
There are also values that would be even better to sustain life. But I bet that doesn't matter in your assumed conclusion.

Though above zero, obviously, since we are here; which is where the anthropic principle comes in. The anthropic principle, however, is a tautology, and deeply unsatisfying even to those cosmologists like Hawking, who mobilised it as a philosophical argument to explain away the impossible odds against our being here.

The problem is that we don't have the required knowledge to even be capable of calculating the odds. We don't even know what the variables are.
Next to that, probabilities are also only useful when you know the amount of trials you get.

If the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics is correct, and there's an infinite amount of universe, then it wouldn't matter "how low" the odds were, because in that case anything that could happen, would happen - and infinite amount of times even.

So really, this "argument" doesn't help the religious case at all.

It's firstly a giant argument from ignorance "we don't know how these values exist so therefor god turned the dials"
Secondly, the claim that it is improbable is not in evidence. The conclusion that follows from that even less.

It might as well be inevitable with a chance of 1 in 1.
It might also be that there's an infinite amount of trials, which renders any probability argument useless anyway.


So yea... the "fine tuning" argument... doesn't really work in favor of theism.

 

[Erebus]

Simple question: How rational do you think you are?

By beliefs I mean things that are at least contested/debatable to some degree: political beliefs, contested scientific beliefs, religious or irreligious beliefs, beliefs relating to culture, history, psychology, etc. rather than obvious fact like water freezes at 0c, or injecting creme de menthe into your testicles is likely to be painful.

Is being rational important to you? What are the limits of human rationality (or your rationality)?

I went for Some of my beliefs are rational, many are not.

That seems like the most honest answer I can give. I couldn't go for "I don't care" since I'll certainly make the effort to properly think through some of my beliefs. I also couldn't pick "most of my beliefs are rational" as there's not enough time in the day to check every new piece of information. I'm also fully aware that even those beliefs I do think through carefully will be coloured by unconscious biases and preferences.

How many times have I glimpsed the headline of a study while scrolling through the internet and just assumed it to be true/false without actually reading the study itself? How many times have I dismissed somebody's argument out of hand simply because I don't like them? How many of my political beliefs originated from anger over something I saw on the news?

There are just too many factors at play in shaping how I think for me to claim that the majority of my beliefs are rational.

Ultimately, I view rationality as a useful tool rather than a way of life.

 

[syo]

I only care about Yu-Gi-Oh. I'm very rational.

 

[wellwisher]

Being rational is a way to process thought. However, the process of reason is only as good as your foundation premises. Foundation premises structure how you will reason and how you will interpret the very data that is used for your reasoning.

For example, we have two main political parties in the US, with both interpreting the same data in different ways. Both are being rational with the data, but each starts with a set of different foundation premises. Most people do not question their foundation premises, since there are enough people like yourself that use these. The numbers of allies in thought makes your line of reasoning appear correct and validated by the large number of people.

One basic foundation premise that many use in science is connected to a universe governed by randomness and odds. I call it casino science, since it does not see reality with clarity, but through the lens of fuzzy dice. This foundation premise is supported by a math tool, which makes it appear a sound way to reason. However, how can reason with fuzzy dice data blobs with margins of error? Unlike sharp data points, one cannot draw a single line between two data blobs that each take up a volume of certainty. The slope can vary with everyone then having to settle on a consensus, instead all coming to the exact same conclusion, independently, due to sharp data and solid lines of reasoning.

If you look the theory of evolution, one of its foundation premises starts the analysis at the first genetic based replicators. What comes before that; abiogenesis, is assigned a different branch of science as though both are not connected. This line in the sand, excludes any foundation premise that assumes evolution is a continuation of what was driving abiogenesis. This bias of tradition is connected to casino science, that tries to separate the gaming tables into different games; lottery and scratch tickets.

To be truly rational, one has to figure out which foundation premise you use, and then make sure these are rational, since if they are not, the best reasoning, based on their preconceived bias, will never get you to the promised land.

Casino science uses the same math used by gambling casinos, sports betting, politics, marketing, etc. In the news now there is concern how COVID science was too influenced by biased politics and censorship; fudge the data by data omission. The overlap in fuzzy dice thinking can allow politics to lead science the wrong way, based on picking winners and losers in the casino of politics.

I was fortunate, years ago I was doing unconscious mind research on myself, to collect good first hand internal data. This way I had solid data for reasoning the layout of my mind. There was a phase in the research where my brain laid bare my foundation premises I had acquires over my life to that point. I had never thought about it before. But as I reasoned what I had accepted as foundation for thought, it led to the disruption of these premises. After that I became free floating, since I learned the hard way that foundation premises are what keep you moored in reality. It was a struggle to find replacements but it ended better for me.