Fine tuning of the Universe

[Chesterton]

But when the conclusion is the observation, then the conclusion is precluded and no longer is observed.

That doesn't follow.

 

[durangodawood]

You can ask whatever you like, however you like, but no I don't think we need to rephrase it, it seems honest enough.

No. Not honest. Its a "when did you stop beating your wife" type question.

And you are wrong about all those eminent scientists.

They do not all agree the universe has a tuner nor a tailor. Not by a long shot.

 

[Chesterton]

Well then you are wrong about all those eminent scientists.

They do not all agree the universe has a tuner nor a tailor. Not by a long shot.

I said they agreed it was tuned. Obviously the atheists remain atheists. Not sure how, but they do.

 

[durangodawood]

I said they agreed it was tuned. Obviously the atheists remain atheists. Not sure how, but they do.

No they do not IF "tuned" means there's necessarily a tuner, as you say.

Many find life naturally compatible with its environment... without any outside agency making it so.

 

[Chesterton]

No. Not honest. Its a "when did you stop beating your wife" type question.

You're right it's loaded, but the problem is it's impossible to unload the language necessary to describe the reality.

 

[durangodawood]

You're right it's loaded, but the problem is it's impossible to unload the language necessary to describe the reality.

Loaded to produce a creator outcome: "universe is tuned to allow us."

Not loaded, neutral with respect to a creator: "we are compatible with our environment."

There you go. I unloaded the language.

 

[Chriliman]

It's like rolling a hundred dice and then calling the result "fine tuned".

Not really. The universe as we experience it is like coming accross a 100 dice, neatly ordered in rows of all threes and assuming it happened randomly instead of by intention.

It's more rational to assume the dice were ordered and intended to be in rows of threes for a reason, rather than assuming it all happened by random chance.

Even if the universe were different, this logic still applies. The dice could be in columns of all 4s or in a repeating pattern of 1 to 6 and we should still rationally assume intention because the odds that it all happened by random chance is beyond rational acceptance(or at least should be beyond rational acceptance.)

Edit: besides it takes intention to roll dice in the first place.

 

[durangodawood]

Not really. The universe as we experience it is like coming accross a 100 dice, neatly ordered in rows of all threes and assuming it happened randomly instead of by intention.

It's more rational to assume the dice were ordered and intended to be in rows of threes for a reason, rather than assuming it all happened by random chance.

Even if the universe were different, this logic still applies. The dice could be in columns of all 4s or in a repeating pattern of 1 to 6 and we should still rationally assume intention because the odds that it all happened by random chance is beyond rational acceptance(or at least should be beyond rational acceptance.)

Edit: besides it takes intention to roll dice in the first place.

How is all 3's less likely than any other combination?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is all 3's less likely than any other combination?

And the "all 3's" analogy is not exactly accurate. There are set values but they are all over the place. The values are special because we make them special. Yes, life would be different with other values, this amounts to a Texas Sharp Shooter Fallacy.

 

[Chriliman]

How is all 3's less likely than any other combination?

I don't know, but the point is that if you come accross 100 dice that are neatly ordered in rows of 3, you're more likely to assume intention than to assume it happened by random chance.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't know, but the point is that if you come accross 100 dice that are neatly ordered in rows of 3, you're more likely to assume intention than to assume it happened by random chance.

I do know. All 3's is as likely as any other specific combination.

Yes. I would assume some super low entropy geometric arrangement of dice is intentioned. But thats just due to the odds, not the necessity.

But I disagree strongly that our universe is such a low entropy arrangement as to defy expectation. "We're here" does not make it so.

 

[Chriliman]

I do know. All 3's is as likely as any other specific combination.

Not really. Dice rolls are not completely random, so the likelihood will vary depending on different variables.

Dice Rolls are Not Completely Random

Yes. I would assume some super low entropy geometric arrangement of dice is intentioned. But thats just due to the odds, not the necessity.

But I disagree strongly that our universe is such a low entropy arrangement as to defy expectation. "We're here" does not make it so.

No, but assuming random chance considering the insurmountable odds that this universe arose by random chance, rather than by intention, takes real aversion to the idea of an intended universe.

 

[durangodawood]

Not really. Dice rolls are not completely random, so the likelihood will vary depending on different variables.

Dice Rolls are Not Completely Random



No, but assuming random chance considering the insurmountable odds that this universe arose by random chance, rather than by intention, takes real aversion to the idea of an intended universe.

Yeah there's some tiny non random aspect to dice rolling.

But the whole reason you brought up the dice question is because for the most part we expect the outcome to be random. So lets not confuse the issue for no reason at all.

As for our universe, can you tell me why ours must be less likely than any other?

 

[Chesterton]

Loaded to produce a creator outcome: "universe is tuned to allow us."

Not loaded, neutral with respect to a creator: "we are compatible with our environment."

There you go. I unloaded the language.

I said the language necessary to describe the reality. Your statement is a retreat away from describing reality. "We are compatible" could have been said 1,000 years ago. You're glossing over the numerical facts science discovered in the 20th century.

 

[Chriliman]

But the whole reason you brought up the dice question is because for the most part we expect the outcome to be random. So lets not confuse the issue for no reason at all.

That wasn't why I brought it up. If we came accross a 100 dice that appeared to be random then we shouldn't necissarily assume intention because they could of fallen off something by accident. The point I was making is that we've discovered the dice are not randomly strewn about as if by accident, we've discovered fine tuned order and therefore should rationally assume intention.

 

[durangodawood]

I said the language necessary to describe the reality. Your statement is a retreat away from describing reality. "We are compatible" could have been said 1,000 years ago. You're glossing over the numerical facts science discovered in the 20th century.

Only if you presume that the outcome should be intelligent life do the long odds pose an issue. But thats a presumption. Loading the question again.

A presumptive outcome is strictly a matter of faith.

So be let be aware of how we bake our faith into the questions we ask.

(And the possibility there's infinite universes is just as likely as only one - for all we know. So the odds of one like ours popping up may be in fact be astronomically high).

 

[Chesterton]

Only if you presume that the outcome should be intelligent life do the long odds pose an issue. But thats a presumption. Loading the question again.

A presumptive outcome is strictly a matter of faith.

So be let be aware of how we bake our faith into the questions we ask.

(And the possibility infinite universes is just as likely as only one - for all we know. So the odds of one like ours popping up may be in fact be astronomically high).

No you don't have to presume what the outcome should be. It's merely observing what the outcome in fact is - life. The long odds are by definition long odds, regardless of any presumption.

 

[durangodawood]

That wasn't why I brought it up. If we came accross a 100 dice that appeared to be random then we shouldn't necissarily assume intention because they could of fallen off something by accident. The point I was making is that we've discovered the dice are not randomly strewn about as if by accident, we've discovered fine tuned order and therefore should rationally assume intention.

A presumption.

We have discovered ourselves to be within an order where a being like us can exist. Thats all we know.

Any intention, "tuning", tinkering, is a complete presumption. One random outcome like all 3's is just as likely as any other... (notwithstanding the slight non-randomness of dice distraction).

 

[durangodawood]

No you don't have to presume what the outcome should be. It's merely observing what the outcome in fact is - life. The long odds are by definition long odds, regardless of any presumption.

The odds of any other particular configuration are just as long for all we know.

The presumption lies in thinking that our particular long-odds outcome is desired by some other agency. We dont find that desire in the universe somewhere. We bring it to the table as a matter of faith.

 

[Chesterton]

The presumption lies in thinking that our particular long-odds outcome is desired by some other agency.

That seems to be an entirely reasonable and logical presumption. And I don't think there is anything else as reasonable to presume.