Fine tuning of the Universe

[HitchSlap]

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

Which is why this is referred to as an argument from ignorance.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It seems to me that a sample of one is insufficient to draw any conclusions. Any universe of non-trivial complexity, taken in isolation, will appear fine-tuned in some way, whether it supports life or not, and (the Weak Anthropic Principle) any intelligent observers will find themselves in a universe apparently fine-tuned for their form of life because they will be made out of the components of that universe and function according to its laws.

Our universe doesn't appear to be fine-tuned for life as we know it, in fact it's almost uniformly extremely hostile to such life; if it were fine-tuned for life, we'd expect SETI or our solar system probes to have already found signs of alien life.

Sean Carroll made some rather better informed points on this subject in his debate with William Lane Craig (this part is less than 10 mins long):

The main points are below, but he puts some meat on their bones in the video.

• We don’t really know that the universe is tuned specifically for life, since we don’t know the conditions under which life is possible.
• Fine-tuning for life would only potentially be relevant if we already accepted naturalism; God could create life under arbitrary physical conditions.
• Apparent fine-tunings may be explained by dynamical mechanisms or improved notions of probability.
• The multiverse is a perfectly viable naturalistic explanation.
  
• If God had finely-tuned the universe for life, it would look very different indeed.

Incidentally, not all forms of the multiverse involve 'bubble' or 'pocket' universes in some greater bulk (metaverse). Some simply involve the universe we are part of being so large (perhaps infinitely large) that parts of it are causally isolated from other parts, and may have different values for parameters we see as constant. A very (e.g. infinitely) large universe would have (infinitely) many causally isolated volumes, effectively comprising separate universes.

 

[durangodawood]

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

If the odds of our particular universe-outcome are as long as for any other (which, as far as we know, they are)... then why is it reasonable to presume our particular outcome was desired by some other agency?

 

[Radrook]

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

Thousands of dice neatly ordered in rows of threes.
You would not assume chance as the more logical explanation.

 

[durangodawood]

Thousands of dice neatly ordered in rows of threes.
You would not assume chance as the more logical explanation.

Lets just stick to the all-3's rather than the arrangement for the moment. (I'll come back later the the arrangement if you want).

You didnt really answer my question, which basically was: how much less likely is all-3's than any other particular outcome?

 

[Chesterton]

Which is why this is referred to as an argument from ignorance.

No, a reasonable hypothesis is not an argument from ignorance.

If the odds of our particular universe-outcome are as long as for any other (which, as far as we know, they are)... then why is it reasonable to presume our particular outcome was desired by some other agency?

What do you mean by "our particular universe"? You believe there's another one?

 

[durangodawood]

...What do you mean by "our particular universe"? You believe there's another one?

Our particular universe is the one we are in.

I dont know if there are others. But its perfectly plausible that there are infinitely many, and that they represent infinitely many conditions.

So... my question...?

 

[Chriliman]

Our particular universe is the one we are in.

I dont know if there are others. But its perfectly plausible that there are infinitely many, and that they represent infinitely many conditions.

So... my question...?

And somehow those other universes could have caused ours, right?

So what you're suggesting would be similar to finding a 100 dice in ordered rows of 3s and assuming some other set of ordered or random dice that there's no evidence for, somehow could have caused this set to be the way that it is. All this to avoid the assumption that the dice were intentionally ordered in rows of 3s.

 

[durangodawood]

And somehow those other universes could have caused ours, right?

So what you're suggesting would be similar to finding a 100 dice in ordered rows of 3s and assuming some other set of ordered or random dice that there's no evidence for, somehow could have caused this set to be the way that it is. All this to avoid the assumption that the dice were intentionally ordered in rows of 3s.

No need for all that.

There could be many universes, regardless of what "caused" them. And there may also be infinitely many combinations in which life could be expected to arise naturally (along with infinitely many others in which it could not).

Based on what we know, this is all perfectly plausible.

So... concluding that design is necessary (or even most likely/reasonable) is simply not warranted based on our very very limited view of reality. Although it may turn out that design is exactly what happened.

Stick with faith.
This line of reasoning toward God is fruitless.

 

[durangodawood]

Basically, in the face of such complete ignorance about what else is really out there, its totally unwarranted to draw conclusions about which possible explanation for us/this is most reasonable.

Stick with faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Basically, in the face of such complete ignorance about what else is really out there, its totally unwarranted to draw conclusions about which possible explanation for us/this is most reasonable.

Stick with faith.

Why? Faith is the worst of all reasons to believe anything. By faith Islam is as valid as Christianity which is as valid as the Norse Gods which is as valid as the Greek and Roman Gods. Are you sure that you want to go that route?

Try a bit of reason first.

 

[Radrook]

No, a reasonable hypothesis is not an argument from ignorance.


What do you mean by "our particular universe"? You believe there's another one?

One way of avoiding having to acknowledge that the fine-tuning indicates a creator is to say that this universe is very likely possible merely one in an infinite number of other universes and so arrived at this condition by mere chance because mere chance was probabilistically unavoidable. The problem with this hopeful conjecture is that there is absolutely no evidence to back it up. So all it really amounts to is wishful thinking motivated by a very strong anti-creator aversion. It is described in the following article:

In dealing with theories which have nothing in common except that they are antagonistic to theism, it is necessary to have a general term to designate them. Anti-theism appears to be the appropriate word. It is, of course, much more comprehensive in meaning than the term atheism. It applies to all systems which are opposed to theism. It includes, therefore, atheism, but short of atheism there are anti-theistic theories.

Opposition to theism
The Oxford English Dictionary defines antitheist as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a god". The earliest citation given for this meaning dates from 1833.[2] An antitheist may oppose belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one god in particular.

Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who regard theism as dangerous, destructive, or encouraging of harmful behavior. Christopher Hitchens offers an example of this approach in Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001), in which he writes: "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."[3]
Antitheism - Wikipedia

 

[KCfromNC]

One way of avoiding having to acknowledge that the fine-tuning indicates a creator is to say that this universe is very likely possible merely one in an infinite number of other universes and so arrived at this condition by mere chance because mere chance was probabilistically unavoidable. The problem with this hopeful conjecture is that there is absolutely no evidence to back it up.

As opposed to the copious evidence that an invisible magical being created the universe specifically for us?

Something about glass houses and not throwing stones seems appropriate here.

 

[KCfromNC]

The problem here is we see a situation which is compatible with both natural and magical processes. Given that humans can survive here in a world governed strictly by natural laws there's no need to posit a magical fine tuner.

But there are a large number of possible ways the universe could be where humans are unable to survive via natural processes but are still here due to magic. A really huge number, in fact. And as proponents of fine tuning tell us the odds of us being here without magical help are quite small.

So given that we find ourselves here surviving by strictly natural laws rather than magical ones, it seems unlikely that magic is actually involved. After all, if it was it is way more likely that we'd be living in one of the universes where magical powers were required to keep us alive.

So the premises of the fine tuning argument actually show we're much more likely to be living in a universe with no magical creator.

 

[Radrook]

No need for all that.

There could be many universes, regardless of what "caused" them. And there may also be infinitely many combinations in which life could be expected to arise naturally (along with infinitely many others in which it could not).

Based on what we know, this is all perfectly plausible.

So... concluding that design is necessary (or even most likely/reasonable) is simply not warranted based on our very very limited view of reality. Although it may turn out that design is exactly what happened.

Stick with faith.
This line of reasoning toward God is fruitless.

The one who is having blind faith in what has never been observed is you.

 

[Radrook]

The problem here is we see a situation which is compatible with both natural and magical processes. Given that humans can survive here in a world governed strictly by natural laws there's no need to posit a magical fine tuner.

But there are a large number of possible ways the universe could be where humans are unable to survive via natural processes but are still here due to magic. A really huge number, in fact. And as proponents of fine tuning tell us the odds of us being here without magical help are quite small.

So given that we find ourselves here surviving by strictly natural laws rather than magical ones, it seems unlikely that magic is actually involved. After all, if it was it is way more likely that we'd be living in one of the universes where magical powers were required to keep us alive.

So the premises of the fine tuning argument actually show we're much more likely to be living in a universe with no magical creator.

Adherence to cogent reasoning is the compelling need. Otherwise we become illogical and fallacious reasoning is the antithesis of science. The difference between us is that you are willing to trash logic for the sake of desperately denying the possibility of an ID whereas we are not.

 

[durangodawood]

The one who is having blind faith in what has never been observed is you.

I dont have faith in it.
I do realize its a possibility.
And that we have no way to assess the odds of it being true.

You do understand the difference between this and faith, right?

 

[Radrook]

I dont have faith in it.
I do realize its a possibility.
And that we have no way to assess the odds of it being true.

You do understand the difference between this and faith, right?

You claim that our observation of mind in nature and our conclusion that mind is manifest in nature is faith.
It isn't faith at all. It is based on an observation and a justifiable conclusion.
You on the other hand have absolutely no observational basis for giving credence to a multi-universe idea. Yet you accept it as a possibility? To me that comes across as a baseless belief simply because it has no basis in anything observable as our conclusion of an ID does. Yet you tell US to have faith? LOL!

 

[durangodawood]

You claim that our observation of mind in nature and our conclusion that mind is manifest in nature is faith.
It isn't faith at all. It is based on an observation and a justifiable conclusion.
You on the other hand have absolutely no observational basis for giving credence to a multi-universe idea. Yet you accept it as a possibility? To me that comes across as a baseless belief simply because it has no basis in anything observable as our conclusion of an ID does. Yet you tell US to have faith? LOL!

To settle questions as 'ultimate' as the one we're discussing, we need a broader view of reality than we currently have access to.

Your sense of certainty about what reality consists of is way premature.

We humans have made this very error before. We should know better.

So I say: if youre inclined toward a "fine tuning" notion, have faith in it! Because reason doesnt yet lead us there.

 

[victorinus]

Fine tuning of the universe is a very controversial issue.

it would be more correct to say -
fine tuning our understanding of the universe