Probabilistic Arguments with Too Few Samples

[cloudyday2]

One of the arguments I have heard for God's activity in creation is the improbability of whatever being random. For example there are some universal constants that must be perfectly balanced for the universe to be the way it is. It seems to me that we cannot make probabilistic arguments when we only have one sample. We only have one universe. If we had several universes and they all had these same universal constants, then we might argue that those constants do not seem to be random. I think the same reasoning can be applied to arguments about life evolving on Earth, but we do know about a few other planets.

Just wondering if others agree. I'm a bit fuzzy and unsure what I think on this. Like there is only one "me" in the universe, but that doesn't mean that "I" was the design goal of some creator billions of years ago.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Just wondering if others agree. I'm a bit fuzzy and unsure what I think on this. Like there is only one "me" in the universe, but that doesn't mean that "I" was the design goal of some creator billions of years ago.

True!
You might not have been 'designed' or thought of
until 6000 years ago, in Yahweh's Plan......

 

[variant]

One of the arguments I have heard for God's activity in creation is the improbability of whatever being random. For example there are some universal constants that must be perfectly balanced for the universe to be the way it is. It seems to me that we cannot make probabilistic arguments when we only have one sample. We only have one universe. If we had several universes and they all had these same universal constants, then we might argue that those constants do not seem to be random. I think the same reasoning can be applied to arguments about life evolving on Earth, but we do know about a few other planets.

Just wondering if others agree. I'm a bit fuzzy and unsure what I think on this. Like there is only one "me" in the universe, but that doesn't mean that "I" was the design goal of some creator billions of years ago.

The fine tuning argument is an argument from ignorance.

In terms of the fine tuning argument we don't know enough about any of the factors to make a judgement. If you don't know why A is the way it is, you can't actually form a probability that it would be that way.

So, while I might be able to say that of an electron has to be a pretty narrow range to form a stable universe capable of having life in it, I can't say why the electron has the charge that it has, nor do I know the possible range of what that charge could possibly be.

You don't need multiple runs to determine a probability you need a complete set of conditions and the probability for those conditions.

If you don't know the conditions a probability can not be determined by assuming all of them are completely random.

Low probability's don't mean things don't happen either. Were I to weight every single sperm that competed to fertilize every single egg and multiply that by every single couple's percent chance of coupling throughout history back to the first human being to get my probability of existence I could say that I am quite unlikely as well. The probability that I am the person I am is 1.

 

[cloudyday2]

The fine tuning argument is an argument from ignorance.

In terms of the fine tuning argument we don't know enough about any of the factors to make a judgement. If you don't know why A is the way it is, you can't actually form a probability that it would be that way.

So, while I might be able to say that of an electron has to be a pretty narrow range to form a stable universe capable of having life in it, I can't say why the electron has the charge that it has, nor do I know the possible range of what that charge could possibly be.

You don't need multiple runs to determine a probability you need a complete set of conditions and the probability for those conditions.

If you don't know the conditions a probability can not be determined by assuming all of them are completely random.

Low probability's don't mean things don't happen either. Were I to weight every single sperm that competed to fertilize every single egg and multiply that by every single couple's percent chance of coupling throughout history back to the first human being to get my probability of existence I could say that I am quite unlikely as well. The probability that I am the person I am is 1.

It seems like this argument assumes that what exists was the goal of a divine design. Let's say the argument is that humans are in the image of God. Scientists might write software to simulate all the possible ways that life might have evolved on Earth when the mutations are random variables and the chromosomes paired in mating are random variables. They might calculate 0.0001% of beings close enough to humans to be in the image of God. It's still not very helpful unless we can find some clones of Earth elsewhere. If we found that 10 out of 100 Earths had evolved human-like beings when the simulations predicted 0, then we could suspect a divine hand.

That's my thought regarding the necessity of more samples FWIW.

 

[Chesterton]

It seems to me that we cannot make probabilistic arguments when we only have one sample. We only have one universe. If we had several universes and they all had these same universal constants, then we might argue that those constants do not seem to be random.

Skip to 6:14 if you want. Just a minute or two on this point.

 

[cloudyday2]

Skip to 6:14 if you want. Just a minute or two on this point.

So the narrator said that my objections would be analogous to surviving a firing squad and not wondering why because I cannot observe the event in alternate realities to get a distribution.

Here are a few thoughts:
(1) In the firing squad analogy we are surprised because we fully expect to die before the event. We have samples from other uses of firing squads, and we know that the criminals don't survive. None of us existed before the creation of the universe's physical constants to form a hypothesis that could be tested experimentally.

(2) A better analogy than the firing squad is the Texas sharpshooter. A drunken Texan shoots random bullet holes in a barn. Later we draw a target encompassing a cluster of bullet holes and congratulate the Texan on his miraculously accurate shooting. ... We don't know what God's goals were for the universe. We assume that God wanted the universe as it exists, and we sometimes assume that God wanted every single detail of the universe as it exists. We are drawing the target on the barn after the shots have been fired.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Skip to 6:14 if you want. Just a minute or two on this point.

Out of the many problems with this video, I think the fact that this guy believes that Occam's Razor favors a god over a multiverse is the most precious. I mean really... Some apologists fall all over themselves arguing that a god is necessarily more complex than the universe when it fits their argument, and abandons it when it doesn't.

 

[cloudyday2]

Out of the many problems with this video, I think the fact that this guy believes that Occam's Razor favors a god over a multiverse is the most precious. I mean really... Some apologists fall all over themselves arguing that a god is necessarily more complex than the universe when it fits their argument, and abandons it when it doesn't.

My main objection to this series of videos is that the narrator presents his arguments so quickly that the viewer doesn't have time to reflect on each argument before the next one is being presented. Then this same series of arguments is repeated again and again in that rapid-fire manner to fill-out the time on the video without ever pausing to give the viewer a moment to question. This style gives an impression that the narrator has lots of good arguments and is struggling to fit them all in to the time allotted, but it is mostly style over substance IMO. I don't know if @Chesterton would agree with this critique? I don't think the videos are awful, but they need to slow down. I can't even hit the pause button fast enough when I'm listening to them LOL.

 

[Hieronymus]

The fine tuning argument is an argument from ignorance.

No.
Saying it is, is arguing from ignorance.

 

[Hieronymus]

So the narrator said that my objections would be analogous to surviving a firing squad and not wondering why because I cannot observe the event in alternate realities to get a distribution.

Very good analogy i.m.h.o.

 

[cloudyday2]

Very good analogy i.m.h.o.

My instincts tell me the analogy has some important inaccuracies, but I'm a bit fuzzy on their specifics.

The main problem I see is that this is only part of the process of science/statistics/etc. You start by looking at some data and forming a hypothesis, but then you test that hypothesis on new data distinct from the data used to form the hypothesis.

For example we might form a hypothesis that God favors the creation of intelligent life by looking at Earth, but then we must find other planets in the galaxy to test that hypothesis. If the frequency of intelligent life is greater than predicted by simulations of random evolution, then we gain confidence in the God hypothesis. We can't do that with one sample IMO.

 

[Hieronymus]

My instincts tell me the analogy has some important inaccuracies, but I'm a bit fuzzy on their specifics.

The main problem I see is that this is only part of the process of science/statistics/etc. You start by looking at some data and forming a hypothesis, but then you test that hypothesis on new data distinct from the data used to form the hypothesis.

I think it's a matter of probabilities.
We apparently observe a fine tuned universe, which means that if one of the constants would be different, "it wouldn't work".
I'm no expert, and i tend to forget details, but things like matter being able to exist in the 3 forms (gas, liquid, solid) depend on this fine tuning.

For example we might form a hypothesis that God favors the creation of intelligent life by looking at Earth, but then we must find other planets in the galaxy to test that hypothesis. If the frequency of intelligent life is greater than predicted by simulations of random evolution, then we gain confidence in the God hypothesis. We can't do that with one sample IMO.

I see your point, but i think we can assess quite well if our reality is even possible to exist if there was no intelligent capable being who decided to make it so.
So it's not God favouring things, it's God deciding to act and act accordingly.
What we can also do is assess if our reality could have come about without an intelligent and capable being.
I see little to no good reason to assume our reality could have come to be by chance, unintentional.

Thing is, we only HAVE 'one sample'.
That sample is our common reality.
This sample consists of an apparently fine tuned universe and this mind bogglingly complex and genius phenomenon we call 'living nature', of which we are a part and able to discuss its origins.

 

[cloudyday2]

^ @Hieronymus , another issue I forgot to mention is: what constitutes a sample? For the example of God favoring the evolution of life "in His own image" (i.e. humans), the sample doesn't need to be an entire Earth-like planet. We might be able to use DNA sequences from hominid fossils at various stages in evolution as our samples. If we formed the God hypothesis without knowledge of these fossil DNA sequences, then those would be "new" (i.e. newly discovered) samples that we could use to test the God hypothesis. We might look for changes in the DNA sequences that are unlikely if only chance and natural selection are at work.

It is all very complicated and confusing. I'm just thinking out loud here and hoping others will give their thoughts too.

 

[KCfromNC]

I think it's a matter of probabilities.
We apparently observe a fine tuned universe, which means that if one of the constants would be different, "it wouldn't work".

Yes. The ignorance part is that we have no idea if the constants could be different. And if they could, how different they could be. So for all we know it is >99% likely that the universe was "fine tuned" just due to whatever laws existed when it came into being. Or maybe not. No one knows. And thus drawing any conclusions from the fact is basically just making stuff up.

 

[Hieronymus]

@cloudyday2
But is it really that complicated and confusing to make an assessment?
Or is it MADE complicated and confusing for us, by those who try to convince us?
I think it boils down to naturalism (the philosophical belief) and supernaturalism (creationism, ID).
And then we're back to probabilistic argumentation.

But there's also still Leibnitz's question: "Why does anything exist at all ?"
Is it probable there is no reason whatsoever that anything exists at all?
But when there's a reason for it, there consequently is 'something' that has or gave the reason.

Could anything exist if there was no cause for it, beyond that which we know to exist?
This is more or less the Kalam cosmological argument, although it doesn't really need reality to begin to exist, it moves the question to 'what makes it possible for anything to exist', or something like that.
I think that's the 'contingency argument'.

There's also the multiverse cop out naturalists like to use, to give "chance" a chance, but it doesn't work.
Because in that view, anything / everything is possible or probable.
This includes the existence of God, who is by definition the creator of everything, so He would probably exist too in a multiverse idea, and thus be the creator of the multiverse.
(i may have used an unwarranted short cut there though..)

Yeah, i guess we can make it complicated and confusing...

 

[cloudyday2]

@cloudyday2
But is it really that complicated and confusing to make an assessment?
Or is it MADE complicated and confusing for us, by those who try to convince us?
I think it boils down to naturalism (the philosophical belief) and supernaturalism (creationism, ID).
And then we're back to probabilistic argumentation.

But there's also still Leibnitz's question: "Why does anything exist at all ?"
Is it probable there is no reason whatsoever that anything exists at all?
But when there's a reason for it, there consequently is 'something' that has or gave the reason.

Could anything exist if there was no cause for it, beyond that which we know to exist?
This is more or less the Kalam cosmological argument, although it doesn't really need reality to begin to exist, it moves the question to 'what makes it possible for anything to exist', or something like that.
I think that's the 'contingency argument'.

There's also the multiverse cop out naturalists like to use, to give "chance" a chance, but it doesn't work.
Because in that view, anything / everything is possible or probable.
This includes the existence of God, who is by definition the creator of everything, so He would probably exist too in a multiverse idea, and thus be the creator of the multiverse.
(i may have used an unwarranted short cut there though..)

Yeah, i guess we can make it complicated and confusing...

One problem with the "first cause" argument is that "cause and effect" is a slippery concept IMO. For example, the orbit of a planet can be projected forward or backwards. I suspect "cause and effect" is only meaningful in non-reversible transformations? Entropy and the arrow of time are probably connected to this. At the quantum level there are probability waves collapsing into events. That is probably where the arrow of time comes from fundamentally. The actual events have a random character, so cause and effect only shapes the probability waves.

I have read that some people think "cause and effect" is imaginary.

BTW, I don't pretend to be an expert on any these issues. I only have a very limited exposure to the physics from some introductory classes I took decades ago - mostly forgotten now anyway.

 

[Halbhh]

One of the arguments I have heard for God's activity in creation is the improbability of whatever being random. For example there are some universal constants that must be perfectly balanced for the universe to be the way it is. It seems to me that we cannot make probabilistic arguments when we only have one sample. We only have one universe. If we had several universes and they all had these same universal constants, then we might argue that those constants do not seem to be random. I think the same reasoning can be applied to arguments about life evolving on Earth, but we do know about a few other planets.

Just wondering if others agree. I'm a bit fuzzy and unsure what I think on this. Like there is only one "me" in the universe, but that doesn't mean that "I" was the design goal of some creator billions of years ago.

Exactly right.

And, it goes both ways, of course.

It's not possible to prove the existence of God through physics, but also it's not possible to disprove God through physics (unless one sets up a strawman God, like the 156 hour (or whatever version of that) Young Earth creation notion, which itself is one of the most powerful blockades against new faith the enemy has ever been lucky enough to find).

When I enjoy discussing physics and the universe and fundamental physics, there hasn't ever been any moment when I thought it proved God, not even with the very suggestive situation of the Higgs boson mass. Not that, not other things. But....I do wonder if it seemed as if I was suggesting it proved God ever? I don't want to set up another, newer false floor, a sand basis for faith, for anyone, no better than the sand of young-Earth creationism.

The only way to find out about God existing is to take a leap of faith, and do as Christ said in Matthew 7, to seek.

It's good for us individually to at times discuss various topics with seekers though just as part of "love your neighbor as yourself".

If I was a golf expert or golf lover, I could talk golf.