The fine tuning of the universe.

[Subduction Zone]

This just doesn't make sense. They are constants but if they could have been different they are not constants...you seem to think that if we can show that they could have been different then that means they are variable. The point of fine tuning is that it seems they could be different and that is why it seems they were "set" on the ones needed for life to come into existence.

Of course it makes sense. The proper answer is "I don't understand yet". If they could possibly have other values then by definition they are not really constants. The point of fine tuning is that those parameters could possibly have other values.

Let's go back to the Kepler's Laws examples. His third law says that the period of an object is proportional to the cube of its semi-major axis of orbit. One could have tried to claim that cubed values was a "finely tuned parameter" for planets. Now we understand that value is a result of the inverse square attraction of the Sun. It may be possible for parameters to have other values, they may not be explained by deeper laws. If it is possible for them to have other values then they are not constants in the sense that the cubed power in Kepler's law is a constant. The multiple universe concept sometimes has those values vary, but there is more than just one multiple universe hypotheses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure. But I don't consider it an actual "answer".
Instead, I consider it like an obvious fact in no need of additional explanation.

If existing life would be the kind of life that actually could not exist in the universe, now THAT would require an explanation.

That things exist in such a way that they can actually exist, seems rather obvious.

Nor do most scientists. The Anthropomorphic Principle is as much of a scientific dead end as: "God did it". It may be correct but it does not explain anything and no new knowledge will come from it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The choices are not 'multiverse or God'. The choices are multiverse, God, coincidence, or something else we don't yet understand. (3 is improbable, 1 and 4 might be the same thing!)

I have a little time so thought I'd answer a few more.

1. Multiverse has its own problems which is also outside of science to determine, we can look at the evidence we have and see if this fits well with it.
2. God also is outside of science to determine, we can look at the evidence and see if this fits well with it.
3. Coincidence has already been ruled out.
4. Something else we don't yet understand historically gets us into something more we don't understand.

Every other God of the gaps argument that has ever been made turned out to be option 4. It seems very unlikely that this one will end differently.

Such as?

I think you had your conclusion before you even asked the question. You're looking to confirm it. That's the wrong way to go about investigating something.

Does starting out with naturalism and explaining it only by naturalism create a good starting place if God does exist?

 

[Oafman]

4. Something else we don't yet understand historically gets us into something more we don't understand.

So we're stuck with these God of the gaps debates for all eternity?!

Such as?

The diversity of life on Earth

Does starting out with naturalism and explaining it only by naturalism create a good starting place if God does exist?

Naturalism is not a conclusion

 

[lesliedellow]

Does starting out with naturalism and explaining it only by naturalism create a good starting place if God does exist?

Methodological naturalism - assuming that something has a natural explanation, so that you can go looking for it, is just fine in the physical sciences. Ontological naturalism - the belief that only the material universe exists, is not fine.

 

[expos4ever]

Atheists require something which comes very close to watertight proof of God's existence. Theists can be content with something which seems to point towards the existence of the God they already believe in for other reasons.

I have not read anything in this thread but this (by way of disclaimer).

I think what you say connects to an important more broad point that should be made. We live in a world where the de facto model of the universe is one where there is no god. Fair enough but I believe that the effect of this is unfairly prejudicial to the notion that there is indeed a god.

I do not have the time right to try to flesh out my intuition about this, but I will say this for the present: obviously, attempts to shoe-horn a "god" into the de facto model are likely going to appear awkward and contrived, and understandably so. But I think we all need to acknowledge something that rarely gets said here: it is entirely conceivable that fundamentally different models of the universe can be equally effective at provide an 'explanatory account' for the world. But when the default model is of a particular kind, people can easily forget that a radically different model - one that, for example, is based on the actions of a god or gods - might score equally well or higher in terms of the characteristics that we all acknowledge characterize a good model - explanatory power, simplicity, falsifiability, elegance, etc.

Please do not be offended if I do not respond to a particular response you may have to what I am saying. I have come to believe that discussing matters with some posters here is essentially an exercise in futility. Obviously that will come across as a slam, but I recognize the possibility that the fault in such cases could lie with me. Some battles are just not worth waging.

 

[HitchSlap]

Nor do most scientists. The Anthropomorphic* Principle is as much of a scientific dead end as: "God did it". It may be correct but it does not explain anything and no new knowledge will come from it.

*Anthropic

 

[lesliedellow]

I have not read anything in this thread but this (by way of disclaimer).

I think what you say connects to an important more broad point that should be made. We live in a world where the de facto model of the universe is one where there is no god. Fair enough but I believe that the effect of this is unfairly prejudicial to the notion that there is indeed a god.

I do not have the time right to try to flesh out my intuition about this, but I will say this for the present: obviously, attempts to shoe-horn a "god" into the de facto model are likely going to appear awkward and contrived, and understandably so. But I think we all need to acknowledge something that rarely gets said here: it is entirely conceivable that fundamentally different models of the universe can be equally effective at provide an 'explanatory account' for the world. But when the default model is of a particular kind, people can easily forget that a radically different model - one that, for example, is based on the actions of a god or gods - might score equally well or higher in terms of the characteristics that we all acknowledge characterize a good model - explanatory power, simplicity, falsifiability, elegance, etc.

Please do not be offended if I do not respond to a particular response you may have to what I am saying. I have come to believe that discussing matters with some posters here is essentially an exercise in futility. Obviously that will come across as a slam, but I recognize the possibility that the fault in such cases could lie with me. Some battles are just not worth waging.

It has occurred to me in the past that you could have one description of origins, called Evolution, when doing biology, and another description of origins, based upon the Bible, when doing theology. Adopting those models, not because they are true in any absolute sense, but because they yield fruitful results in their respective fields.

I have not thought that through in any very great detail, but it is, of course, very utilitarian. It might be a philosophically possible approach in the applied sciences, such as medical research, but I am not so sure about pure sciences, such as cosmology - pure in the sense that they have no very obvious practical utility, and can therefore only be motivated by a search for something like absolute truth, or by an appreciation of the aesthetic appeal of the mathematics.

 

[quatona]

We could hardly do it before the fact.

Yeah, funny.

We know what life requires and how the universe with its physics allows it. We do know that it is special due to what would prohibit life and how close to that we are.

It is "special" because it happens to be the unique result - every other result would have been equally unique and therefore "special".
On another note, we have no idea how special the alternatives could have been. We just know what they are not (i.e. unlike the current result). Maybe another combination of parameters would have allowed life on every planet, or would have allowed some sort of super-life or whatever.

No, it would not be like that at all. It would be like your numbers being pulled 30 or more times. Someone would think something was not right.

The parameters of the universe have been set thirty times independently?

 

[pat34lee]

I think I have been banned 3 times? Definitely at least 2, though the first was entirely justified. I was kinda trolly when I joined.

Must have been 3. I think the first two are
one then three days.

 

[pat34lee]

Sure, but that´s not the analogy to the parameters of the universe being spit out once, to begin with.

Of course it is. It isn't like only one or a few parameters had to
be close or perfect. Everything had to be just so, or we
wouldn't be here to discuss this.

 

[lesliedellow]

On another note, we have no idea how special the alternatives could have been. We just know what they are not (i.e. unlike the current result).

Yes we do, or rather how unspecial they would have been. That is where cosmological fine tuning came from - because physicists could do the calculations, and get surprising results.

 

[quatona]

Of course it is.

No, it isn´t - simply because nobody´s claiming that the parameters have been set several times independently with the same result (as was the case in the analogy). Actually, the argument emphasizes that the chance for it to happen once is extremely low.

It isn't like only one or a few parameters had to
be close or perfect. Everything had to be just so, or we
wouldn't be here to discuss this.

Sure.
That would indeed be significant if we´d start from the assumption that "we discussing this" was the intended result.

 

[quatona]

Yes we do, or rather how unspecial they would have been. That is where cosmological fine tuning came from - because physicists could do the calculations, and get surprising results.

I´m curious to see the detailed descriptions of all those trillions of hypothetical alternative results.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This paper has a very different definition of fine-tuning than you are using.

No it isn't.

So does the fact that the start of section 4 directly contradicts your assertion in post 116 that FT clams are based on observation. As does the fact that then end of section 4.1 cautions people not to use the arguments that sound a lot like what you're proposing.

Have you actually read this paper?

What are you referring to. I don't claim in post 116 anything about FT is based on observation.

 

[lesliedellow]

I´m curious to see the detailed descriptions of all those trillions of hypothetical alternative results.

If the fundamental constants were even slightly different, the universe (any universe) would at most contain hydrogen, helium, and nothing else:

http://personal.stthomas.edu/plgavrilyuk/PLGAVRILYUK/101/Readings/Polkinghorne.pdf

Page 4ff. The author is a physicist with FRS after his name.

 

[quatona]

If the fundamental constants were even slightly different, the universe (any universe) would at most contain hydrogen, helium, and nothing else:

http://personal.stthomas.edu/plgavrilyuk/PLGAVRILYUK/101/Readings/Polkinghorne.pdf

Page 4ff. The author is a physicist with FRS after his name.

Reading quickly over the script, I find the author pointing out that the physical reality within the universe points to the fact that metaphysical issues like the conditions in which universes coe into being isn´t within our knowledge.

 

[Athée]

Ok so I managed to read through this thread (thanks for starting it up Once) and there seem to be a few common themes.
One issue is the term fine tuning itself. It seems to me that most of us think the term fine tuning is synonymous with "an outcome with very restrictive parameters being actualized " or something similar. As I understand it, the sciences generally agree that if our universe did not have the parameters it does,that it would be different in a way that would not result in life as we know it.
Once seems to be trying to establish this basic fact first before moving on with her argument. If what she is trying to establish is that life as we know it would not have happened if certain features of our universe were different, then I am happy to agree and move on. I suspect that it will be in the very next step in the chain that leads to "god did it" that things will (and already have been) contested. If Once involves probability or likely hood for example, but I am willing to see where she is going with this.

 

[lesliedellow]

Reading quickly over the script, I find the author pointing out that the physical reality within the universe points to the fact that metaphysical issues like the conditions in which universes coe into being isn´t within our knowledge.

You were saying that we didn't know what other, less special, universes would look like, and we do. There is no need for us to have knowedge of a universe producing machine, before the calculations can be done for any hypothetical universe, no matter how it is brought into being.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Atheists require something which comes very close to watertight proof of God's existence.

So do I. They just do not read their Bible so they do not know what they need to do to receive the best of what God has for them. It takes abundant overwhelming evidence for me to believe. I want results.