Vote: what is the best argument against fine tuning

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I am still not sure about what the Higgs boson is good for.

It gives mass to fundamental particles. Without it none of this (gestures around himself expansively) would be possible - all would be fundamental particles zooming around at the speed of light.

 

[VirOptimus]

If it is not too dificult in mathematical terms I will try to understand your argument better but you need to give more information.

Probability requires random processes where the paremeters are known.

 

[LaraLara]

That's the thing with arguments - some people propose them and some people reject them. I just suggested it as a simple argument for discussion.

The weak anthropic principle is a tautology - it can't be rejected as such, but arguments based on it can. Perhaps you'd like to summarise Dawkin's objections, or provide a link or reference? otherwise you're telling me nothing useful.

I am a bit unorganized sorry: Dawkins gives in this video a rather mixed opinion:

Can you give me exapmles on arguments that are build on a tautology of WAP which can be rejected? I just want to understand the concept better.

 

[LaraLara]

Probability requires random processes where the paremeters are known.

Thank you for helping me but can you give me a simple example of this? If it gets to boring you don't need to but I don't want to run around and tell untrue things.

 

[LaraLara]

Off topic: Bandersnatch, what the heck is your avatar showing? Is that a bandersnatch?

 

[lesliedellow]

I am a bit unorganized sorry: Dawkins gives in this video a rather mixed opinion:

Can you give me exapmles on arguments that are build on a tautology of WAP which can be rejected? I just want to understand the concept better.

The Weak Anthropic Principle was first put forward by the physicist Brandon Carter. It involves the uncontroversial observation that we are here, and therefore any theory about the universe, which physicists put forward, had better have room in it for our existence.

The Strong Antropic Principle goes further than that, and notes that the fundamental constants of physics seem to be incredibly fine tuned, to enable, not only life, but even chemistry to be possible. Most people tend to think that fact stands in need of an explanation.

One explanation is that God did the fine tuning. Another explanation is that there are trillions upon trillions of other universes, and we just happen to live in the one which "struck lucky". There are no prizes for guessing which one Dawkins prefers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another note on the "fine tuning argument" is that it is a argument from ignorance. It amounts to "we don't know, therefore God".

Some of the "fine tuned" constants have been found not to be "fine tuned" but dictated by other laws of physics. This is also a god of the gaps argument because some of the causes have been found and therefore the god of the fine tuned universe has been shrinking as a result. A very early example would be Kepler's Laws. When it was first formed the "why" of those finely tuned laws was unknown. Newton solved that question. I need to bookmark some specific examples, but some of the more recent ones have been solved in the last decade or so. Science continues to move on regardless of those that say "You can't know that".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I am a bit unorganized sorry: Dawkins gives in this video a rather mixed opinion:

You said he rejected the principle, but in this video he doesn't reject it at all. He says he thinks it 'elegant but unsatisfying' - and I agree with him. It's unsatisfying because it has no explanatory depth - it just asks, 'what did you expect?'.

He doesn't seem taken with the Darwinian-style 'multiverse selection by black hole' theory, but rightly so, it's very speculative. He seems equivocal about other multiverse theories, but didn't really explain why. It's probably because they're also rather unsatisfying as they imply the configuration of our universe is a matter of chance - i.e. there's no deeper explanation; but that may well be how it is - it wouldn't be the first time our intuitions or expectations were shown to be misguided (q.v. heliocentrism, special & general relativity, quantum mechanics, etc).

One could make the equally valid argument that such dissatisfaction can be seen as anthropocentric - like a lottery winner rejecting the fact that her win was a chance event and thinking there ought to be some special reason why she won with that particular number.

Can you give me exapmles on arguments that are build on a tautology of WAP which can be rejected? I just want to understand the concept better.

The WAP is tautological. The generic multiverse argument builds on the WAP in terms of explanation, but as above, feels somewhat unsatisfying.

Still waiting to hear the Dawkins argument that rejects the WAP.

 

[Nithavela]

Some of the physics of this universe seems to be preprogrammed to create life. What is your favourite argument against such a line of thought? You can mention several arguments of course but I would like to know which one you prefere.

My favorite argument is that if physics weren't "preprogrammed", we wouldn't have this discussion in the first place.

It's like rolling a sack full of dice and then pointing out how unlikely it is to roll that exact set of dice results.

 

[LaraLara]

He says he like a lottery winner rejecting the fact that her win was a chance event and thinking there ought to be some special reason why she won with that particular number.

I just read an article about a lottery winner that "new" he would win, it seems to be a common problem.

But since I did some out of controll thought experiment at the age of six I am a philosophical sceptic. Eberything besides that I exist is already a bit esoteric to me so answering the question why I am has outmost priority to me, higher than for an atheist. I find WAP a fascinating position to think through but ultimately it does not satisfy my curiosity. Ultimately it is like saying: some things are and have no deeper explanation.

 

[lesliedellow]

A very early example would be Kepler's Laws. When it was first formed the "why" of those finely tuned laws was unknown. Newton solved that question. I need to bookmark some specific examples, but some of the more recent ones have been solved in the last decade or so. Science continues to move on regardless of those that say "You can't know that".

I am not aware of them being called finally tuned. Upon what basis would they have been thought finely tuned?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Some of the "fine tuned" constants have been found not to be "fine tuned" but dictated by other laws of physics.

There have also been some examples of 'sloppy' mathematics that over-exaggerated the 'fineness' of the tuning of certain parameters by several orders of magnitude (i.e. they could vary far more that was asserted).

If the point of the FT argument is that the universe was custom-made by a deity specifically for us, there is also the counter argument that many features of the universe are totally unnecessary for the existence of the Earth, or the solar system, or even the galaxy we're in.

 

[LaraLara]

You said he rejected the principle, but in this video he doesn't reject it at all. He says he thinks it 'elegant but unsatisfying'.

I let myself be tricked I was shown only part of the video, sorry. What does your avatar picture show ?

 

[LaraLara]

there is also the counter argument that many features of the universe are totally unnecessary for the existence of the Earth, or the solar system, or even the galaxy we're in.

I can explain that. The universe was finely tuned for me; I crave for new things to discover and think about, especially if there is something aesthetic behind them or their logic.

 

[LaraLara]

It gives mass to fundamental particles. Without it none of this (gestures around himself expansively) would be possible - all would be fundamental particles zooming around at the speed of light.

You can enroll for this years particle catching contest now. The winner as price can hug the higgs bosom.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I just read an article about a lottery winner that "new" he would win, it seems to be a common problem.

It's a common cognitive bias known as 'hindsight bias'

I find WAP a fascinating position to think through but ultimately it does not satisfy my curiosity. Ultimately it is like saying: some things are and have no deeper explanation.

Yers... oddly enough, that's exactly what I said in the post you're replying to. I rest my case.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I crave for new things to discover and think about, especially if there is something aesthetic behind them or their logic.

Aesthetics isn't a particularly reliable guide - what seems aesthetically pleasing can change considerably with time and familiarity - as the history of science (and art, especially) shows.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not aware of them being called finally tuned. Upon what basis would they have been thought finely tuned?

The concept did not exist at that time, and since they were explained long before the term came up it is a non-issue. The point is that that is the what many of the "fine tuned" constants could very easily be. It is just a catch all for values that we do not know the reason of right now.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Off topic: Bandersnatch, what the heck is your avatar showing? Is that a bandersnatch?

It's one artist's interpretation of a Bandersnatch.

Oh look, it's turned around...

 

[LaraLara]

Aesthetics isn't a particularly reliable guide - what seems aesthetically pleasing can change considerably with time and familiarity - as the history of science (and art, especially) shows.

Maybe but "function" is the enemy of aethetics as it decreases the diversity of things possible. I would for example like to see a 500 meter tree - be it beautifull or not - but such a tree is not functional according to our gravity.