Vote: what is the best argument against fine tuning

[VirOptimus]

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.

How does a universe with other physics look like?

 

[LaraLara]

How does a universe with other physics look like?

It couldhave completely different physics. That is perhaps outside of what can be discussed meaningfully. Or it could have the same laws with other values attached to it (other value for gravity for example).

 

[VirOptimus]

It couldhave completely different physics. That is perhaps outside of what can be discussed meaningfully. Or it could have the same laws with other values attached to it (other value for gravity for example).

Dont you see the problems? One cant just change "values" in physics thats not how it works.

Physics are fundamental workings of matter and energy, they cannot be changed.

 

[lesliedellow]

Physics are fundamental workings of matter and energy, they cannot be changed.

If you were building your own universe from scratch, it is difficult to see why you couldn't endow it with whatever properties you wanted, and assign it whatever laws you wanted.

 

[quatona]

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.

Since the argument as presented here doesn´t go beyond claiming that it "seems to be designed", I guess it´s sufficient to respond
"No, it doesn´t seem to - and even if I would agree that it seems to, there´s a long way from 'seems to' to 'is'. This would be the work of the claimant - and then there would be something to consider and possibly argue against."

 

[Occams Barber]

Here are three arguments against the concept of fine tuning plus a more general argument on fine tuning as a proof of a god;

1.The Gunfighter Fallacy: A gunfighter, wearing a blindfold, shoots a single shot at a barn wall. He removes his blindfold and draws a target around the point where his bullet hit placing the bullet hole at the centre of the target. He then claims to have demonstrated the skill to hit the centre of a target when blindfolded.

The target is life while the bullet hole is the universe. Fine tuning claims that the universe (the bullet hole) is fine tuned for life (the target) when the reverse is true – the target (life) has been finetuned/drawn to centre the bullet hole (life).



2. The Puddle: This is another version of (1) above first articulated by Douglas Adams in A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Imagine a puddle in the middle of a road. The puddle is convinced that the depression it sits in was created just to house it, after all the depression is a perfect fit – how could it not have been created just for the puddle?

The depression is the universe and the puddle is life. Like the Gunfighter Fallacy, the Puddle confuses who caused what. The Puddle has actually accommodated itself to suit the depression.


3. The Real Odds for Life: What are the odds that the universe is fine tuned for life?

Imagine I place fifty two playing cards face down on a table. One of the cards is the Ace of Spades. I ask you to choose one card. What are the odds you will pick the Ace? The obvious answer is 1 in 52.

Now imagine I place one card face down on the table. It is the Ace of Spades. I ask you to pick up one card. What are the odds you will pick the Ace of Spades? The obvious answer is that you must pick up the Ace since it is the only card – the odds are 1 in 1.

The 52 card situation is the fine tuning argument as it is presented. The one card option is the reality. For any of the fine tuning variables how many different values are there? Since we only know of one value the answer must be one. We have nothing to indicate that there are other possible values. If each variable has only one value the odds that they will result in a universe as we know it (including life) are 1x 1x1x1x1 etc. etc. In other words – given the variables we have, the odds of life within this universe are 1 in 1.



The final issue concerns the usual extension of the fine tuning argument as a proof of God;

The universe is finetuned for life therefore... God exists

There’s an obvious problem here. Even if you accept the finetuning/life argument the existence of life does not automatically prove the existence of God. The Life therefore God linkage is simply assumed.

The existence of life (or ‘complexity’) does not automatically prove the existence of God.

OB

 

[lesliedellow]

Here are three arguments against the concept of fine tuning plus a more general argument on fine tuning as a proof of a god;

1.The Gunfighter Fallacy: A gunfighter, wearing a blindfold, shoots a single shot at a barn wall. He removes his blindfold and draws a target around the point where his bullet hit placing the bullet hole at the centre of the target. He then claims to have demonstrated the skill to hit the centre of a target when blindfolded.

The target is life while the bullet hole is the universe. Fine tuning claims that the universe (the bullet hole) is fine tuned for life (the target) when the reverse is true – the target (life) has been finetuned/drawn to centre the bullet hole (life).



2. The Puddle: This is another version of (1) above first articulated by Douglas Adams in A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Imagine a puddle in the middle of a road. The puddle is convinced that the depression it sits in was created just to house it, after all the depression is a perfect fit – how could it not have been created just for the puddle?

The depression is the universe and the puddle is life. Like the Gunfighter Fallacy, the Puddle confuses who caused what. The Puddle has actually accommodated itself to suit the depression.


3. The Real Odds for Life: What are the odds that the universe is fine tuned for life?

Imagine I place fifty two playing cards face down on a table. One of the cards is the Ace of Spades. I ask you to choose one card. What are the odds you will pick the Ace? The obvious answer is 1 in 52.

Now imagine I place one card face down on the table. It is the Ace of Spades. I ask you to pick up one card. What are the odds you will pick the Ace of Spades? The obvious answer is that you must pick up the Ace since it is the only card – the odds are 1 in 1.

The 52 card situation is the fine tuning argument as it is presented. The one card option is the reality. For any of the fine tuning variables how many different values are there? Since we only know of one value the answer must be one. We have nothing to indicate that there are other possible values. If each variable has only one value the odds that they will result in a universe as we know it (including life) are 1x 1x1x1x1 etc. etc. In other words – given the variables we have, the odds of life within this universe are 1 in 1.



The final issue concerns the usual extension of the fine tuning argument as a proof of God;

The universe is finetuned for life therefore... God exists

There’s an obvious problem here. Even if you accept the finetuning/life argument the existence of life does not automatically prove the existence of God. The Life therefore God linkage is simply assumed.

The existence of life (or ‘complexity’) does not automatically prove the existence of God.

OB

That's an impressive collection of strawmen you have got there.

 

[Occams Barber]

That's an impressive collection of strawmen you have got there.

It is my habit when debating to try to be ethical, to stick with what I understand is reasonable, rational and truthful.
If you believe that I have breached my own ethical standards please let me know where I have gone wrong.
OB

 

[LaraLara]

1.The Gunfighter Fallacy



2. The Puddle:



3. The Real Odds for Life: What are the odds that the universe is fine tuned for life?


Now imagine I place one card face down on the table. It is the Ace of Spades. I ask you to pick up one card. What are the odds you will pick the Ace of Spades? The obvious answer is that you must pick up the Ace since it is the only card – the odds are 1 in 1.

The universe is finetuned for life therefore... God exists

There’s an obvious problem here. Even if you accept the finetuning/life argument the existence of life does not automatically prove the existence of God.

OB

I explained that complex systems are less likely to arise by chance than non complex systems and hence need a better explanation (that is in the treat: is life nithing special).Your first three arguments are all variations of the antropic principle to witch I disagree because I was convinced by the firing squat argument. As to the last argument I agree, fine tuning is only a proof for an intelligence; this intelligence could even be us if we happend to have build a matrix.

 

[LaraLara]

Since the argument as presented here doesn´t go beyond claiming that it "seems to be designed", I guess it´s sufficient to respond

There has been discussion abou the higgs boson and how natural laws that could have been vastly different than they are so I fell that is a misonterpretation of the depth of discussion.

By the way I am in urgent search ofa christ called roughly "habl" because the quality links he gave me where as well lost.

 

[LaraLara]

Coming back to the higgs bosoN: my entire discussion about it was deleted so I now struggle to understand what was so special about it. Sorry if I repeat things but wasn't the problem that there should have been accompanying particles that explains it's properties and those where never found and that without this particles it is unlikely?

"Theorists have attempted to tame the unruly Higgs mass by proposing extensions of the Standard Model. The most popular of which is “supersymmetry”, which introduces a heavier super-particle or “sparticle” for every particle in the Standard Model. These sparticles cancel out the effect of the virtual particles" ... which would have given incredible weight to the higgs particle and make it non-functional

 

[LaraLara]

Dont you see the problems? One cant just change "values" in physics thats not how it works.

Physics are fundamental workings of matter and energy, they cannot be changed.

That is a purely empiric observation based on a sample of one. If you don't give me a reason why the universe can only have this values (a meta rule) I find it unconvincing.

 

[LaraLara]

That's an impressive collection of strawmen you have got there.

The problem is that it is mostly variations of the Weak antropic principle and it would have helped understanding if it would have been marked as such. In its current form it gives the impression that there are more arguments against fine tuning than there realy are.

 

[lesliedellow]

It is my habit when debating to try to be ethical, to stick with what I understand is reasonable, rational and truthful.
If you believe that I have breached my own ethical standards please let me know where I have gone wrong.
OB

The term "anthropic principle" seems to me slightly misleading, at least in its "strong" form. The point is that, unless the fundamental constants had very tightly defined values, not only could life not exist, but the reason it couldn't exist is that chemistry couldn't exist either.

Even if no life existed in the universe, some kind of intelligencies looking on from outside would still see something which looked incredibly finely tuned.

 

[LaraLara]

The point is that, unless the fundamental constants had very tightly defined values, not only could life not exist, but the reason it couldn't exist is that chemistry couldn't exist either.
.

I posetd in the is life nothing special discussion that chemistry is already something suspciciuosly complex so I totaly agree with you.

 

[LaraLara]

I feel very bad about the antropic principle. You could find evidence of an incredible amount of fine tuning and it could still not be disproven. It defines the problem of fine tuning away which is not a proper way to discuss nor a sign of curiosity.

 

[Occams Barber]

Why do I feel like I just entered the Twilight Zone?
OB

 

[LaraLara]

Why do I feel like I just entered the Twilight Zone?
OB

You had the bad luck to enter the discussion when the amount of proponents for fine tuning outstripped the opponents. It will get a bit less rough when the others are back. I want to excuse if my replies where to judgmental.

 

[Occams Barber]

You had the bad luck to enter the discussion when the amount of proponents for fine tuning outstripped the opponents. It will get a bit less rough when the others are back. I want to excuse if my replies where to judgmental.

Thank you.
I feel greatly reassured.
OB

 

[lesliedellow]

Why do I feel like I just entered the Twilight Zone?
OB

I don't know. Why do you feel as if you have entered the twilight zone? Scientists who have no special theological axe to grind are puzzled:

https://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html
A universe made for me? Physics, fine-tuning and life

One of them makes a passing reference to God, only to dismiss it with the usual "who created God?"