What is Fine Tuning in General?

[cloudyday2]

A firecracker universe would be designed to do that then, wouldn't it? And this one would still be what it is.

I'm not really clear what you're saying. Are you trying to make God responsible for a multiverse, so that we're still designed, but we're one design of many attempts, and ours is just an unintended design?

Imagine that our universe was not created with any goal in mind. If the conceited lifeforms in this universe assume that life was a design goal, then of course we will think the universe is finely-tuned to achieve that goal. Then of course we will think there must be a Designer such as God. It seems to me that there is a hidden assumption in the fine-turning argument that what exists today is somehow "desirable" - why should we assume that? A firecracker universe might be just as "desirable" depending on the whim of the hypothetical designer.

 

[Chesterton]

Imagine that our universe was not created with any goal in mind. If the conceited lifeforms in this universe assume that life was a design goal, then of course we will think the universe is finely-tuned to achieve that goal. Then of course we will think there must be a Designer such as God. It seems to me that there is a hidden assumption in the fine-turning argument that what exists today is somehow "desirable" - why should we assume that? A firecracker universe might be just as "desirable" depending on the whim of the hypothetical designer.

First, you're incorrectly assuming that we're assuming. And by "we" I mean all the top-flight scientists who have only discovered this stuff over the last 100 years, which is an era where scientists for the most part have been proceeding on the assumption of naturalism/materialism. If anything, they began with an assumption of pretty much anything but design. (Which raises the interesting question of "what else could there be except design?", and it must be an interesting question since there's never been any attempt to answer it with anything except "eternity + stuff happens = us", and that got worse when we had to rule out eternity because we found out our time had a beginning.)

Second, if a firecracker universe is more desirable, why are we still here? Are you imagining a deistic designer that for some reason didn't scrap his mistake (destroy us) but maybe put this universe on a shelf in the workshop to sit for a few billion years?

If what I said is off base I apologize but I'm having a hard time understanding you - especially about why a designer would design something undesirable. The words "tune" and "design" both imply "this is how it's supposed to be" I think.

 

[cloudyday2]

First, you're incorrectly assuming that we're assuming. And by "we" I mean all the top-flight scientists who have only discovered this stuff over the last 100 years, which is an era where scientists for the most part have been proceeding on the assumption of naturalism/materialism. If anything, they began with an assumption of pretty much anything but design. (Which raises the interesting question of "what else could there be except design?", and it must be an interesting question since there's never been any attempt to answer it with anything except "eternity + stuff happens = us", and that got worse when we had to rule out eternity because we found out our time had a beginning.)

Second, if a firecracker universe is more desirable, why are we still here? Are you imagining a deistic designer that for some reason didn't scrap his mistake (destroy us) but maybe put this universe on a shelf in the workshop to sit for a few billion years?

If what I said is off base I apologize but I'm having a hard time understanding you - especially about why a designer would design something undesirable. The words "tune" and "design" both imply "this is how it's supposed to be" I think.

You guys are completely misunderstanding me, but I am running out of ideas for how I might explain it differently. I appreciate that you made the effort to understand and respond. The fault is mine for not being a better communicator. If I find a link where somebody else has said the same thing more clearly, then I will post a link later. (The idea originally came from a quote I read from a scientist who was criticizing fine-tuning, so it isn't something novel that I have invented. I am just doing a particularly bad job of explaining the idea. LOL)

 

[Chesterton]

You guys are completely misunderstanding me, but I am running out of ideas for how I might explain it differently. I appreciate that you made the effort to understand and respond. The fault is mine for not being a better communicator. If I find a link where somebody else has said the same thing more clearly, then I will post a link later. (The idea originally came from a quote I read from a scientist who was criticizing fine-tuning, so it isn't something novel that I have invented. I am just doing a particularly bad job of explaining the idea. LOL)

Sorry, I kind of thought I was misunderstanding. Is that quote online where you could link it?

 

[cloudyday2]

Sorry, I kind of thought I was misunderstanding. Is that quote online where you could link it?

It is something I read several years ago online. I was just looking for it, but I can't find it now. I saw the name "Victor Stenger" when googling for criticisms of fine-tuning. That name sounds familiar, and I suspect Stenger was the source of the quote. However, most of Stenger's criticisms are more detailed. This particular criticism was very fundamental, and I thought it made a lot of sense to me. Maybe others did not find the argument compelling, and that is why I can't find it anymore.

 

[Uber Genius]

@Chesterton and @Uber Genius , I am not saying that human life is assumed as a goal - I am saying that life is assumed as a goal. Why should life be the goal? Why wouldn't a designer seek to have a completely empty universe or some other possibility? There are all kinds of different paintings created by artists with different goals. Why wouldn't God desire a universe that dies almost as soon as it begins like a firecracker?

We continue to get away from the fine-tuning problem identified by Bondi in the 1950s, Leslie Orgill in the 1960s and Brandon Carter in the 1970s.

Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology is Brandon Carter's monograph.

1974IAUS...63..291C Page 291

You will struggle to find the psychologizing about God in that or work by the other authors. They are struggling with the physical constraints NOT necessitating life. They are struggling with chance NOT supporting life of any kind any where in the universe. They are going out of their way to support something other than a design inference (strong anthropic principle).

I, personally, struggle with the fact that god hasn't made a world similarly to what we find on the factory floor in the movie, "Willie Wonka and The Chocolate Factory!"

That I don't have a river of chocolate running through the middle of my house right now seems more than enough evidence (for me that is), that there couldn't possibly be a creator of the sort the Bible refers to.

 

[Radrook]

Faced with the same evidence but without the universe creator issue, these same folks would conclude intelligent design without giving it nary a second thought.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Honestly I've been pondering the question trying to answer as if I were agnostic, but I can't think of anything except that tuning assumes a tuner. Which I guess has to include purpose, if nothing else but the purpose of bringing forth the effects obtained by the tuning.

Yes. Loaded language works that way...
It makes unwarranted assumptions.

And in the case of the "fine tuning argument", it even assumes its conclusion through these loaded terms.

Exactly the reason why it is fallacious logic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's just an empty assertion unless they have facts to support it.

I actually kind of agree with that.

However, as an assertion, it is more likely then YOUR assertion... since it doesn't require assuming the existence of undetectable entities engaging in undetectable actions.

However... as an atheist myself, I don't engage in such assertions.
I do not see the value in positing such negative statements of existance.

I don't say "there is no purpose!" just like I don't say "there are no unicorns!".
These are truth statements that can not be supported by definition, due to their negative nature.

You can't demonstrate the idea that X does "not" exist.

Instead, I say that the burden of proof lies with those people who claim that X DOES exist. Existence of things can be demonstrated, if they actually exist.

In the case of "cosmic purpose", I say that all attempts at demonstrating the existence thereof have failed miserably. And because of that, I get to say that such purpose "does not seem to exist".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The answer they offer is that a fine tuned universe works and the infinite number of poorly tuned ones do not. You missed out on the randomly created universes that fizzled.
This view assumes infinite tests, or infinite multiple universes.

I don't hold to such a view. I don't pretend to have the answers before asking and investigating the questions.

I'm content saying that we don't know, when we don't actually know.

I mean... for all we know, due to the nature of reality it might very well be the case also that a space-time continuum can only exist in the current form.

Sure, you can take the equations that "model" the space-time continuum, change a couple values left and right, work it out with those "invented" constants and then conclude that atoms couldn't exist in such a space-time continuum.

But all you will have shown is that a hypothetical universe wouldn't have any atoms.
You will not have shown that these constants could even have those tweaked values in reality.

After all, you just have a set of exactly 1 universe at your disposal for investigating.

Essentialy this boils down to, once again, just stating "i don't get it - therefor god"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is the "New Atheists," strawman circular version of the fine-tuning argument. Also called God of the gaps. It is fallacious (the strawman version).

Fine-tuning is a feature of our universe.

The question is which inference best describes the data we have evidence for? Chance? Necessity? Design? Some combination of those?

"
“Fine-tuning” with respect to nature’s fundamental constants and quantities means that small deviations from the actual values of the constants and quantities in question would render the universe life-prohibiting or, alternatively, that the range of life-permitting values is exquisitely narrow in comparison with the range of assumable values."

So we are not to "read in" design here. There is a causal analysis to see if physical necessity (such as the location of the electron shells for any specific molecule determines a small number of possible states for electrons to be located).

P1 - The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

P2 - It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

Argument - Therefore, it is due to design.

We could use the same argument to prove the 4 presidents on Mt Rushmore are "designed!"


Read more: The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God | Reasonable Faith
Fine Tuning | Reasonable Faith
Read more: Is “Fine-Tuning” Question-Begging? | Reasonable Faith

Can you demonstrate P2?

 

[Radrook]

Tagging the detectable as undetectable is a favorite atheist ploy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Tagging the detectable as undetectable is a favorite atheist ploy.

You are free to demonstrate how this entity is objectively detectable.

 

[Radrook]

You are free to demonstrate how this entity is objectively detectable.

All efforts to illustrate that are always met with the atheist objection of:

"Ï cain't see!"

So thanks but I will pass on that invitation to an exercise in futility.

Romans 1:20 (CEBA) Ever since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities—God's eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through the things God has made. So humans are without excuse.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All efforts to illustrate that are always met with the atheist objection of:

"Ï cain't see!"

So thanks but I will pass on that invitation to an exercise in futility.

Or maybe that is merely how you read it... But in reality, the reply perhaps just states that whatever is being proposed is not an honest independently verifiable method to detect this thing.

Romans 1:20 (CEBA) Ever since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities—God's eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through the things God has made. So humans are without excuse.

See? If they are "invisible", then they can't be seen by definition.
Try a statement that isn't so obviously self-contradicting.
Also try a statement that doesn't imply that you must believe it first, before you can be justified in believing it.

 

[Radrook]

Or maybe that is merely how you read it... But in reality, the reply perhaps just states that whatever is being proposed is not an honest independently verifiable method to detect this thing.



See? If they are "invisible", then they can't be seen by definition.
Try a statement that isn't so obviously self-contradicting.
Also try a statement that doesn't imply that you must believe it first, before you can be justified in believing it.

Understood via the things God has made. Understood via manifestation of nature. That is clearly-expressed basic English and yet you claim not to see it? Amazing!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Understood via the things God has made. Understood via manifestation of nature. That is clearly-expressed basic English and yet you claim not to see it? Amazing!

That just asserts that manifestations in nature are the result of this god doing things.

That the universe exists is only evidence that the universe exists. The existence of something doesn't imply the causal factor of that existence by itself.

In other words: assumed conclusion.

You can replace the word "god" in that bible verse by literally anything your imagination can produce, and the merrit of the statement would remain completely unchanged.

Here's an analogy...
Suppose I make the religious claim that undetectable pixies make grass grow.

Observation: grass grows.

Does that observation now support the assertion that undetectable pixies exist?

 

[Radrook]

That just asserts that manifestations in nature are the result of this god doing things.

That the universe exists is only evidence that the universe exists. The existence of something doesn't imply the causal factor of that existence by itself.

In other words: assumed conclusion.

You can replace the word "god" in that bible verse by literally anything your imagination can produce, and the merrit of the statement would remain completely unchanged.

Here's an analogy...
Suppose I make the religious claim that undetectable pixies make grass grow.

Observation: grass grows.

Does that observation now support the assertion that undetectable pixies exist?

No sir it does not have that meaning. It means that nature itself testifies by the manner in which it displays itself that there is an ID. That is the way that scripture is understood because that is what it is clearly referring to. Again, amazing that you once more claim that you can't see!

Brings to mind the following scripture:

2 Corinthians 4:4 ►
New International Version
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No sir it does not have that meaning. It means that nature itself testifies by the manner in which it displays itself that there is an ID.

Again, this is just an assertion, based on an a priori belief that it is so.

2 Corinthians 4:4 ►
New International Version
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see....

Every religion calls the unbelievers fools and blind.

 

[Chesterton]

Yes. Loaded language works that way...
It makes unwarranted assumptions.

And in the case of the "fine tuning argument", it even assumes its conclusion through these loaded terms.

Exactly the reason why it is fallacious logic.

I agree the language is loaded, but unavoidably so. Can you unload it? The numbers are tuned, coordinated, arranged, "monkeyed with" (as Fred Hoyle said)... or what? I think the premise is the raw observations, and the premise contains its own argument.

I actually kind of agree with that.

However, as an assertion, it is more likely then YOUR assertion... since it doesn't require assuming the existence of undetectable entities engaging in undetectable actions.

However... as an atheist myself, I don't engage in such assertions.
I do not see the value in positing such negative statements of existance.

I don't say "there is no purpose!" just like I don't say "there are no unicorns!".
These are truth statements that can not be supported by definition, due to their negative nature.

You can't demonstrate the idea that X does "not" exist.

Instead, I say that the burden of proof lies with those people who claim that X DOES exist. Existence of things can be demonstrated, if they actually exist.

In the case of "cosmic purpose", I say that all attempts at demonstrating the existence thereof have failed miserably. And because of that, I get to say that such purpose "does not seem to exist".

If the burden of proof were on me, I'd submit "fine tuning" as Exhibit A. I say it's clearly undeniable overwhelming evidence. Now it's your turn.