The anthropic principle and a finely-tuned universe

SubjectSean

Howdi Doubters, please slap me down if you've heard this one before and point me in the direction of the replies. What do people in here think of the argument that the Universe is 'just right' like baby bear's porridge; and because sentient consciousness, (endowed with qualities that transcend the animal) is an inevitable product of the evolution of the universe, it would seem to indicate that the odds of any of this actually happening are so staggeringly small that there may well be a consciousness behind it.

The only argument I have heard against this all is that we have no other universe to compare this one with. However it is very easy for me to envisage a universe where the big bang was bigger, smaller, faster, longer etc. Such a big bang would influence outcomes so that none of that which has occured, could have occured. I am inclined because of this to think that there is a so-called "God". All the same I am extremely disinclined to think that It has ever dictated any books to anybody except in a very indirect but nonetheless inevitable fashion. I do though entertain the potential delusion that certain individuals like Siddartha Gautama, Yeshua ben Miriam and certain other sufis and mystics actually in some way transcended all that is animal in us and became something better. Because of those people human social morality as a whole has made strides away from the original f**kwits we were. I believe this too was inevitable and is most likely a convergent happening on many other planets. Where is this social morality and consciousness evolving to? It is making big changes to the savage thing we were/are.

robindch

The anthropic argument collapses on itself with surprising speed, once you actually understand what it's saying. Which is that we and the world fit well together, therefore we were designed for it and it was designed for us. While ignoring the inconvenient fact that we couldn't be what we are if the physical rules were different. It's an embarrassingly circular argument and and something of a favorite with creationists.

Douglas Adams had this to say on it:

Douglas Adams wrote:

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

Dades

I always why if the universe has been finely tuned for us, what's all that other stuff out there for?

By that reasoning the rest of the mind-boggling enormous cosmos is, as Carl Sagan puts it, 'a waste of space'.

PDN

Dades wrote: »

I always why if the universe has been finely tuned for us, what's all that other stuff out there for?

By that reasoning the rest of the mind-boggling enormous cosmos is, as Carl Sagan puts it, 'a waste of space'.

God didn't want you to feel claustrophobic?

SubjectSean

robindch wrote: »

The anthropic argument collapses on itself with surprising speed, once you actually understand what it's saying. Which is that we and the world fit well together, therefore we were designed for it and it was designed for us. While ignoring the inconvenient fact that we couldn't be what we are if the physical rules were different. It's an embarrassingly circular argument and and something of a favorite with creationists.

Douglas Adams had this to say on it:

Ya but I don't think that it was designed specifically for us the human race, just specifically for life and that it was inevitable that something approximating the human race would grow from this on every planet supporting life. For this to all have just emerged from the 'random' chaos is something I have difficulty believing. I really don't think that it's an inconvenient fact that we couldn't be what we are if the rules were any different. That's kind of my point, it could have been different in so very many even ever so slight ways and we just wouldn't exist. (Am I being thick?) I am at one of the many ends of a 14 billion year long chain of 'co-incidental' events and it is simply too fantasitic for me to believe they can be accidental. I don't think the puddle analogy is a good fit for me as I do not think like the puddle or arrive here like it, the analogy belittles consciousness by reducing it to an observable phenomenon like any other. I do not think it is. I do not claim any special status for myself or even humanity, merely for sentient consciousness and am saying what it leads to is an inevitable outcome in a universe tuned in this manner.

stereoroid

It's possible to get extremely technical on this topic. There was a paper, which I'm trying to find, about how the heat of fusion of elements in the sun is nowhere near as finely-tuned as is claimed. Then there's the Ikeda/Jefferies rebuttal from Bayesian analysis, here, which analyses the probabilities that that could be happening.

I think the problem creationists have is clear from the lengths they have to go to, to find anything that could possibly support their claims.In the (highly unlikely) event that they found some sign of supernatural action in the fine-tuning of cosmological constant, that's a hell-of-a long way from the man-shaped interventionist God they want us all to worship. The one does not follow automatically from the other.

Dave!

SubjectSean wrote: »

Ya but I don't think that it was designed specifically for us the human race, just specifically for life and that it was inevitable that something approximating the human race would grow from this on every planet supporting life. For this to all have just emerged from the 'random' chaos is something I have difficulty believing. I really don't think that it's an inconvenient fact that we couldn't be what we are if the rules were any different. That's kind of my point, it could have been different in so very many even ever so slight ways and we just wouldn't exist. (Am I being thick?) I am at one of the many ends of a 14 billion year long chain of 'co-incidental' events and it is simply too fantasitic for me to believe they can be accidental. I don't think the puddle analogy is a good fit for me as I do not think like the puddle or arrive here like it, the analogy belittles consciousness by reducing it to an observable phenomenon like any other. I do not think it is. I do not claim any special status for myself or even humanity, merely for sentient consciousness and am saying what it leads to is an inevitable outcome in a universe tuned in this manner.

So what's the point in all the planets that don't support life?

Scofflaw

I think there may be an element of misunderstanding here. The Anthropic Principle, as I understand it, simply says that the universe is such as to permit the existence of life. Being life, we observe the universe, and wonder how it is that it allows life - but were the universe different, no life would exist to wonder such a thing.

The statistical improbability of a universe that permits life is therefore irrelevant - life always finds itself in a universe that permits life. No other result is possible - the probability that a universe that contains life is one that permits life is 1.

As to how it is that the Universe is 'finely tuned' to allow us in particular - that is the wrong way round. We are the finely tuned products of the universe that permits us.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

SubjectSean wrote: »

Howdi Doubters, please slap me down if you've heard this one before and point me in the direction of the replies. What do people in here think of the argument that the Universe is 'just right' like baby bear's porridge; and because sentient consciousness, (endowed with qualities that transcend the animal) is an inevitable product of the evolution of the universe, it would seem to indicate that the odds of any of this actually happening are so staggeringly small that there may well be a consciousness behind it.

The only argument I have heard against this ...

I really don't see how you can argue probability on this one - whatever the odds of this universe appearing just right they have to be less than some sort of supreme being/God appearing that's able to create this universe?

Surely a hugely powerful trans-dimensional sentient being that could create a universe has to be more complicated and 'finely tuned' than the universe! - I mean who knows if just a little bit of this supreme being was a little different maybe he'd create pasta dishes instead of universes! - how finely tuned and unlikely is this supreme being?

I am inclined because of this to think that there is a so-called "God". All the same I am extremely disinclined to think that It has ever dictated any books to anybody except in a very indirect but nonetheless inevitable fashion.

Even if this view of God is true - it means nothing - God created the universe and buggered off never to be heard from again. As far as out lives go it's exactly the same as a natural universe - God hasn't given us any laws to live by, we don't have souls so when we die we're just as dead as if he didn't exist - I really can't see why even bother spending 10 seconds on this - why is this important to you, what difference would it make if it's true or false?

Zillah

I'm going to throw in one of Dawkin's favourites here. If you argue that the universe is too well organised to be an accident, and therefore must be designed, you must then address the impossibility of the Designer himself.

SubjectSean

stereoroid wrote: »

It's possible to get extremely technical on this topic. There was a paper, which I'm trying to find, about how the heat of fusion of elements in the sun is nowhere near as finely-tuned as is claimed. Then there's the Ikeda/Jefferies rebuttal from Bayesian analysis, here, which analyses the probabilities that that could be happening.

I think the problem creationists have is clear from the lengths they have to go to, to find anything that could possibly support their claims.In the (highly unlikely) event that they found some sign of supernatural action in the fine-tuning of cosmological constant, that's a hell-of-a long way from the man-shaped interventionist God they want us all to worship. The one does not follow automatically from the other.

Thanks for the link. I think the creationists are loolaa's and I would not wish to associate what I am saying with those people at all.

SubjectSean

Zillah wrote: »

I'm going to throw in one of Dawkin's favourites here. If you argue that the universe is too well organised to be an accident, and therefore must be designed, you must then address the impossibility of the Designer himself.

I cannot even begin to comprehend the designer it is beyond my apeabilities:) I think that maybe things like the attractors in Chaos theory or convergent evolution are hints of a designer. Whatever got this universe going it's too too freaky to be an accident I feel. I mean what are the chances of the whole many tangled process of thr evolution of the universe just happening randomly from a superheated explosion of quarks. It seems like I'm being asked to believe that stardust turned into people by random accident. I really can't hack it. It's like somebody farted and it came up smelling of roses.

stereoroid

Zillah wrote: »

I'm going to throw in one of Dawkin's favourites here. If you argue that the universe is too well organised to be an accident, and therefore must be designed, you must then address the impossibility of the Designer himself.

That's not going to work on "real" theists - their Creator is outside the universe, so basic ideas such as cause-and-effect or designer-and-design don't apply to Him. :rolleyes:

SubjectSean

pH wrote: »

Even if this view of God is true - it means nothing - God created the universe and buggered off never to be heard from again. As far as out lives go it's exactly the same as a natural universe - God hasn't given us any laws to live by, we don't have souls so when we die we're just as dead as if he didn't exist - I really can't see why even bother spending 10 seconds on this - why is this important to you, what difference would it make if it's true or false?

OK don't spend 10 seconds then is the answer to this one. If it's true I'm happy if it's false I'm more bored.

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

I'm going to throw in one of Dawkin's favourites here. If you argue that the universe is too well organised to be an accident, and therefore must be designed, you must then address the impossibility of the Designer himself.

I really thought Dawkins was more intelligent than that. Such logic can only meaningfully argue that the Designer is not an accident - which He is not.

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

I really thought Dawkins was more intelligent than that. Such logic can only meaningfully argue that the Designer is not an accident - which He is not.

In fairness, I don't think you are correct. What Dawkins is picking up is simply that the argument from design rests on an infinite number of turtles.

pH

SubjectSean wrote: »

OK don't spend 10 seconds then is the answer to this one. If it's true I'm happy if it's false I'm more bored.

Why would the fact that the universe was made by an uncaring God make you happy and it not being make you bored?

PDN

Schuhart wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think you are correct. What Dawkins is picking up is simply that the argument from design rests on an infinite number of turtles.

Then wouldn't that be the cosmological (or first cause) argument rather than the teleological argument (or argument from design)?

robindch

PDN wrote:

I really thought Dawkins was more intelligent than that. Such logic can only meaningfully argue that the Designer is not an accident - which He is not.

It sounds like you may not be familiar with the actual argument that Dawkins is making, which, if memory serves, was derived if not actually copied, from Hume. This is the argument:

If you say that the universe is too ordered to be an accident, thereby implying that it's a universe which requires a designer to design it just right, then rather than explaining anything, you actually end up with the larger problem of trying to work out who designed the designer. This is especially the case if you subscribe to the false creationist dogma that "information" (for whatever definition you choose for that word) can't arise by accident. Additionally, you can't claim "well, the designer exists outside of time and space or he existed before the start of the universe" without allowing the other side to use a similar escape-hatch, at which stage discussion becomes pointless as both sides would have ceased rational discussion.

As far as I recall, Hume had a slightly extended argument which pointed out, correctly, that the requirement for a designer does not imply the existence of any of the gods of the old or new testaments, or the truth of any of the stories about any of them. Nor does it imply that the designer god still exists, nor that the designer wasn't actually a pantheon of designers, any or all of which might have since ceased existing or become otherwise uncommunicative.

Outside of creationist circles, the "argument from design" and its close relatives, the cosmological and teleological arguments, are found decidedly unconvincing.

.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Outside of creationist circles, the "argument from design" and its close relatives, the cosmological and teleological arguments, are found decidedly unconvincing.

Except in the case of Mr Flew, I presume?

robindch

PDN wrote:

Except in the case of Mr Flew, I presume?

A predictable come-back. Would you care to address the argument?

BTW, here's a recent article from the NY Times on Flew and the claims that religious fundamentalists have exploited him in his rapid-seeming decline into frailty, anxious to bag a high-profile atheist. Make of it what you will.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?_r=1&ex=1351828800&en=c249db082e6a548e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin

Now back to PDN and his upcoming demolition of Hume and/or Dawkins.

.

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

Then wouldn't that be the cosmological (or first cause) argument rather than the teleological argument (or argument from design)?

Exactly as per Robinch above.

PDN wrote: »

Except in the case of Mr Flew, I presume?

I'm happily unaware of the man's work. Does he actually say anything that refutes the position as explained by Robinch?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

A predictable come-back. Would you care to address the argument?

Now back to PDN and his upcoming demolition of Hume and/or Dawkins.

I make no claims to demolish anyone. I simply address the argument as framed by Zillah. An argument that I find very weak.

If you argue that the universe is too well organised to be an accident, and therefore must be designed, you must then address the impossibility of the Designer himself.

The argument from design can work at one level without therefore having to assume it must apply at other levels.

The argument from design works with a watch and a watchmaker (with apologies to Paley et al). I presume we all accept that a watch demonstrates a level of organisation which presumes a designer? An atheist can see that the existence of a watch demands a watchmaker without therefore positing a series of further designers that leads to God.

If Dawkin's argument (at least as presented by Zillah) is valid then it would logically rule out any argument by design at any level ever. Therefore it is illogical to assume that a book must have had an author or a printer, and we allow for the possibility that everything occurs by accident. That is patently absurd.

PDN

Schuhart wrote: »

Exactly as per Robinch above.I'm happily unaware of the man's work. Does he actually say anything that refutes the position as explained by Robinch?

He is a deist who holds to a version of the teleological argument. Therefore his very existence refutes the assertion that such arguments are confined to creationist circles (unless Robin is using 'Creationist' in such a broad sense as to include every theist and deist).

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

If Dawkin's argument (at least as presented by Zillah) is valid then it would logically rule out any argument by design at any level ever. Therefore it is illogical to assume that a book must have had an author or a printer, and we allow for the possibility that everything occurs by accident. That is patently absurd.

You're ignoring the part where they attempt to explain the existence of the entire universe, rather than a subset thereof.

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

You're ignoring the part where they attempt to explain the existence of the entire universe, rather than a subset thereof.

I don't think so. Let's face it, nobody knows what the entire universe looks like. All we can deal with is the small subset of it which we can observe.

Now, it may be that Dawkins' argument is more complex in his books (I freely admit that I've never read him) but as you describe it, and as Schuhart expands on it, it appears to take the following form:

If A demands designer B; then B must demand designer C; and C must demand designer D etc. all the way to Z where Z=God; then Z must demand a designer. (This, I presume, is what Schuhart's infinite number of turtles refers to).

However, if that argument is valid then it necessarily excludes any argument from design in any area of existence whatsoever. It appears to me much more reasonable that A can demand designer B, but B may or may not demand a designer. There is no logical necessity for a designer itself to be designed.

If an atheist believes in a watchmaker, or a printer, but not in a God, then that obviously requires a break to occur in Dawkins' chain of designers. If such a break can occur at any point in the chain then it is clearly possible for the break to occur at God's end of the chain rather than earlier, therefore Dawkins' argument would become invalid.

Schuhart

PDN wrote:

An atheist can see that the existence of a watch demands a watchmaker without therefore positing a series of further designers that leads to God.

I don’t see how this works. Presumably the watchmaker in your example does require Mr and Mrs watchmaker to produce a child, and they presumably require parentage in turn until you get back to a shrew leaping into the gap left by the demise of the dinosaurs.

Is the key point here that atheists are willing to accept that a complex thing can evolve from something less complex?

Plus, there’s the other material that Robinch introduced to the effect that even conceding a first cause doesn’t make that first cause a god that we would recognise. You understand that we can only speculate, but presumably that first cause could be, say, three independent events coinciding but not willed by anything.

In any event, think of the assumptions you have to make before your ‘designer’ concept has any relevance. The designer has to be conscious of what he was doing. He has to intend life to emerge on Earth. He has to have a purpose for that life that amounts to more than it being a galactic water feature. He has to be That God That Gave Us This Religion and Not That One. Maybe he even has to be the God as understood by Fred Phelps.

All of which, I think, was more entertainingly summarised in a story by Hilaire Belloc that I’ve posted here more than once because I think its terrifically funny (which is always a bad sign).

PDN wrote: »

He is a deist who holds to a version of the teleological argument. Therefore his very existence refutes the assertion that such arguments are confined to creationist circles (unless Robin is using 'Creationist' in such a broad sense as to include every theist and deist).

Indeed, I don’t doubt that many theists have a vague sense of ‘this couldn’t all be here by accident’ and at the same time accept, say, evolution or the age of the universe. But, you’ll understand, I’m more interested in the actual case that refutes what is being said.

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

it may be that Dawkins' argument is more complex in his books (I freely admit that I've never read him)

tbh his books are entertaining, but not necessarily the best description of the argument. You'll understand, its the argument that we are interested in rather than Dawkins. In general (and I'm not particularly thinking of the discussion in hand), I'd feel Julian Baggini's Atheism: A Very Short Introduction is much better (and shorter) at just formally setting out the case for atheism.

Zillah

The failure in applying the designer argument to God is that it violates the initial premise; something too complex to exist without a designer must have been designed. They state that the universe is too well ordered to exist without a guiding hand, but claim that the entity who is complex enough to design it does not need such a designer. Its a self defeating argument.

That aside, the initial premise is also false, so the argument is both internally and externally invalid. The fact that something appears designed is not proof that it was designed. In a strict sense, a painting is only evidence for a painting, not neccessarily a painter. We can infer the existence of a painter due to the overwhelming supporting evidence. The God Designer conclusion has no such supporting evidence.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

I don't think so. Let's face it, nobody knows what the entire universe looks like. All we can deal with is the small subset of it which we can observe.

Now, it may be that Dawkins' argument is more complex in his books (I freely admit that I've never read him) but as you describe it, and as Schuhart expands on it, it appears to take the following form:

If A demands designer B; then B must demand designer C; and C must demand designer D etc. all the way to Z where Z=God; then Z must demand a designer. (This, I presume, is what Schuhart's infinite number of turtles refers to).

However, if that argument is valid then it necessarily excludes any argument from design in any area of existence whatsoever. It appears to me much more reasonable that A can demand designer B, but B may or may not demand a designer. There is no logical necessity for a designer itself to be designed.

If an atheist believes in a watchmaker, or a printer, but not in a God, then that obviously requires a break to occur in Dawkins' chain of designers. If such a break can occur at any point in the chain then it is clearly possible for the break to occur at God's end of the chain rather than earlier, therefore Dawkins' argument would become invalid.

Very reasonable. If we argue that A demands designer B, we are actually positing "designer B designing A" as the explanation for A. We may then posit an entirely independent explanation of B by way of evolution, or by way of further design, which in turn requires designer C.

What every member of the chain certainly shares is an explanation - each is offered as an explanation for the previous link, and each is in turn explained. God, however, is not explained, which is where God actually sticks out like a sore thumb.

The more primitive one is, or the more primitive one's audience is, or the less well understood the chain, the earlier in the chain one offers the First Unexplained Explanation. 'Savages' will offer an inexplicable God as an explanation for thunder - sophisticated theistic evolutionists offer God only as the inexplicable explanation of the Big Bang (itself a causeless cause). Even Special Creationists offer God some way up the chain these days.

(God, of course, is not the only possible Unexplained Explanation available, as every parent knows. 'Because' is a popular alternative.)

God is not so much a First Cause, or First Designer, but the First Inexplicable - in a fashion that is not accepted at any other point in the chain. We all know where this leads, of course.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

PDN wrote: »

If A demands designer B; then B must demand designer C; and C must demand designer D etc. all the way to Z where Z=God; then Z must demand a designer. (This, I presume, is what Schuhart's infinite number of turtles refers to).

However, if that argument is valid then it necessarily excludes any argument from design in any area of existence whatsoever. It appears to me much more reasonable that A can demand designer B, but B may or may not demand a designer. There is no logical necessity for a designer itself to be designed.

No it doesn't, you're just confused.

The universe could have appeared 'uncaused', then produced us and then we design a watch - I can't see how this is a problem for anyone. You appear to be confusing (deliberately?) two things:

One being a variation on Paley's watch argument (if you see something 'obviously' designed then it must have a designer) and the other the Cosmological argument -