Fine Tuned For Life? Surely not! Off Topic? Definitely!

nagirrac

I would encourage you to live your life to the full, follow your bliss wherever it takes you, and maintain an open mind. On the latter point, I would respectively encourage you to reconsider your 100% atheist belief. We have (currently at least) no way of knowing (knowledge as opposed to belief) whether there is a creative intelligence behind our universe or not. Although atheists dispute this argument, there is more evidence (albeit subjective) for a creative intelligence than for any currently proposed alternative.

What we know from science is that the universe is very finely tuned, otherwise we could not exist. If we accept the big bang theory as the start of our physical universe as we observe it, there are really only two logical possibilities, either 1) a conscious intelligence designed it as such, or 2) ours is one of an infinite number of universes that happens to have the right physical properties for us to exist. We cannot observe any other universes so imo belief in the latter is as objectively speculative as the former.

sbsquarepants

nagirrac wrote: »

Although atheists dispute this argument, there is more evidence (albeit subjective) for a creative intelligence than for any currently proposed alternative. .

As predicted, i dispute this argument!

nagirrac wrote: »

What we know from science is that the universe is very finely tuned, otherwise we could not exist. If we accept the big bang theory as the start of our physical universe as we observe it, there are really only two logical possibilities, either 1) a conscious intelligence designed it as such, or 2) ours is one of an infinite number of universes that happens to have the right physical properties for us to exist. We cannot observe any other universes so imo belief in the latter is as objectively speculative as the former.

Once something has actually happened, how unlikely it was to happen ceases to exist. If you roll a dice the odds of getting a particular result are 1 in 6. If you're after rolling a dice and getting, say a 3 - those odds are now meaningless. It has happened.
The odds of any particular set of euro million numbers coming up is astronomical - but every draw one of those ridiculously unlikely events happens - every single draw. Yet if anyone was to predict a minute before the draw would this particular event happen, they would almost certainly say no - it's just far too improbable.
Same thing with your very existence - the odds of that one particular sperm, hitting the one particular egg, to make you the particular person that you are - it makes the euro millions look like tossing a coin. Go back down the generations, and statistically speaking there is zero chance of your existence. But yet here you are.

HHobo

nagirrac wrote: »

What we know from science is that the universe is very finely tuned, otherwise we could not exist.

I've always been confused as to why this argument ever really gained any serious traction. It is a nearly perfect example of the fallacy begging the question. In order for the universe to be "finely tuned" you have to start with what the universe is supposed to be finely tuned for. If for example I were to suggest that he universe is "finely tuned" for X (any extant thing), you can show that if the universe were different, X could not exist. Can we all argee for example that the universe is clearly finely tuned to allow the existance of Hydrogen? Human, oh, they are just a by-product of a universe that allows hydrogen to exist. After all, hydrogen can, and does, exist quite happily almost everywhere in the whole universe. It is directly involved in most of the major things happening in the universe like the formation and burning of stars. It's fusion is what gives rise to other elements. We are all Hydorgen derivatives! Human's and life as we know it on the otherhand can, as far as we so far can tell, exist on a only a single planet in an unimaginably large cosmos. The universe was fine tuned for them? Sure doesn't look like it. It would be a bit like suggesting that ecology on earth is fine tuned for a species of lizard that can only survive on a single tiny island in the middle of the pacific ocean.

In short, to accept this argument you have to start with the assumption that humans/life is the goal of the universe. This is exactly what the argument is trying to demonstrate. If I created a universe that wasn't turned for anything in particular, it would look exactly, perfectly like it had be tuned for whatever just happens to be in it.

sbsquarepants

HHobo wrote: »

In short, to accept this argument you have to start with the assumption that humans/life is the goal of the universe. This is exactly what the argument is trying to demonstrate. If I created a universe that wasn't turned for anything in particular, it would look exactly, perfectly like it had be tuned for whatever just happens to be in it.

Exactly, it's cart before the horse stuff - the universe doesn't suit us, we suit it. The universe could get by just fine without humans in it, it has already done so for billions of years. The reverse - not so much!

Zombrex

HHobo wrote: »

I've always been confused as to why this argument ever really gained any serious traction.

Because people are fecking stupid :pac:

99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999% of the universe kills all known life instantly.

But some how the universe is "finely tuned" for life. :rolleyes:

robindch

Zombrex wrote: »

But some how the universe is "finely tuned" for life. :rolleyes:

On the plus side,
99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999% of the universe is non-religious.

I think that should give us all a little hope.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

On the plus side,
99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999% of the universe is non-religious.

I think that should give us all a little hope.

That made my day

Sarky

I think you missed a few orders of magnitude there. Then again there is a character limit for each post...

krudler

Sarky wrote: »

I think you missed a few orders of magnitude there. Then again there is a character limit for each post...

We can't repel orders of that magnitude!


sorry...

nagirrac

If ever there was evidence needed regarding the the closed minded worldview of atheists, this thread is it.

The argument for fine tuning is firmly rooted in science, not in philosophy. Yes, there are scientists who argue that fine tuning is evidence for a creator (Bernard Haisch, The God Theory) and scientists who argue against fine tuning to defend their dogmatic atheist position (Victor Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine Tuning), but to jump on either side of that debate is missing the point.

The list of eminent scientists who accept the fine tuning argument is exhaustive: Rees (Just 6 numbers, the book on the subject), Deutsch, Davies, Carter, Smolin, Susskind, Hawking, Guth, Greene, Penrose, Barrow, Hamilton, Sandage, Tegmark, etc. etc. Roughly half these scientists are theists / deists and the other half agnostic athiests. What they all have in common is making no dogmatic claim on what conclusion we should draw from the evidence of fine tuning. The only scientist I am aware of who openly disputes the fine tuning argument is Stenger.

If you don't mind, I'll stay with the open minded fecking stupid crowd.. and of course be accused yet again of using arguments from authority by the same people who predictably wheel out Dawkins at every opportunity.

If you want to maintain an open mind on the subject of fine tuning then start by reading "Just 6 Numbers" by Martin Rees (an atheist) and work from there.

Sarky

nagirrac wrote: »

If ever there was evidence needed regarding the the closed minded worldview of atheists, this thread is it.

The argument for fine tuning is firmly rooted in science, not in philosophy. Yes, there are scientists who argue that fine tuning is evidence for a creator (Bernard Haisch, The God Theory) and scientists who argue against fine tuning to defend their dogmatic atheist position (Victor Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine Tuning), but to jump on either side of that debate is missing the point.

The list of eminent scientists who accept the fine tuning argument is exhaustive: Rees (Just 6 numbers, the book on the subject), Deutsch, Davies, Carter, Smolin, Susskind, Hawking, Guth, Greene, Penrose, Barrow, Hamilton, Sandage, Tegmark, etc. etc. Roughly half these scientists are theists / deists and the other half agnostic athiests. What they all have in common is making no dogmatic claim on what conclusion we should draw from the evidence of fine tuning. The only scientist I am aware of who openly disputes the fine tuning argument is Stenger.

If you don't mind, I'll stay with the open minded fecking stupid crowd.. and of course be accused yet again of using arguments from authority by the same people who predictably wheel out Dawkins at every opportunity.

If you want to maintain an open mind on the subject of fine tuning then start by reading "Just 6 Numbers" by Martin Rees (an atheist) and work from there.

Are you sure you've been in scientific research for years? They didn't just say it to keep you happy?

Obliq

Sarky wrote: »

Are you sure you've been in scientific research for years? They didn't just say it to keep you happy?

I've got that deja vu feeling again....

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

Are you sure you've been in scientific research for years? They didn't just say it to keep you happy?

Nothing constructive to offer then?
Sadly predictable that attacking the poster is perfectly acceptable on this forum so long as one agrees with the dogmatic atheist mindset.
Pathetic, and almost cult like, behavior.

Obliq

nagirrac wrote: »

Nothing constructive to offer then?
Sadly predictable that attacking the poster is perfectly acceptable on this forum so long as one agrees with the dogmatic atheist mindset.
Pathetic, and almost cult like, behavior.

'Ere mate - it's you who's been calling every person on this thread closed minded and told us to look at some book to broaden our minds. And there you go again with the "dogmatic atheist mindset" insults. What makes you think your insults are less insulting than the one you just got?

nagirrac

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Oh dear, not this again.

Since there is no credible evidence to suggest any kind of deity I'm not sure what you mean by "more evidence than for any proposed alternative"

Secondly, the fine-tuning argument, out of all the arguments for the existence of a God, is the most fundamentally flawed. In fact, if I were to start detailing all the problems of the fine-tuning argument then it would probably end up being the longest post in boards history. Just one tiny example of the problems with this argument is that we can already show that life is possible without two of the four fundamental forces of nature and yet you think the universe is fine-tuned.

I am disappinted in you oldernwiser as you generally are a reasonable and well informed poster unlike the more rabid atheists on here.

Every eminent astrophysicist I am aware of with the exception of Stenger thinks that the universe is fine tuned. They differ in what conclusions one should draw. The only two credible proposals, creative intelligence and the multiverse, have one thing in common, they are both impossible to demonstrate scientifically as both are unfalsifiable (at present at least).

It is disappointing that seemingly intelligent people on this forum continue to use science to make their atheist argument, when science by and large has nothing to say on the subject of the presence or absence of God. One would expect that from religious nuts but not from the supposedly open minded.

Sarky

nagirrac wrote: »

Every eminent astrophysicist I am aware of with the exception of Stenger thinks that the universe is fine tuned.

Become aware of more astrophysicists, then. The one I live with thinks you're talking rubbish.

nagirrac

Obliq wrote: »

'Ere mate - it's you who's been calling every person on this thread closed minded and told us to look at some book to broaden our minds. And there you go again with the "dogmatic atheist mindset" insults. What makes you think your insults are less insulting than the one you just got?

So you would equate calling someone's beliefs "dogmatic atheist" with being called "moronic", a "rube" and "fecking stupid" as I have been on this forum?
Interesting

Heaven forbid one should read a book. What an illogical position to hold. What do you suggest, better to form an opinion based on ignorance?

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

Become aware of more astrophysicists, then. The one I live with thinks you're talking rubbish.

name one

Sarky

I'm not naming the guy I live with! He has a right to his privacy.

But google astrophysicist and fine-tuned. Ah go on.

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

I'm not naming the guy I live with! He has a right to his privacy.

But google astrophysicist and fine-tuned. Ah go on.

I have no interest in who you live with.

Name one astrophysicist other than Stenger who argues against fine tuning. You are the one arguing against fine tuning so the onus is on you to provide a source. I have provided dozens.

swampgas

nagirrac wrote: »

If ever there was evidence needed regarding the the closed minded worldview of atheists, this thread is it.

The argument for fine tuning is firmly rooted in science, not in philosophy. Yes, there are scientists who argue that fine tuning is evidence for a creator (Bernard Haisch, The God Theory) and scientists who argue against fine tuning to defend their dogmatic atheist position (Victor Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine Tuning), but to jump on either side of that debate is missing the point.

The list of eminent scientists who accept the fine tuning argument is exhaustive: Rees (Just 6 numbers, the book on the subject), Deutsch, Davies, Carter, Smolin, Susskind, Hawking, Guth, Greene, Penrose, Barrow, Hamilton, Sandage, Tegmark, etc. etc. Roughly half these scientists are theists / deists and the other half agnostic athiests. What they all have in common is making no dogmatic claim on what conclusion we should draw from the evidence of fine tuning. The only scientist I am aware of who openly disputes the fine tuning argument is Stenger.

If you don't mind, I'll stay with the open minded fecking stupid crowd.. and of course be accused yet again of using arguments from authority by the same people who predictably wheel out Dawkins at every opportunity.

If you want to maintain an open mind on the subject of fine tuning then start by reading "Just 6 Numbers" by Martin Rees (an atheist) and work from there.

You do seem to argue very much from authority - i.e. this is what eminent scientists X, Y and Z believe, therefore it must be a credible theory.

Scientific theories/hypotheses can and should be evaluated on their merits, not simply accepted because of the (supposedly infallible?) eminent scientists who subscribe to them.

Obliq

nagirrac wrote: »

So you would equate calling someone's beliefs "dogmatic atheist" with being called "moronic", a "rube" and "fecking stupid" as I have been on this forum?
Interesting

Heaven forbid one should read a book. What an illogical position to hold. What do you suggest, better to form an opinion based on ignorance?

I suggest that if you want someone to read a book, or better form an opinion, then ask them nicely. Did it ever occur that the reason you're out on your own here is that you seem to deliberately set yourself apart from any reasoned opinion that anyone has offered you?

BNJT

krudler wrote: »

There was a sickening comment on facebook recently when those kids were killed in the school shooting, something along the lines of "those angels were called to heaven early"

Yeah, did anyone see the inter-faith vigil led by Obama after the Sandy Hook shootings? More than one of the speakers thanked god for taking away their children. I also found that horrifying.

However as an atheist I do believe there is an afterlife of sorts. My grandfather, also an atheist, passed away last year. He had almost 20 descendents, who he had personally influenced in a positive way. I believe that his memory, not to mention his genetic lineage which influences how I and my family members will look and act to some extent, will be carried on in our family for generations, highlighted by his numerous letters, photographs, and other personalia.

I also find this notion much more comforting than I could that of an "afterlife prison" where one would be forcibly incarcerated for eterntity with ones co-deceased family members (how would that even work - would they remain the age they died at?) , while compelled to observe the happenings on earth. I think this is how the heaven many people believe in would operate.

nagirrac

Obliq wrote: »

I suggest that if you want someone to read a book, or better form an opinion, then ask them nicely. Did it ever occur that the reason you're out on your own here is that you seem to deliberately set yourself apart from any reasoned opinion that anyone has offered you?

No in short. The reason I am out on my own is that I hold a different mindset to that of an atheist. I would have thought that was obvious. My opinions are simply different to those of an atheist on the belief in God question. On many other issues discussed here I generally agree with most people.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

Sadly predictable that attacking the poster is perfectly acceptable on this forum so long as one agrees with the dogmatic atheist mindset. Pathetic, and almost cult like, behavior.

Jeez, nagirrac, would you ever grow up?

Your sleights are tediously predictable and they'll start earning you cards and bans if you can't up your game significantly.

Obliq

nagirrac wrote: »

No in short. The reason I am out on my own is that I hold a different mindset to that of an atheist. I would have thought that was obvious. My opinions are simply different to those of an atheist on the belief in God question. On many other issues discussed here I generally agree with most people.

Hmm. I don't want to hurt your feelings, but there are religious folk (who obviously hold a different mindset to atheists) who post up here and get a better reaction. I think it's because most of the ones that venture here manage to do so without preaching. You have a tendency to come across as a bit preachy, if you don't mind me saying so....politely, like.

swampgas

Sorry, realised there was another point I wished to query:

nagirrac wrote: »

The argument for fine tuning is firmly rooted in science, not in philosophy. Yes, there are scientists who argue that fine tuning is evidence for a creator (Bernard Haisch, The God Theory) and scientists who argue against fine tuning to defend their dogmatic atheist position (Victor Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine Tuning), but to jump on either side of that debate is missing the point.

The list of eminent scientists who accept the fine tuning argument is exhaustive: Rees (Just 6 numbers, the book on the subject), Deutsch, Davies, Carter, Smolin, Susskind, Hawking, Guth, Greene, Penrose, Barrow, Hamilton, Sandage, Tegmark, etc. etc. Roughly half these scientists are theists / deists and the other half agnostic athiests. What they all have in common is making no dogmatic claim on what conclusion we should draw from the evidence of fine tuning. The only scientist I am aware of who openly disputes the fine tuning argument is Stenger.

If everyone is "making no dogmatic claim on what conclusion we should draw from the evidence of fine tuning", then what claims are they making that you think worthy of merit?

BNJT

If the universe is truly infinite, then it must include all possible allignments of matter and energy. The earth and its people are simply one of these infinite allignments. How is that fine-tuning?

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

name one

Neil Tyson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mij4DYYnkF8

Can you name an astrophysicist, voted the "Sexiest Astrophysicist Alive" by People Magazine, who thinks the universe was fine-tuned?

nagirrac

swampgas wrote: »

You do seem to argue very much from authority - i.e. this is what eminent scientists X, Y and Z believe, therefore it must be a credible theory.

Scientific theories/hypotheses can and should be evaluated on their merits, not simply accepted because of the (supposedly infallible?) eminent scientists who subscribe to them.

I accept that, but do you not admit or at least consider that atheists are the most guilty of this? The theory of evolution is consistently used as an example to argue for lack of belief in a creative intelligence. While it is a beautiful theory and can be used to blow holes through illogical "young earth creationist" positions, it says absolutely nothing about why there is a universe to begin with.

Sarky

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Neil Tyson:

I wasn't going to mention him, because I thought it was too obvious.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

The theory of evolution is consistently used as an example to argue for lack of belief in a creative intelligence. While it is a beautiful theory and can be used to blow holes through illogical "young earth creationist" positions, it says absolutely nothing about why there is a universe to begin with.

Evolution involves biology and things that are alive and flop about here on Earth's surface. The Big Bang involves astrophysics and things that are dead and aren't on Earth's surface

I think most posters here in A+A are able to distinguish between the two.

swampgas

nagirrac wrote: »

I accept that, but do you not admit or at least consider that atheists are the most guilty of this?

No, I don't accept that - I don't think atheists are more likely than others to accept arguments from authority.

The theory of evolution is consistently used as an example to argue for lack of belief in a creative intelligence. While it is a beautiful theory and can be used to blow holes through illogical "young earth creationist" positions, it says absolutely nothing about why there is a universe to begin with.

Personally, I don't think evolution has any bearing whatsoever on the origin of the Universe.

I agree that it is usually biblical literalists who make an issue of evolution, as they feel that evolution is incompatible with creationism, so they deny it.

Kidchameleon

CroMagnonMan wrote: »

The end of consciousness is an eternity of bliss, non existence is the only true freedom. Imagine eternal self awareness for a second. Sounds horrific to me.

I much prefer knowing I have a set number of years as a self aware being to experience what the world has to offer and then get switched off.

But you essentially switch off every night when you go to sleep. At least that's what it feels like to me. I'm sure if there were an after life you could go to "sleep" whenever you please.

nagirrac

swampgas wrote: »

Sorry, realised there was another point I wished to query:


If everyone is "making no dogmatic claim on what conclusion we should draw from the evidence of fine tuning", then what claims are they making that you think worthy of merit?

They are simply reporting their science. What "I" think is sort of irrelevant, but the observation that so many fundamental constants of cosmology "appear" fine tuned to allow life (as we know it at least) to exist is rather interesting.

"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers appear to be very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life"
Stephen Hawking (an atheist)

Obviously some scientists choose to also argue a philosophical opinion but they are in a small minority.

Sarky

Then imagine that unpleasant feeling of barely conscious paralysis where you know you're awake, but the rest of your body doesn't, just before you awake with a spasm. For eternity. Sound like fun?

oldrnwisr

nagirrac wrote: »

If ever there was evidence needed regarding the the closed minded worldview of atheists, this thread is it.

The argument for fine tuning is firmly rooted in science, not in philosophy. Yes, there are scientists who argue that fine tuning is evidence for a creator (Bernard Haisch, The God Theory) and scientists who argue against fine tuning to defend their dogmatic atheist position (Victor Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine Tuning), but to jump on either side of that debate is missing the point.

The list of eminent scientists who accept the fine tuning argument is exhaustive: Rees (Just 6 numbers, the book on the subject), Deutsch, Davies, Carter, Smolin, Susskind, Hawking, Guth, Greene, Penrose, Barrow, Hamilton, Sandage, Tegmark, etc. etc. Roughly half these scientists are theists / deists and the other half agnostic athiests. What they all have in common is making no dogmatic claim on what conclusion we should draw from the evidence of fine tuning. The only scientist I am aware of who openly disputes the fine tuning argument is Stenger.

If you don't mind, I'll stay with the open minded fecking stupid crowd.. and of course be accused yet again of using arguments from authority by the same people who predictably wheel out Dawkins at every opportunity.

If you want to maintain an open mind on the subject of fine tuning then start by reading "Just 6 Numbers" by Martin Rees (an atheist) and work from there.

As Tim Minchin once said: "If you open your mind too much your brain will fall out."

As I said in my previous post there are lots and lots of flaws in the fine-tuning argument and making appeals to authority (and no I don't invoke Dawkins at every opportunity) doesn't change this.


1. Time

So far we are 13.75+/-0.11 billion years into our current universe. Our current best guess for the timeframe for the end of this universe (heat death) is approximately 10^100 years. So when we consider the length of time during this period in which life is possible we can see that the universe can only sustain life for one thousand billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billionth of the total lifespan of the universe. That's hardly fine-tuned now is it?

2. Fundamental forces

To get back to my previous post, fine-tuning proponents always talk about adjusting parameters by "a few percent" and life being impossible. So what if we start scrapping parameters entirely.

Here for example is what happens if we scrap the weak nuclear force:

A universe without weak interactions

and here's what happens if we discount gravity:

Molecular dynamics simulation of melittin in a dimyristoylphosphatidylcholine bilayer membrane

So there's half the fundamental forces of nature scrapped without any effect on the possibility of life developing.


3. Adaptation

This is probably the biggest facet of the fine-tuning argument which you have failed to understand. Life adapted to the conditions of the universe not the other way around. As other posters have pointed out you've got the cart before the horse. The problem with the phrasing of the fine-tuning argument is the "as we know it" part. Just because life as we currently understand it may not have developed had the initial conditions of the universe, there's no reason to suggest that the train runs off the track. Life may just evolve in a different manner. Let me give you an example.

At the moment, our eyes are capable of perceiving light in a narrow band of the EM spectrum, roughly 380-740nm wavelengths. So using the premise of the fine-tuning argument you could argue that the sun was fine-tuned to support our vision but that is to entirely miss the point. The reason we see light in the "visible" portion of the spectrum is because the sun emits its radiation most prominently in this band as you can see below:



Now, how this happened is something like this:

1. A light sensitive patch of skin develops conferring an evolutionary advantage on the creature by allowing it to distinguish light from dark.
2. Through the process of selection, the light sensitive patch becomes a shallow depression in the skin, allowing for some basic directionality, allowing the creature to sense movement and possibly evade predators.
3. Next, the increased advantage gained by directionality is exploited and the depression becomes deeper and deeper until it becomes like a pinhole camera allowing for maximum information to be gained.
4. Next, the mucus produced by the cells accumulates due to the narrowed opening.
5. Then, the mucus hardens and forms a primitive lens which acts to concentrate the incoming light.
6. After this, the cells forming the interior surface of the eye become free to move relative to the surrounding tissue, allowing for an even greater field of vision.
7. Finally, the increasing use of movement of the eye leads to the development of muscle tissue around both the eye exterior and lens, putting both under control of the creature. We now have an eye similar to our own.

OK, back to the point. Now humans as we are now are sensitive to X-rays. In a high enough dose they can kill us. However, if life had arisen around an object like, say, Scorpius X-1, there's no reason to suggest that life wouldn't have adapted to the radiation it emits so that there might be "people" living on a planet in its orbit who can see x-rays.



4. Volume



Like time in the first example, the sheer scale of the universe poses a problem for fine-tuning. At the moment life on this planet exists on no more than say 4% of the shell of this planet. And our planet is one of 9 in our solar system. Assuming that our planetary configuration is unremarkable then there are about 4 trillion planets in our galaxy alone and 125 billion galaxies. Life seems to be awfully rare in a universe which was fine-tuned for it. Why is biogenesis so rare if the universe is fine-tuned?



5. Incompleteness


One of the key and often overlooked problems of the fine-tuning argument is how amazingly shallow it is as an analytical argument. The problem is that scientists and philosophers have examined different cosmological parameters and found that if some of them are altered then life could not have developed. Indeed Paul Davies who you reference in your post highlights this when he said: "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". The first stumbling block is that we don't even know how many independent physical constants there are. So as much as we might say, oh here are ten fine-tuned constants there may be a hundred more which aren't. The second obstacle is that we already know of cosmological parameters which can be altered which do not impact the development of life. So the fine-tuning argument at its core is nothing but a fallacy of composition.



6. Testability


Another key problem for the fine-tuning argument is testability. The universe is just that little bit inflexible that it won't let us actually mess with the cosmological parameters to see what the effects would be. So as much as you go on about a closed minded atheist argument and unfalsifiability you should take a good long look at the tree branch you're sitting on because you're sawing right through it.

You see here's the thing. The astrophysicists and cosmologists who have bought into the fine-tuning argument are no doubt excellent physicists and leaders in their field but the one thing they really suck at is being biologists. Just look at Michio Kaku talking about evolution, its cringeworthy. The problem is that all of these physicists have gotten themselves hung up on the idea of life as we know it. So all of their simulations and calculations are predicated on an a priori position that life as it exists now is either a) desirable or b) inevitable. But that's not the case and that's why fine-tuning fails.




7. Probability


This is one that sbsquarepants touched on in one of his posts. This idea of using probability to determine the chances of an event that has actually occurred of occurring in the first place is ludicrous. The main reason is that you have to know the range of values available to select from. In the case of fine-tuning that presents a problem. Take one of Martin Rees' 6 numbers, for example, D (no. of spatial dimensions in spacetime). Physicists are still arguing over what this number should be so the idea that a change in this number would have an effect on life is laughable.


Anyway, I've got to cut it short there for the moment. If I get time I'll finish this list tonight but it might be tomorrow.

Sycopat

nagirrac wrote: »

I have provided dozens.

This:

nagirrac wrote: »

.

The list of eminent scientists who accept the fine tuning argument is exhaustive: Rees (Just 6 numbers, the book on the subject), Deutsch, Davies, Carter, Smolin, Susskind, Hawking, Guth, Greene, Penrose, Barrow, Hamilton, Sandage, Tegmark, etc. etc.

Is not a list of sources. This is one source, and a list of names. You've also referred to two other books. (in the same post) to make three. Perhaps you referenced others elsewhere, but we're pretty far short of 24 at the moment. A name check is not a reference.

Also having read this quote from one of your named scientists, Paul Davies:

"the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires."

I'm not sure he would agree with you, as his understanding of what 'fine-tuned' is appears different to yours.

swampgas

nagirrac wrote: »

They are simply reporting their science. What "I" think is sort of irrelevant, but the observation that so many fundamental constants of cosmology "appear" fine tuned to allow life (as we know it at least) to exist is rather interesting.

"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers appear to be very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life"
Stephen Hawking (an atheist)

I agree that the fundamental constants do appear very finely tuned to allow life, and intelligent life at that. However I think the important point you make is this:

Obviously some scientists choose to also argue a philosophical opinion but they are in a small minority.

So, most scientists accept the fine tuning observation (how can they not, it's clearly evident) but they do not extrapolate from that towards a creator or towards metaphysical or paranormal entities. They simply accept it as an interesting observation, as do I.

*Edit* missed oldrnwisr's post - what he said.

nagirrac

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Neil Tyson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mij4DYYnkF8

Can you name an astrophysicist, voted the "Sexiest Astrophysicist Alive" by People Magazine, who thinks the universe was fine-tuned?

Neil Tyson is very entertaining. However, he does not address the concept of "fine tuning" in this presentation, nor has he ever to my knowledge. What he is ranting about is more along the lines of "if God created the universe, why would he make it so dangerous and make such bad things happen". This is an entirely separate philosophical question to the scientific question of fine tuning.

Fine tuning refers to the fact that so many of the mathematical constants that define how the material universe emerged at the big bang appear to be set at just the right values to allow a universe where life can later emerge. Nothing more, nothing less. All of the research into string theory and multiverses is attempting to answer this fundamental question.

nagirrac

Sycopat wrote: »

Also having read this quote from one of your named scientists, Paul Davies:

"the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires."

I'm not sure he would agree with you, as his understanding of what 'fine-tuned' is appears different to yours.

Paul Davies has consistently rejected atheism, so I think he would agree with me on worldview.

On reflection, I would agree with Davies' more elegant words "fine tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires" as opposed to "fine tuned for life". As oldernwiser correctly pointed out we should be careful about defining life solely in terms of life as we know it (although in terms of life in the universe that is all we know).

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

Evolution involves biology and things that are alive and flop about here on Earth's surface. The Big Bang involves astrophysics and things that are dead and aren't on Earth's surface

I think most posters here in A+A are able to distinguish between the two.

I think they are too but you are possibly missing my point.

My point is that science itself does not have an atheist or religious worldview. Individual scientists may have, for example some of the most prominent scientists in Biology and in Astrophysics are theists or deists. Should we just dismiss their science because of personal belief? One can easily get the impression on this forum that the only scientists worth considering are those that are also atheists.

When scientists express a belief in Gods or the absense of Gods, they are expressing a personal belief and not that of science. Science does not even address the question of whether there is a God or not.

Undergod

Right, on one hand we've got the anthropic principle; if the universe had developed so that it couldn't support life, then there'd be no-one to observe it. Therefore, any universe we can observe MUST, automatically, be hospitable - at least locally hospitable.

On the other hand, if the universe was different, with different laws of physics, then different forms of life could have evolved. So they could be sitting around talking on their internet saying "just look how much life-sustaining gamma radiation suffuses this universe! It must be designed to support our life!" As said by Douglas Adams: '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!"'

Either way, this fine-tuning stuff just doesn't fly with me, never has.

nagirrac

oldrnwisr wrote: »

As Tim Minchin once said: "If you open your mind too much your brain will fall out."


Anyway, I've got to cut it short there for the moment. If I get time I'll finish this list tonight but it might be tomorrow.

Thanks for the detailed and well argued response oldrnwiser. I have to run but will get back to this later.

Mark Hamill

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Encyclopaedic Post of Knowledge

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

Neil Tyson is very entertaining. However, he does not address the concept of "fine tuning" in this presentation, nor has he ever to my knowledge. What he is ranting about is more along the lines of "if God created the universe, why would he make it so dangerous and make such bad things happen". This is an entirely separate philosophical question to the scientific question of fine tuning.

Fine tuning refers to the fact that so many of the mathematical constants that define how the material universe emerged at the big bang appear to be set at just the right values to allow a universe where life can later emerge. Nothing more, nothing less. All of the research into string theory and multiverses is attempting to answer this fundamental question.

Is there anything he says in the video that can't be used as an argument against fine tuning? It's a bit creator centric, sure, but then again so is the fine tuned universe argument. You can't say that something is fine tuned without implying someone doing the tuning. And saying its only about how it appears to be fine tuned makes the argument facetious. You wouldn't say that a crevice in the ground in which a puddle lies, appears to be fine tuned for that puddle because the puddle fits in it.

In your post you say that the argument for fine tuning refers to the fact that the universe appears to be set up for life to emerge. Of course what you mean is life like ours. And life like ours is only special enough to be the point of the entire universe in religion. Do you know of any reason why there couldn't be a universe that is so different to ours that none of our fundamental constants apply and yet still has life, of a sort, of its own?

Barr125

Zombrex wrote: »

Because people are fecking stupid :pac:

99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999% of the universe kills all known life instantly.

But some how the universe is "finely tuned" for life. :rolleyes:

FACT!

nagirrac

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Is there anything he says in the video that can't be used as an argument against fine tuning? It's a bit creator centric, sure, but then again so is the fine tuned universe argument. You can't say that something is fine tuned without implying someone doing the tuning. And saying its only about how it appears to be fine tuned makes the argument facetious. You wouldn't say that a crevice in the ground in which a puddle lies, appears to be fine tuned for that puddle because the puddle fits in it.

In your post you say that the argument for fine tuning refers to the fact that the universe appears to be set up for life to emerge. Of course what you mean is life like ours. And life like ours is only special enough to be the point of the entire universe in religion. Do you know of any reason why there couldn't be a universe that is so different to ours that none of our fundamental constants apply and yet still has life, of a sort, of its own?

Good points, but why bring religion into it at all? Among astrophysicists the evidence for fine tuning at the beginning of the big bang is firmly established in much the same way as the theory of evolution is established among biologists. There will always be some dissenting opinion, but that is common in all scientific fields. You absolutely do not have to believe this is due to someone doing the tuning, the various multiverse hypotheses suggest ours happens to be the universe with these specific constants, but there may be an infinite number of other universes with different constants.

Even if you do not accept the multiverse approach there are many possible explanations for fine tuning. Our universe may have been created by an alien (to us) civilization from another universe for example. I suppose relative to our technological advancement we would call that civilization "God". We simply don't know how our universe came into being or why it is the way it is, so in my humble opinion any speculcation at this point is as good as any other.

nagirrac

oldrnwisr wrote: »

As I said in my previous post there are lots and lots of flaws in the fine-tuning argument and making appeals to authority (and no I don't invoke Dawkins at every opportunity) doesn't change this.


1. Time

So far we are 13.75+/-0.11 billion years into our current universe. Our current best guess for the timeframe for the end of this universe (heat death) is approximately 10^100 years. So when we consider the length of time during this period in which life is possible we can see that the universe can only sustain life for one thousand billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billionth of the total lifespan of the universe. That's hardly fine-tuned now is it?

I will have to (with great respect), selectively repond to sections of your post as you raise many interesting and welcome points. For context, when I raised the issue of "fine tuning" I am referring to the initial mathematical constants at the time of the big bang and not the specifics of how the universe evolved since, a point which I don't think you missed but some on the thread appear to have missed.

On the general point you raised in terms of astrophysicists being poor biologists, well that argument works both ways, biologists are also very poor physicists and indeed largely ignore the fundamental questions raised by general relativity and quantum physics (and who can blame them, their science can easily proceed in the context of classical mechanics).

The first issue you raise (time) is an interesting one. When we speak about the universe, the concept of time as you know is very different depending on one's perspective so to speak. From our human experience time has a specific meaning and is measured in terms of rotations of the earth, orbits around the sun, etc. At the opposite end of the spectrum, in the context of light or any electromagnetic wave travelling through space, time as we understand it has no meaning. A photon leaving point A to point B has no space to encounter and no time elapses along the journey. The evidence of the early universe suggests what first existed and indeed still exists at a fundamental level is a low energy electromagnetic field or fields (the quantum vacuum, which is not "nothing" regardless of how Krauss titles his book), and everything we know of as a material universe emerged from that. So, for context, the most fundamental aspect of our universe has no concept of time as we percieve it.

The second point I would like to make is to challenge your definition of life as in what life can be sustained and for what period. Clearly life as we understand it today cannot be sustained indefinitely but why limit ourselves to life as we understand it today? Life emerged on our planet 3.5B years ago and has evolved dramatically over an incredibly short timespan (time by our perspective), over the past 20,000 -30,000 years from a hunter gatherer society to one that has explored its solar system. Why would evolution stop at this point given that in terms of technology it is accelerating? Regardless of the apparent randomness of prior evolution, humans increasingly have control over future evolution. I see no reason why within 100 years we will not have AI machines that duplicate the intelligence and bodies of human beings and within 1000 years virtual versions that far surpass our capabilities. If personality and consciousness is purely material then it can be duplicated and programmed in a far more reliable and reproducibile fashion than we ourselves exhibit. Why would a lifeform that can duplicate itself and build a body for itself to deal with an increasingly hostile environment be any less than us? We have little idea today of the technologies involved just as nobody in the past imagined a cell phone.

I happen to believe our universe was programmed and did not emerge randomly. I also believe humans have infinite evolutionary potential and in time will populate and control our galaxy, if not the whole universe. If that comes to pass our universe will certainly appear very fine tuned.

nagirrac

oldrnwisr wrote: »

7. Probability

Take one of Martin Rees' 6 numbers, for example, D (no. of spatial dimensions in spacetime). Physicists are still arguing over what this number should be so the idea that a change in this number would have an effect on life is laughable.

I have to say I just fundamentally disagree with this point. There are currently only three spatial dimensions in our known universe, so in terms of honest scientific discourse we have to work within the confines of what we can actually experimentally measure and describe. Regardless of how much effort and resources have been expended on string theory there is exactly zero evidence so far for any additional spatial dimensions and in my humble opinion such evidence will never be found.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

I have to say I just fundamentally disagree with this point. There are currently only three spatial dimensions in our known universe, so in terms of honest scientific discourse we have to work within the confines of what we can actually experimentally measure and describe. Regardless of how much effort and resources have been expended on string theory there is exactly zero evidence so far for any additional spatial dimensions and in my humble opinion such evidence will never be found.

Honest scientific debate would require admitting that we do not understand the initial parameters of the universe, so we are unable to make any claim as to whether they are fine tuned or not to produce a particular universe over any other possible universe (if there are other possible universes).

But then when have you ever been interested in honest scientific debate?