Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 09-06-2002, 03:22 AM

There is also the "life-as-we-know-it" fallacy. The parameters described are for life as we know it. We have no idea how many of the "hostile" configurations will allow life that is NOT as we know it. Life requires only a complex system capable of replicating itself. For instance, science-fiction writers (notably Robert Forward, "Dragon's Egg") have proposed the evolution of intelligent life in the layer of compressed matter on the surface of a neutron star. Perhaps neutron stars are more common with different physical constants: alternatively, maybe matter could organize itself while floating freely in space. Who can say?

To return to the beach analogy: not only do we not know the size of the beach, but we don't know the range of acceptable colors. If you're on a "beach" which consists of a sprinkling of grains on solid rock, and someone gives you a "dark" grain: is this remarkable?

davidm · 09-06-2002, 04:48 AM

I think DoubtingT got it right when he wrote that are you assuming the existence of the very thing you are trying to prove. Your sand analogy is flawed because, among other things, you have defined it as a nonrandom process. Someone (the fine-tuner, naturally) would have to scour the beach to find the black grain of sand. It would literally be like looking for a needle in a haystack. A more accurate test would be the lottery analogy, in which a winner is guaranteed and the odds are the same for each player. It has already been described to you why the lottery analogy cannot be used as evidence for a fine-tuner, and I notice you haven't brought it up again, so perhaps you now agree. But your sand analogy begs the question by assuming the creator in the first place.

Also, you have got no grounds to assume that all possible universes besides ours (white grains of sand) would be sterile, while only one, our own (black grain of sand) would harbor life. Lots of different universes would probably be sterile due to things like rapid recollapse or the absence of stars. On the other hand, the possible configurations of universes, especially when you factor in potential differences in space-time dimensionality, could be infinite. No one has the data to say that all these potential universes would be sterile. I suspect a great many of them could harbor life, if we think of life as arising from simple replicators. This life could be quite different from our own, but life nonetheless, conforming to the constraints imposed on it by its own universe.

Conversely, you also have no grounds for supposing that universes different from our own could exist in the first place. We might find that this is the only possible universe, rendering the FTA moot.

If other universes can in fact exist, you have no grounds for supposing that they do not. Modern cosmology is replete with predictions of multiple universes, and some models may be confirmable. In this case, the FTA is again moot, because we would by definition find ourselves in this universe, because this is the only universe that we could live in. If the FTA has any force at all, you've got to prove that ours is the only universe (and the only one capable of harboring life of any kind). I don't think you can do that.

And even if you could use the FTA to give us probable cause to infer the existence of a designer (and you can't, for all the reasons given above), you are still left with a formidable obstacle: You have no information at all on the designer's methods or intentions. Our own universe doesn't seem particularly fine-tuned for life, still less for human beings. Most of it is empty space. And, eventually, the universe will have expanded to the point where no life or stable structures are possible (heat death). If there is a designer, he/she/it would seem to favor megaparsecs of nothingness. We just may be an incidental byproduct of design. Worse, we may be an unwelcome byproduct. We could be in the position of cockroaches thinking that the apartment building they so cozily inhabit was "fine-tuned" for their presence, whereas, in fact, just the opposite is true

Jamie_L · 09-06-2002, 06:03 AM

I still don't agree that life is non-arbitrary. What makes it so special? The universe, to me, seems quite full of all sorts of things that are greatly distinguished from other things in the universe.

Why not Black holes? Or diamonds?

Jamie

GunnerJ · 09-06-2002, 06:53 AM

In order for your beach analogy to work, you would have to assume that all possible universes are exactly the same except for this one. This is not the case. Even along the axis of possible values for one physical constant, each universe will differ slightly from each other.

Sheep in the big city · 09-06-2002, 08:34 AM

SOMMS wrote:
[QUOTE]
This scenario represents the fine tuning of the universe. The physical universe has constants that don't seem to be derived from or related to each other in any way. The charges of electrons and protons, the initial rate of expansion of the universe, the mass ratio between neutrons and protons, etc. QUOTE]

Another problem of fine tuning is of course, that since we do not have a unifying theory of physics yet (or may just simply be mentally incapable of ever getting one - although there is hope considering how young science still is) you do not really no that all those "fine tuned" constants really are independent.
For instance two of your examples above are not even independent constants at the stage of science we are at now:
The charges of electrons and protons and the mass ratio between neutrons and protons arise from the fact that a neutron can convert into a proton when one of it's down quarks(charge -1/3) converts to an up quark(charge +2/3) by emmitting an electron(charge -1) and a neutrino (and some photons I guess). Any expert here who can confirm that?
Anyway, the fact remains that it is not clear how many independent variables there actually are. There might just be one, or as has been argued by others here, this might be the only possible universe.
And even if all that were not the case, a scenario with mulitple (different or not) universes is still way more logical to assume than God. After all, we know that universes (in contrast to God) can exist without violating any scientific laws and observations(since we live in one) and it seems kind of silly to assume that there no other ones.
(on a side-note: Giordano Bruno felt the same way about other planets in our universe and was promptly burned by the church - we are just on another level of knowledge now and theists have found new gaps)

Theli · 09-06-2002, 09:40 AM

SOMMS...

Quote:

1-Selective ignorance...arbitrarily choosing non-distinguishing characteristics
If you wanted you could look at your black grain of sand and declare 'Well, this grain of sand is roughly the same size as all the other grains of sand. It has about the same mass and same texture. It probably is made of the same stuff as the other grains of sand. I see no difference between this grain of sand and the sand on the beach.' Of course this would be ludicrous. It is a fallacy to claim simply because there exists some characteristics that don't differentiate the black grain of sand from the white sand on the beach that it is not distinguishable from them. In short, it would be fallacious to arbitrarily ignore the distinguishing characteristics.

Problem here...
Why is the grain of sand black?
By coloring it black in your example you have already extracted it from the group and made it exceptional. Although, this is a subjective opinion. The grain of sand is black because YOU find it exceptional.
But in order assume that the grain of sand is black and to assume that this particular outcome of the universe is exeptional, you must assume the existence of the creator in advance.
If not, there will be noone to call it "exceptional", the single grain will remain white. Just one in a bilion.

Quote:

2-Labeling the sand...The Lottery Fallacy
If you wanted you could get a super computer and a laser micro etcher and spend the next 30-40 years sequentially numbering ALL the grains of sand on the beach (including the one your holding) so that each grain would have a tiny little number on it. After numbering all the grains of sand you look at your black grain of sand (suppose the number was 5963811) and declare 'Some grain of sand had to be chosen. The probability of the number 5963811 being selected was just as likely as selecting numbers 20043 or 98100023 or 347111. Therefore there is no reason to conclude that this black grain of sand was not randomly selected.' This is a lottery fallacy and, of course, would also be ludicrous. The fact that you can label the sand does not imply that a black grain of sand is just as likely to be selected as a white grain.

And again you are carrying the same problem. By calling the grain "black" you are making it exceptional. The black grain has equal chance of being picked up as any other single grain.

Quote:

-Misapplication of the Anthropic Principle
You could, if you so chose, declare 'I should not wonder at how this grain of black sand was procured...if I hadn't been given a black grain of sand I would not be sitting here wondering this!' This, while tautologically true, affords no new meaningful information about the event at hand.

If the multiverse exists, then this claim is very important. If there has been a near infinite number of universes before this one, it has meaning.

Goliath · 09-06-2002, 11:07 AM

Ah yes, the fine-tuning non-argument.

Why do so many xians have trouble realizing that the product of two nonzero probabilities is still a nonzero probability?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 09-06-2002, 02:51 PM

Eh,

Quote:

Originally posted by eh:
Great post, but you're missing something very important. Allow me to quote you:

It is highly unlikely that the black grain of sand was randomly selected because the sheer multitude of white grains of sand

But what if the black grain was actually only located amoung a mere few other grains of salt. What then would you say? And what if there was only one grain of salt by itself?

This is a valid question. However, I think it loses traction when considering specific examples of fine tuning. For instance...the initial rate of expansion of the universe. Stephen Hawking says "If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size."

I think saying 'We just don't know how many configurations of the universe there could have been' disregards what we DO know about the universe. There is no way to deduce the initial rate of universal expansion. From where we stand it could have been anything. 123,354,349 mph or 65,909 mph or .9c mph or 5 mph or 65 mph...

This universal constant alone produces a problem space of near infinite possibilities...real number between 0 and c (speed of light).

Lastly, in some sense saying 'we just don't know' is simply a secular rendition of the 'god of the gaps' argument.

Thoughts and comment welcomed,

SOMMS

Vorkosigan · 09-06-2002, 02:55 PM

Eh,

Lastly, in some sense saying 'we just don't know' is simply a secular rendition of the 'god of the gaps' argument.

SOMMS

No, it is not, because a god-of-the-gaps argument, such as FT, claims conclusions even where there is no evidence, whereas "I don't know" is a refusal to conclude in advance of evidence. That's the key difference.

beausoleil · 09-06-2002, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
As a sidenote to the actual debate about the lottery argument, I would like to note that I have never yet seen the possibility of millions of dead universes established.

Here is what I think are the two sole criteria a possible universe would need to fulfill in order to sustain life.

1) the universe needs to have a total lifespan of around one million years at the least. this is all the time that natural selection would need for life to arise.

2) the universe must contain stars. To my knowledge, many of the heavier elements are born inside stars, and so we need stars for carbon and whatnot.

The fine tuning advocate must demonstrate that the set of possible universes that last for more than a blink and have stars is a vanishingly small set of possibles. Personally, I don't think it is a small set. I think it would be a whopping big set.

The correct analogy might be: you are sitting on a white beach. Someone gives you a white grain of sand. You say "why the bollocks have you given me a grain of sand? Its everywhere!"

I'm afraid fine-tuning as conclusive evidence of a creator is nonsense.
Send a billion people out onto a beach with one black sand grain in a million. Have them pick a grain at random. Then select the ones who picked up black grains and tell them such a fantastically unlikely event required the existence of a God guiding their hand. If you do that with stock market predictions they call it fraud!

There is a question but, as Vorkosigan points out, we don't know what the answer is. Perhaps universes inevitably look exactly like ours, perhaps there are multiple universes with varying physics.

Moving to the (more interesting to me) science, and assuming physical constants can vary pretty much continuously, the universes in which stars produce carbon (and then heavier elements) is a very small subset of the universes that contain stars (triple-alpha process requires a resonance). Furthermore, you have to have at least one generation of stars that last more than 10 Ma to produce carbon and some of the heavier elements in any quantity. Then formation of a planet takes about 30 Ma (to the best of our understanding).

On the other hand, it just strikes me, perhaps there are a load of universes in which 8Be is stable in stars, allowing direct production of carbon via Be- alpha reactions. Anybody know? That would make the fine tuning less impressive.

09-06-2002, 02:55 PM	#19
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	<strong>Eh, Lastly, in some sense saying 'we just don't know' is simply a secular rendition of the 'god of the gaps' argument. SOMMS</strong> No, it is not, because a god-of-the-gaps argument, such as FT, claims conclusions even where there is no evidence, whereas "I don't know" is a refusal to conclude in advance of evidence. That's the key difference.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-06-2002, 03:22 AM	#11
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	There is also the "life-as-we-know-it" fallacy. The parameters described are for life as we know it. We have no idea how many of the "hostile" configurations will allow life that is NOT as we know it. Life requires only a complex system capable of replicating itself. For instance, science-fiction writers (notably Robert Forward, "Dragon's Egg") have proposed the evolution of intelligent life in the layer of compressed matter on the surface of a neutron star. Perhaps neutron stars are more common with different physical constants: alternatively, maybe matter could organize itself while floating freely in space. Who can say? To return to the beach analogy: not only do we not know the size of the beach, but we don't know the range of acceptable colors. If you're on a "beach" which consists of a sprinkling of grains on solid rock, and someone gives you a "dark" grain: is this remarkable?

09-06-2002, 04:48 AM	#12
davidm Banned Join Date: May 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 1,617	I think DoubtingT got it right when he wrote that are you assuming the existence of the very thing you are trying to prove. Your sand analogy is flawed because, among other things, you have defined it as a nonrandom process. Someone (the fine-tuner, naturally) would have to scour the beach to find the black grain of sand. It would literally be like looking for a needle in a haystack. A more accurate test would be the lottery analogy, in which a winner is guaranteed and the odds are the same for each player. It has already been described to you why the lottery analogy cannot be used as evidence for a fine-tuner, and I notice you haven't brought it up again, so perhaps you now agree. But your sand analogy begs the question by assuming the creator in the first place. Also, you have got no grounds to assume that all possible universes besides ours (white grains of sand) would be sterile, while only one, our own (black grain of sand) would harbor life. Lots of different universes would probably be sterile due to things like rapid recollapse or the absence of stars. On the other hand, the possible configurations of universes, especially when you factor in potential differences in space-time dimensionality, could be infinite. No one has the data to say that all these potential universes would be sterile. I suspect a great many of them could harbor life, if we think of life as arising from simple replicators. This life could be quite different from our own, but life nonetheless, conforming to the constraints imposed on it by its own universe. Conversely, you also have no grounds for supposing that universes different from our own could exist in the first place. We might find that this is the only possible universe, rendering the FTA moot. If other universes can in fact exist, you have no grounds for supposing that they do not. Modern cosmology is replete with predictions of multiple universes, and some models may be confirmable. In this case, the FTA is again moot, because we would by definition find ourselves in this universe, because this is the only universe that we could live in. If the FTA has any force at all, you've got to prove that ours is the only universe (and the only one capable of harboring life of any kind). I don't think you can do that. And even if you could use the FTA to give us probable cause to infer the existence of a designer (and you can't, for all the reasons given above), you are still left with a formidable obstacle: You have no information at all on the designer's methods or intentions. Our own universe doesn't seem particularly fine-tuned for life, still less for human beings. Most of it is empty space. And, eventually, the universe will have expanded to the point where no life or stable structures are possible (heat death). If there is a designer, he/she/it would seem to favor megaparsecs of nothingness. We just may be an incidental byproduct of design. Worse, we may be an unwelcome byproduct. We could be in the position of cockroaches thinking that the apartment building they so cozily inhabit was "fine-tuned" for their presence, whereas, in fact, just the opposite is true

09-06-2002, 06:03 AM	#13
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	I still don't agree that life is non-arbitrary. What makes it so special? The universe, to me, seems quite full of all sorts of things that are greatly distinguished from other things in the universe. Why not Black holes? Or diamonds? Jamie

09-06-2002, 06:53 AM	#14
GunnerJ Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: a place where i can list whatever location i want Posts: 4,871	In order for your beach analogy to work, you would have to assume that all possible universes are exactly the same except for this one. This is not the case. Even along the axis of possible values for one physical constant, each universe will differ slightly from each other.

09-06-2002, 08:34 AM	#15
Sheep in the big city Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: CA Posts: 217	SOMMS wrote: [QUOTE] This scenario represents the fine tuning of the universe. The physical universe has constants that don't seem to be derived from or related to each other in any way. The charges of electrons and protons, the initial rate of expansion of the universe, the mass ratio between neutrons and protons, etc. QUOTE] Another problem of fine tuning is of course, that since we do not have a unifying theory of physics yet (or may just simply be mentally incapable of ever getting one - although there is hope considering how young science still is) you do not really no that all those "fine tuned" constants really are independent. For instance two of your examples above are not even independent constants at the stage of science we are at now: The charges of electrons and protons and the mass ratio between neutrons and protons arise from the fact that a neutron can convert into a proton when one of it's down quarks(charge -1/3) converts to an up quark(charge +2/3) by emmitting an electron(charge -1) and a neutrino (and some photons I guess). Any expert here who can confirm that? Anyway, the fact remains that it is not clear how many independent variables there actually are. There might just be one, or as has been argued by others here, this might be the only possible universe. And even if all that were not the case, a scenario with mulitple (different or not) universes is still way more logical to assume than God. After all, we know that universes (in contrast to God) can exist without violating any scientific laws and observations(since we live in one) and it seems kind of silly to assume that there no other ones. (on a side-note: Giordano Bruno felt the same way about other planets in our universe and was promptly burned by the church - we are just on another level of knowledge now and theists have found new gaps)

09-06-2002, 11:07 AM	#17
Goliath Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Fargo, ND, USA Posts: 1,849	Ah yes, the fine-tuning non-argument. Why do so many xians have trouble realizing that the product of two nonzero probabilities is still a nonzero probability? Sincerely, Goliath

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.