Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clutch · 10-24-2002, 07:21 AM

For a while now I've been on about the 8% black art and 92% bullshit that goes into the production of fine-tuning probability calculations. My thought was that this was a more or less novel criticism. Turns out, it's not. Browsing the website of the philosopher Michael Tooley, I discovered this passage from his 1994 debate with Billy Craig -- an elegant and forceful presentation of the problem:

Quote:

Let us turn now to Dr. Craig's third argument - sometimes called the �fine tuning argument.� This involves certain calculations of the probability of their being a universe that supports life. The first point to be made with regard to this is that these calculations are simply unsound. For the calculations to be sound, you would have to look at all logically possible laws and boundary conditions. But the calculations Craig has in mind aren�t made that way. What they have done is to look only at laws rather like ours, and to consider the extent to which the constants can be changed. But that means that the argument is unsound.

End of story.

Keith Russell · 10-24-2002, 08:02 AM

Craig:

I've always viewed the arguments about the 'odds' of this universe forming as it did, as specious.

For a person to claim that this universe is 'very unlikely' would require that one has solid knowledge of how universes are formed, and how often (or seldom) 'one like ours' is formed.

I have yet to meet anyone with that knowledge.

Keith.

Jamie_L · 10-24-2002, 08:55 AM

Along similar lines, it seems to me the arguement usually says something like: "there are so many possible values for all these constants, and the ones that support life are very unlikely."

To me, this seems to be an unsound conclusion. Just because there are a lot of possible values tells us nothing about the probability of any value actually occuring.

Jamie

beausoleil · 10-26-2002, 05:18 AM

I guess you should stop reading anthropic discussions only from christian apologists. If all you knew about evolution came from reading similar sources it would also seem obviously unsound.

Or do you believe the many astrophysicists who think about these things seriously have never considered these trivial points? What a waste to the world it is that you only share your novel insights on an obscure bulletin board.

eh · 10-26-2002, 07:18 AM

We also don't know how many possible values there are. To claim otherwise is nonsense, though typical of preechy theists.

TerryTryon · 10-26-2002, 07:22 AM

Golly, Gee. What are the chances of pi being exactly to the fiftieth decimal point: 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 10? If it had varied even one hundred quindecillionth, circles could not exist in our universe! And by the way, do you know that if you computed pi in hexadecimal and converted the characters into ASCII, the 2,987,469,213th character would begin the text of John 3:16 exactly as written in the King James Bible? Wow!

Rusting Car Bumper · 10-27-2002, 01:30 PM

One other thing to be said is that the argument is actually secular. That is, the theist is admitting a small probability that the universe could produce life on naturally.

The question then becomes, "How do you differentiate between very unlikely occurances that 'beat the odds' and very unlikley occurances that had 'help'?"

The theist has to argue the latter. If he does, what evidence does he have? He must provide evidence of that help. Is such evidence producable?

So from a certian point of view the theist is arguing himself into a corner. His premise admits natural causation and then he can't produce last piece to get around it.

DC

Douglas J. Bender · 10-27-2002, 07:27 PM

The "fine-tuning" argument simply assumes that all possibilities are equally likely, from what I understand. It then finds that there is a very, very narrow range of possibilities for certain natural values which would allow for life as we know it. For example, the distance of the Earth to the Sun (which, relatively speaking, has to be in a very narrow range in order for life as we know it to exist); or the distance of the Moon to the Earth (which, again relatively speaking, has to be in a very narrow range for life as we know it to exist). Besides the fact that the Moon can essentially perfectly eclipse the Sun, even to the point of appearing to a viewer on Earth to be the "precise" amount larger than the Sun in order for the Sun's "corona" (?) to be observable during the eclipse.

In Christ,

Douglas

Clutch · 10-28-2002, 06:01 AM

beausoleil,

Quote:

I guess you should stop reading anthropic discussions only from christian apologists. If all you knew about evolution came from reading similar sources it would also seem obviously unsound.

Or do you believe the many astrophysicists who think about these things seriously have never considered these trivial points? What a waste to the world it is that you only share your novel insights on an obscure bulletin board.

I'm not sure whom this was aimed at. But your assurance that, honest, fine-tuning calculations really make sense -- uncontaminated as it is by anything like evidence -- cannot be taken seriously.

For my part, I'm basing my scepticism on reading both theists and non-theists: Paul Davies, Martin Rees, Lee Smolin.

I'll try to contact Smolin directly to ask for an explanation of the calculations; if he replies, I will do what you apparently cannot, and report the actual reasoning to this obscure discussion board.

Jamie_L · 10-28-2002, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Douglas J. Bender:
The "fine-tuning" argument simply assumes that all possibilities are equally likely, from what I understand.

Exactly, and this is a BIG and completely unfounded assumption.

Jamie

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

10-24-2002, 08:02 AM	#2
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Craig: I've always viewed the arguments about the 'odds' of this universe forming as it did, as specious. For a person to claim that this universe is 'very unlikely' would require that one has solid knowledge of how universes are formed, and how often (or seldom) 'one like ours' is formed. I have yet to meet anyone with that knowledge. Keith.

10-24-2002, 08:55 AM	#3
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	Along similar lines, it seems to me the arguement usually says something like: "there are so many possible values for all these constants, and the ones that support life are very unlikely." To me, this seems to be an unsound conclusion. Just because there are a lot of possible values tells us nothing about the probability of any value actually occuring. Jamie

10-26-2002, 05:18 AM	#4
beausoleil Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: US and UK Posts: 846	I guess you should stop reading anthropic discussions only from christian apologists. If all you knew about evolution came from reading similar sources it would also seem obviously unsound. Or do you believe the many astrophysicists who think about these things seriously have never considered these trivial points? What a waste to the world it is that you only share your novel insights on an obscure bulletin board.

10-26-2002, 07:18 AM	#5
eh Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Canada Posts: 624	We also don't know how many possible values there are. To claim otherwise is nonsense, though typical of preechy theists.

10-26-2002, 07:22 AM	#6
TerryTryon Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Glendale, Arizona, USA Posts: 184	Golly, Gee. What are the chances of pi being exactly to the fiftieth decimal point: 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 10? If it had varied even one hundred quindecillionth, circles could not exist in our universe! And by the way, do you know that if you computed pi in hexadecimal and converted the characters into ASCII, the 2,987,469,213th character would begin the text of John 3:16 exactly as written in the King James Bible? Wow!

10-27-2002, 01:30 PM	#7
Rusting Car Bumper Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: U.S. Posts: 4,171	One other thing to be said is that the argument is actually secular. That is, the theist is admitting a small probability that the universe could produce life on naturally. The question then becomes, "How do you differentiate between very unlikely occurances that 'beat the odds' and very unlikley occurances that had 'help'?" The theist has to argue the latter. If he does, what evidence does he have? He must provide evidence of that help. Is such evidence producable? So from a certian point of view the theist is arguing himself into a corner. His premise admits natural causation and then he can't produce last piece to get around it. DC

10-27-2002, 07:27 PM	#8
Douglas J. Bender Banned Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Elkhart, Indiana (USA) Posts: 460	The "fine-tuning" argument simply assumes that all possibilities are equally likely, from what I understand. It then finds that there is a very, very narrow range of possibilities for certain natural values which would allow for life as we know it. For example, the distance of the Earth to the Sun (which, relatively speaking, has to be in a very narrow range in order for life as we know it to exist); or the distance of the Moon to the Earth (which, again relatively speaking, has to be in a very narrow range for life as we know it to exist). Besides the fact that the Moon can essentially perfectly eclipse the Sun, even to the point of appearing to a viewer on Earth to be the "precise" amount larger than the Sun in order for the Sun's "corona" (?) to be observable during the eclipse. In Christ, Douglas

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.