Wizardry

What I’m looking for is evidence that it is valid to even make this type of analysis. I need evidence that there can even be such a thing as Fine-Tuning in the first place. Can the values of the physical constants be different. If not, then there is no such thing as Fine-Tuning and the arguement fails.

What evidence is there for the size of the possible-universe space? I know of none. It may be so vanishly small that in comparison with the potential space that Fine-Tuning really isn’t all that fine.

The Magic Troll

Doh!

Tercel, please disregard my previous comments on your response to the magic troll. Re-reading, I see that I did not include the necessary elaboration to effectively communicate what I was thinking. I will attempt to better express myself in the future.


Your objection to the troll analogy neglects a vital part of the analogy: the troll loves the number 1093. The troll in this analogy has only two types of number to choose from: 1093 and non-1093. We can therefore assign P(E|D) a value of 0.5 in much the same way we can in the FTA.

P(D) is set at a very small number, but it is possible to build a RNG with a large enough range to compensate for that. That would force the troll conclusion.

I am not suggesting that the conspirators actually picked a random person. Rather, I am setting the maximum value for P(E|D) at 10^-8. I do not consider the probability of a fix to be less than 10^-40, which still makes a conspiracy the most likely explanation.

Please demonstrate why this is valid logic in the FTA, but not in the troll analogy above.

Peace out.

Tercel

There is no reason to think that the physical constants can't be different. It's certainly possible that they couldn't be different at all. Certainly if we found out that the physical constants are necessarily the way they are then it would remove the whole point of the FTA. -The FTA is trying to prove that the constants aren't the way they are by chance, so finding that they are the way they are by necessity would obviously trivially prove this.

You're doing Malaclypse's trick. That's fine, but your simply making P(D) correspondingly smaller.
Previously D = a troll was responsible for the outcome of the RNG.
Now D' = a troll, who likes the number 1093, was responsible for the outcome of the RNG.
P(D') will simply be P(D) * P(The troll liking the number 1093).
Where we before had:
P(E|D)*P(D) = P(The troll would choose the number 1093) * P(A troll caused the result), we now have:
P(E|D') * P(D') = 0.5 * P(A troll caused the result AND the troll likes the number 1093)

Since the probabilities are being multiplied, moving P(E|D) into P(D) changes nothing.
The difference with the Fine-Tuning is this:
Trolls in general have no preference for one specific number over another and thus: All possible results look alike to an average troll.
Intelligent beings in general do have an interest in the existence or possible existence of other intelligent beings and thus: All possible results do not look alike to an intelligent being.
The idea that the being is "intelligent" is enough to imply that, in general, the being is interested in other intelligent beings. The idea that the being is a "troll" does not imply, in general, that the being likes the number 1093.

If you made the RNG larger then P(D) would go down correspondingly since you are defining D in terms of the RNG's size since: D is the hypothesis that the result of the RNG is being caused by a troll who likes the number 1093 as opposed to any other number in the range of the RNG.

But, if you really really want to conclude a magic troll you can if you wish...

Personally I would have said that P(E|D) is significantly less than 10^-8 unless there are exceptional circumstances such as you knowing the people who run the lottery etc.

But you are equally welcome to conclude a conspiracy if you wish...
Tercel

Mageth

Posted by Tercel:

The FTA is trying to prove that the constants aren't the way they are by chance, so finding that they are the way they are by necessity would obviously trivially prove this.

Not necessarily.

1) Could it also be the case that the physical constants are necessarily this way and that generation of the universe necessarily results in them being this way?

2) If it is the case that there are multiple, possibly infinite, universes, each resulting in potentially different physical constants, then by "chance" a universe (or multiple universes) exists that comprises the necessary physical constants.

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kenny:
Nonsense. The classical definition of omniscience in Christian theology has always been that God can do all that is logically possible. It is no constraint on God’s power to say that He cannot do a logically impossible task.

Kenny, "logic" doesn't enter the picture here. It is not logically impossible for god to sustain an object in the universe through divine power. What is illogical about that? Where is logic violated?

Michael

Malaclypse the Younger

Tercel

So you are claiming that life is somehow "special". Wow! This contradicts your earlier statement:

So have you changed your mind? Are you now asserting the objective significance (or otherwise) of life?

The problem is, of course, that it is simply not known what an "intelligent" being capable of creating universes would or would not be interested in.

Naturally. As you are defining (not discovering) an "intelligent" being in terms of our own characteristics.

But, if you really really want to conclude your magical sky fairy (thanks Koy!) you can if you wish...

You are entitled to your arbitrary assumptions. Let me know when you have a rational basis for comparing them.

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

Tercel

As I posted on February 26, 2002 06:03 PM:
It’s not really a question of whether life is “objectively special” but whether it is, in general, even remotely subjectively interesting to living beings. Certainly in my experience, living beings seem to be very interested in their existence and the existence of other intelligent beings.

We can estimate the likelihood of various interests based on our past experience of intelligent beings.

Tercel

Kenny

My response here was aimed at your comment that if the distribution of the physical constants were necessary, this would disprove the existence of God as understood by Christian Theism. That is false, since all that would mean is that there is no other logically consistent set of constants and classical omnipotence only holds that God can do all that is logically possible.

As far as sustaining objects in the universe through divine power is concerned, no, there is no contradiction in that. In fact, according to Christian Theism, that is precisely what occurs at each moment through God’s providential sustaining and guiding of reality. However, this sustaining and guidance is not arbitrary and half hazard. According to the Bible, God is a God of consistency and order. He created the universe in accordance with His wisdom and faithfulness to reflect His glory. Thus, according to Christian Theism, we should expect to see a balance and order behind everything such that all fits together, not some arbitrary chaotic mess which God simply holds together at the seams by brute power.

Thus, your Euthyphro objections to the FT argument carry no weight. The kind of careful and delicate balance among the physical constants is exactly the sort of thing we would expect to see if Christian Theism were true.

God Bless,
Kenny

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Datheron

Malaclypse the Younger,

I found this quote interesting, as I had started a thread on this a while back:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000120" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000120</a>

which talks around the idea of the constraint of logic on God. Sadly, DeadLogic seems to have abandoned the thread, but one does note that the topics discussed are indeed vague and hard to grasp, mostly because we're talking about a realm without logic, illogical. Anyway, continue on; this thread is of utmost interest.

Wizardry

Tercel

You can’t possibly know this. There is invalid evidence to support this generalization. As far as we know, there is only one group of intelligent beings in existence: human beings. Human beings are social animals, we socialize with others in our group. To the extent that you can say that intelligent beings find other intelligent beings interesting, you can really only say that human beings find other human beings interesting. You have an insufficient sample size to assert the interests of a random intelligent designer. Generalizations based on human behavior are not representative of an intelligent designer of the universe.

Peace out.

Malaclypse the Younger

Kenny

Your version of christian theism, at least.

How is this different from naturalism?