Wyrdsmyth

I think it's a great analogy. Especially because it brings to light what the "fine-tuning" argument is all about. It is entirely about how one chooses to interpret odds.

We exist. Our universe exists the way it is. What are the odds that our universe exists just so? Well, who knows, really. We can't rewind the universe and keep playing it out, like a big one-armed bandit, can we? Did we hit the three big cherries? Did we hit them a million times in a row? Is this universe "fixed"? Who knows.

What's the proper analogy? Is it about getting a winning poker hand a billion times in a row, making everyone "sure" the deck is stacked or you're a cheater? Or, is the proper analogy one of winning the lottery, in which you only had a one in a billion chance of winning (and yet you did)? That's the question that needs to be settled. And I don't think it can. Odds, statistics and numbers can be re-arranged however you want to present them. It's all in the presentation, isn't it? Over what kind of intuition you want to elicit.

So, fine-tuning vanishes in a puff of mathematical smoke.

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

HRG

You mean that we have evidence (non-conclusive, obviously) that there exists another universe where the constants are different ?

For a universe, physical possibility and existence are equivalent. What someone can conceive on the basis of our description of the universe (which is only approximate) is irrelevant.

Famous battle cry of particle physicists:

"Anything which is not forbidden is compulsory"


Regards,
HRG.

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 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.

It seems to me you've confused "necessary" and "logically possible." The two are not coterminus. It may well be necessary that in order to get our kind of life, you need a certain type of universe. But it does not follow that such necessity is a logical necessity. All we know is that it is a constraint, and thus a violation of god's omnipotence. Either god is constrained, or FT is an empty argument.

Actually, speaking as an atheist, there is no god and FT is not true, so I pass Go and collect two hundred dollars.

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.

I have no doubt that if the universe were a mess, you would argue that it was exactly what we'd expect if Christian theism were true.

There is no careful and delicate balance, Kenny. Things in the universe fall within the constraints because they cannot exist outside of them. Things appear balanced because the balance is created by the constant interaction of billions of selection processes operating under natural law. That simple. FTers are like fish looking at the ocean and saying "my, look how perfectly this ocean was made for us!"

Michael

Kenny

Malaclypse,

Yes, as well as classical Christian orthodoxy. What I have described has essentially been the historical Christian view.

Well, it maintains that God exists for starters. What are you trying to get at here? Define naturalism.

God Bless,
Kenny

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Kenny

HRG,

No, only non-conclusive evidence that it is logically possible for them to be different. We can imagine and model several different types of universes in which they are, and there seems, in terms of our current knowledge, no reason to postulate that the physical constants are logically necessary.

Regardless, there certainly is no evidence that they are necessary. The hypothesis that they are necessary (in a logical sense) is but one of several to be confirmed on the evidence.

Where are you getting that from?

I am well aware of that battle cry, and it is certainly true in the context in which particle physicists use it, but that’s not the context in which you are using it. What particle physicists mean by it is that given the right conditions and enough time, if a physical process/event is allowed by the laws of physics (even if improbable), it is bound to happen eventually.

You seem to be trying to use it to say that any consistent set of physical states must exist; some people believe that -- it’s a variant of many worlds hypothesis -- but it is certainly not a position without controversy and it is certainly not what particle physicists mean by their battle cry.

God Bless,
Kenny

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Kenny

Turtonm,

If it is, in fact, necessary for the universe to be a certain way in order to get our kind of life, then it is logically impossible to get it otherwise. If it is logically possible to get it another way, then it is not necessary for the universe to be the way it is for there to be our type of life.

Actually, speaking as a Christian, God does exist regardless of whether FT is sound or not. Go directly to Jail. Do not pass Go.

Well, I don’t know, although that pretty much is the way I hear atheists argue. Many atheists do believe the universe is a mess and use that belief to argue for atheism. Others use the fact that the universe is so orderly to argue for atheism. Most vacillate incoherently between the two.

I'll let Tercel handle this one if he wants to. I’m not interested in directly defending FT at the moment (though I do believe Tercel’s version to be sound), but just to mop up some of the side objections along the way.

God Bless,
Kenny

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Tercel

Only if you're mathematically incompetent. I somehow have difficulty imagining a maths or stats lecturer marking every exam question right on the basis that because numbers can be arranged however the writer liked all the students answers were equally right.
This is maths not relative morally: What "feels right" for one person doesn't matter, only real right and wrong.
Which is why I've always enjoyed maths and stats: The clear cut difference between right and wrong is refreshing.

Yeah, it's about the same size puff of mathematical smoke as the formula your bank uses to calculate the interest on your loan. Try telling them the numbers can be rearranged however you want them.

Tercel

It's called induction.

Remember I don't need to know for sure that the designing intelligence is subjectively interested in other intelligences. All we're dealing with is an average, so all we need is that the intelligence will probably be subjectively interested in other intelligences. "Probably" meaning a probability somewhere within several orders of magnitude of 1.
Induction from past experience would appear to be sufficient to warrent our acceptence of this idea.

Tercel

I wasn't planning to. Michael doesn't seem to be quite... um, up with the play... so far as understanding what the Fine Tuning argument is.
Although, I expect he really does understand but is pretending not to in an effort to make the FT argument sound like a stupid emotional appeal.

Thanks for helping.
As far as I'm concerned, everything's been discussed here with regard to the FTA that I'm interested in discussing and unless something further of substantial value is brought up I probably won't post further on this thread. So feel free to finish off nailing down... or mopping up... any objections you think I've left hanging.

God Bless,
Tercel

Pomp

Tercel,

Induction from past experience would appear to be sufficient to warrent our acceptence of this idea.

Sorry to butt into an ongoing discussion, but I have to ask: do you have some past experience with universe-designing intelligences from which you can draw such inductive conclusions?