Freethought & Rationalism Archive

03-28-2002, 08:53 PM

Quote:

The main objection to it--the anthropic principle--misses the point in ignoring the fact that the FTA advocate demands an explanation for the constants of physics.

You demand an explanation for physics? Sorry, I'm only human, I can't do that. Incidentally, neither can you explain why our physics are as they are. In addition, if God(s) exists, we have to explain not only why physics are as they are, we have to explain why God is as he is. Doesn't solve much, does it?

At any rate, most formulations of the fine tuning argument are deeply flawed.

"Either God made the puddle fit it's hole, or there is a totally random association between holes and water. In this case the water just happens to be a shape that fits into the hole, but do we really need to conclude that either God made it or is an incredibly improbable matching of random holes to random puddles?"

Quote:

For a period of a few weeks, my computer spontaneously displayed the phrase "Postverta's Page." Postverta, as very few people know, is the Roman goddess of the past and the most important deity in my life.

Hmm, ok, you are interested in roman deities. You have a computer and you see displayed on your screen "Postverta's Page."

Good GOD it must be a miracle! There can be no other explanation. I must join your religion now. How do I pronounce the name of this dude I'm worshiping right now?

Praise Postverta and his truly awesome power!
Synaestheisa

Jayhawker Soule · 03-29-2002, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ojuice5001:
... For a period of a few weeks, my computer spontaneously displayed the phrase "Postverta's Page."

Get a new computer.

Ojuice5001 · 03-29-2002, 06:56 AM

You do understand that there is probably no page called "Postverta's Page," don't you? I have typed "Postverta" into Hotbot and there are only about forty results. All of them are either a mere list of Roman deities, or only mention Postverta in passing. The idea that the Roman goddess of the past is significant started with me, so there is no one else on the Internet who thinks Postverta is significant. And although I had searched for "Postverta" many times, I never once entered the phrase "Postverta's [I] Page [\I]" (before the first time this happened). Maybe I should have been clearer about what was happening--it was as follows: I would do something that makes a pop-up window appear. Since my computer is only 16.0 MB, this took a while. And while the pop-up window was loading, it would say "Postverta's Page" for about a second. This happened with every pop-up window for a month. I tried entering addresses like <a href="http://www.postverta.com" target="_blank">http://www.postverta.com</a>, etc., but none of them ever existed. That's why I think Postverta (she's female, and pronounced just like it looks) was causing my computer to do this, as a sign that she exists.

Malaclypse the Younger · 03-29-2002, 07:08 AM

Ah, the good old FTA.

In science, facts are self-evident via perception. We demand to know not why things accellerate towards the center of the earth at ~10 m/s^2, but why we observe things accellerate so. We can evidentially conclude objectivity from our observations, but objectivity is not a fact, it is a conclusion. Only perception is fact.

Hence the Weak Anthropic Principle completely satisfies our demand to explain the fact that we observe a life-friendly universe: Were it not life-friendly, we would not be around to observe it. As to the conclusion that the universe is life-friendly even if we ourselves don't happen to observe it, that is just another conclusion about the facts.

No matter how you slice it, something just is. Whether it's the observable universe, the relativistic quantum field, the platonic Laws of Physics or a god.

Even if the FTA advocate were to "demand" an explanation for the constants of this (observable) universe, that would not satisfy him. For that explanation will have characteristics that might have been different (else we would have had a different universe), and he will demand an explanation for those characteristics.

And of course, if an evidentially provable explanation is demanded of everything, it must be demanded of God. Otherwise, you're just arbitrarily picking a different point to stop demanding explanations. Perhaps the constants of this universe just are. Perhaps physicists will find a more elegant explanation--it might be that this universe is the only valid solution to a more fundamental set of physical laws, but then that explanation will just be.

Moreover, the FTA, First Cause, Cosmological, and Ontological Arguments merely reference a deistic god. It is not logically possible to argue from these arguments, even if they are true, to any personal, theistic god with whom we can have any sort of "relationship". It is not even provable from these arguments, even if true, that such a "god" does or even can possess "intelligence" or "consciousness" in any human (or humanly comprehensible or knowable) sense.

Malaclypse the Younger · 03-29-2002, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ojuice5001:
That's why I think Postverta (she's female, and pronounced just like it looks) was causing my computer to do this, as a sign that she exists.

Aside from the fact that this conclusion rests on a chain of inferences that are not well supported (for instance, you have no corroborating evidence that these pages actually appeared, much less ruled out the possibility of a weird bug or a hoax), the conclusion simply does not make logical sense.

If any sort of god/goddess exists, presumably such a being has powers at least equal to a human being. So, if such a being were to wish to convince you of its existence, it is incomprehensible that it would choose such a bizarre method. If I wanted to convince you of my existence, I would not hack into your computer and flash my name on pop-up windows. I would simply appear in the flesh.

All of these bizarre and subtle appearances of Postverta (or other gods) do nothing to persuade me even to investigate them carefully. It is simply bizarre and unbelievable that any kind of superior being would choose to manifest in this way. If a god wished to persuade people of its existence, there is simply no reason not to be completely obvious and unsubtle.

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]

Ojuice5001 · 03-29-2002, 08:27 AM

Macalypse the Younger,

You're thinking of an omnipotent Supreme God. Or at least the kind of prescientific gods believed in by the original Romans. Those gods can perform miracles like the Red Sea or turning someone into a laurel tree. But maybe that kind of miracle is in fact impossible, or at least as hard as launching a space shuttle is for us. We don't know that a god could actually do this just to convince some ordinary 21-year-old. (Though I do believe that Romulus ascended into heaven when he died.)

I think the gods routinely influence our lives through events that are random in naturalistic terms, such as where we happen to put our feet when walking. This is second nature to a god. But by definition, these interventions cannot be conclusively distinguished from the chance that the naturalistic atheist uses to explain these events. So if Postverta wants to convince me she exists, she needs a miracle. But a miracle, I contend, uses up much of whatever resources a god needs. And Postverta is a minor goddess, not a big gun like Jupiter, Jehovah, or even Minerva. So she can only afford a minor miracle, one that is constrained by the relations of the natural and supernatural worlds. This miracle would naturally be subtle, and since we don't understand said relations, seem bizarre to a human.

03-29-2002, 10:22 AM

It all makes sense: he likely has a few files on his system relating to various deities, he wants to find confirmation of them and he can't find the string "Postverta's Page" on any search engine.

If you have two words displayed on your screen that you can't produce on a search engine, it is manifestly obvious that a supernatural Deity is responsible.
I mean, really people, it's as clear as day.

Malaclypse the Younger · 03-29-2002, 01:15 PM

Ojuice5001

Quote:

You're thinking of an omnipotent Supreme God. Or at least the kind of prescientific gods believed in by the original Romans.

I'm talking about a god with at least the same amount of power and knowledge as an ordinary human being.

Quote:

We don't know that a god could actually do this just to convince some ordinary 21-year-old.

The problem is that it simply makes no sense that a god would try to convince you in this manner. It would seem much more obvious and unambiguous to just show up at your doorstep, have a chat with you, leave a few photographs, and maybe sign your copy of Bullfinche's Mythology.

Quote:

I think the gods routinely influence our lives through events that are random in naturalistic terms, such as where we happen to put our feet when walking.

Good grief, man, why? It makes no sense to operate in that way. You're mistaking artifacts of the pattern-matching software in your brain for something real.

Quote:

This is second nature to a god.

This is pure speculation: You are dishonestly asserting knowledge that you do not have.

Quote:

But by definition, these interventions cannot be conclusively distinguished from the chance that the naturalistic atheist uses to explain these events.

If these difference indeed cannot be distinguished, then you have no justification to call them anything else. You have just renamed "randomness" to "Postverta" and then equivocating the connotations. This sort of reasoning is pure intellectual dishonesty and/or self-delusion.

Quote:

So if Postverta wants to convince me she exists, she needs a miracle. But a miracle, I contend, uses up much of whatever resources a god needs.

How do you "contend" this? You are fantasizing, making up an ad hoc fiction to explain what is trivially explicable by artifacts in your neurological pattern matching apparatus.

And for what? So you can look like a kook to everyone who talks to you? It's absurd, man! Get a grip!

Quote:

And Postverta is a minor goddess, not a big gun like Jupiter, Jehovah, or even Minerva. So she can only afford a minor miracle, one that is constrained by the relations of the natural and supernatural worlds. This miracle would naturally be subtle, and since we don't understand said relations, seem bizarre to a human.

You've got to be putting us on.

Live in your delusional dream-world if you want; I'll stick to reality.

Vorkosigan · 03-29-2002, 01:27 PM

The main objection to it--the anthropic principle--misses the point in ignoring the fact that the FTA advocate demands an explanation for the constants of physics.

This is incorrect. There are many objections to FT, and it is completely wrong. In my view the most important is that FT represents a profound misunderstanding of selection processes and how they work. Any universe that is characterized by selection processes operating under physical law, will appear to be Fine Tuned. If you would like to discuss this in more detail, start a new thread.

Michael

joedad · 03-29-2002, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
For the ten billionth time, fictional creatures don't exist!

This fact is extant and irrefutable, meaning that no one--repeat no one--can refute it!

For anyone to come along and say, "But this fictional creature does exist," is to make a positive claim requiring proof.

Never thought about wording it just that way.

Gods are fictional beings.

Works for me.

joe

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

03-29-2002, 06:56 AM	#33
Ojuice5001 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: A city in Florida that I love Posts: 3,416	You do understand that there is probably no page called "Postverta's Page," don't you? I have typed "Postverta" into Hotbot and there are only about forty results. All of them are either a mere list of Roman deities, or only mention Postverta in passing. The idea that the Roman goddess of the past is significant started with me, so there is no one else on the Internet who thinks Postverta is significant. And although I had searched for "Postverta" many times, I never once entered the phrase "Postverta's [I] Page [\I]" (before the first time this happened). Maybe I should have been clearer about what was happening--it was as follows: I would do something that makes a pop-up window appear. Since my computer is only 16.0 MB, this took a while. And while the pop-up window was loading, it would say "Postverta's Page" for about a second. This happened with every pop-up window for a month. I tried entering addresses like <a href="http://www.postverta.com" target="_blank">http://www.postverta.com</a>, etc., but none of them ever existed. That's why I think Postverta (she's female, and pronounced just like it looks) was causing my computer to do this, as a sign that she exists.

03-29-2002, 07:08 AM	#34
Malaclypse the Younger Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: nowhere Posts: 416	Ah, the good old FTA. In science, facts are self-evident via perception. We demand to know not why things accellerate towards the center of the earth at ~10 m/s^2, but why we observe things accellerate so. We can evidentially conclude objectivity from our observations, but objectivity is not a fact, it is a conclusion. Only perception is fact. Hence the Weak Anthropic Principle completely satisfies our demand to explain the fact that we observe a life-friendly universe: Were it not life-friendly, we would not be around to observe it. As to the conclusion that the universe is life-friendly even if we ourselves don't happen to observe it, that is just another conclusion about the facts. No matter how you slice it, something just is. Whether it's the observable universe, the relativistic quantum field, the platonic Laws of Physics or a god. Even if the FTA advocate were to "demand" an explanation for the constants of this (observable) universe, that would not satisfy him. For that explanation will have characteristics that might have been different (else we would have had a different universe), and he will demand an explanation for those characteristics. And of course, if an evidentially provable explanation is demanded of everything, it must be demanded of God. Otherwise, you're just arbitrarily picking a different point to stop demanding explanations. Perhaps the constants of this universe just are. Perhaps physicists will find a more elegant explanation--it might be that this universe is the only valid solution to a more fundamental set of physical laws, but then that explanation will just be. Moreover, the FTA, First Cause, Cosmological, and Ontological Arguments merely reference a deistic god. It is not logically possible to argue from these arguments, even if they are true, to any personal, theistic god with whom we can have any sort of "relationship". It is not even provable from these arguments, even if true, that such a "god" does or even can possess "intelligence" or "consciousness" in any human (or humanly comprehensible or knowable) sense.

03-29-2002, 08:27 AM	#36
Ojuice5001 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: A city in Florida that I love Posts: 3,416	Macalypse the Younger, You're thinking of an omnipotent Supreme God. Or at least the kind of prescientific gods believed in by the original Romans. Those gods can perform miracles like the Red Sea or turning someone into a laurel tree. But maybe that kind of miracle is in fact impossible, or at least as hard as launching a space shuttle is for us. We don't know that a god could actually do this just to convince some ordinary 21-year-old. (Though I do believe that Romulus ascended into heaven when he died.) I think the gods routinely influence our lives through events that are random in naturalistic terms, such as where we happen to put our feet when walking. This is second nature to a god. But by definition, these interventions cannot be conclusively distinguished from the chance that the naturalistic atheist uses to explain these events. So if Postverta wants to convince me she exists, she needs a miracle. But a miracle, I contend, uses up much of whatever resources a god needs. And Postverta is a minor goddess, not a big gun like Jupiter, Jehovah, or even Minerva. So she can only afford a minor miracle, one that is constrained by the relations of the natural and supernatural worlds. This miracle would naturally be subtle, and since we don't understand said relations, seem bizarre to a human.

03-29-2002, 10:22 AM	#37
Synaesthesia Guest Posts: n/a	It all makes sense: he likely has a few files on his system relating to various deities, he wants to find confirmation of them and he can't find the string "Postverta's Page" on any search engine. If you have two words displayed on your screen that you can't produce on a search engine, it is manifestly obvious that a supernatural Deity is responsible. I mean, really people, it's as clear as day.

03-29-2002, 01:27 PM	#39
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	The main objection to it--the anthropic principle--misses the point in ignoring the fact that the FTA advocate demands an explanation for the constants of physics. This is incorrect. There are many objections to FT, and it is completely wrong. In my view the most important is that FT represents a profound misunderstanding of selection processes and how they work. Any universe that is characterized by selection processes operating under physical law, will appear to be Fine Tuned. If you would like to discuss this in more detail, start a new thread. Michael

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.