Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jon1 · 06-17-2003, 03:21 PM

I just read the article on the main page about defending the fine tuning argument and I have to say I'm not convinced at all and here's why. The fine tuning argument has never been terribly compelling to me but until recently I never really thought about exactly why it wasn't. Well, I think I've figured out why. I think the best way to understand the relationship between the 6 "deep forces" and stars, galaxies, living organisms etc... is a supervenience relation. Now for those who don't know what a supervenience relation is here's a quick explanation- a set of properties or facts (B) supervenes on a set of properties or facts (A) if there can be no difference in B without a difference in A. Also for every instance of A there will be B but not the other way around, B is multiply realizable. Now we can apply this to the 6 "deep forces" (A) and stars, galaxies, living organisms (B). If we are to understand this in terms of a supervenience relation then fine tuning at first seems to fall apart since the B facts in question which are so fascinating are multiply realizable and the A facts are not so special anymore. This doesn't work quite as well as I'd hoped since it's often reiterated that if the A facts were in any way different then the B facts would differ radically and this is matter of natural law. But then I got to thinking of these laws that connect the A facts and the B facts (whatever sort of laws these might be) and how they might be different. I can't really go any further with this since formulation of supervenience laws is a project that hasn't really been undertaken. Anyway, these are just some thoughts from an amateur philosopher.

Dominus Paradoxum · 06-17-2003, 04:53 PM

The main problem that I had with the article is that it didn't really discuss the multiverse theory. If that's true then a universe with constants like ours is bound to turn up eventually, and the "vast conspiracy" of so many life producing factors no longer seems mysterious.

jon1 · 06-17-2003, 07:06 PM

If I haven't been clear enough here's further elaborationon what I'm saying. I'm saying I can't accept the fine tuning argument because it doesn't allow for the particular B facts or properties that obtain in our universe to supervene on any other set of A facts or properties than the ones that obtain in our universe.

Toby Wardman · 06-18-2003, 05:57 AM

There's a discussion of this article going on over in the Feedback Forum, so either or both of you might want to stroll over there and join in.

Philosoft · 06-18-2003, 10:22 AM

For all those interested in discussion of Mr. Wardman's article, this thread would be the appropriate place. If the discussion in the Feedback Forum takes on more participants, Don will move it to one of the philosophical fora anyway.

Regards,
Philosoft, Philosophy mod

Toby Wardman · 06-18-2003, 10:43 AM

Oh, sorry. In that case I'm not sure I understand the system, but not to worry.

06-17-2003, 03:21 PM	#1
jon1 Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: md Posts: 58	response to the fine tuning article I just read the article on the main page about defending the fine tuning argument and I have to say I'm not convinced at all and here's why. The fine tuning argument has never been terribly compelling to me but until recently I never really thought about exactly why it wasn't. Well, I think I've figured out why. I think the best way to understand the relationship between the 6 "deep forces" and stars, galaxies, living organisms etc... is a supervenience relation. Now for those who don't know what a supervenience relation is here's a quick explanation- a set of properties or facts (B) supervenes on a set of properties or facts (A) if there can be no difference in B without a difference in A. Also for every instance of A there will be B but not the other way around, B is multiply realizable. Now we can apply this to the 6 "deep forces" (A) and stars, galaxies, living organisms (B). If we are to understand this in terms of a supervenience relation then fine tuning at first seems to fall apart since the B facts in question which are so fascinating are multiply realizable and the A facts are not so special anymore. This doesn't work quite as well as I'd hoped since it's often reiterated that if the A facts were in any way different then the B facts would differ radically and this is matter of natural law. But then I got to thinking of these laws that connect the A facts and the B facts (whatever sort of laws these might be) and how they might be different. I can't really go any further with this since formulation of supervenience laws is a project that hasn't really been undertaken. Anyway, these are just some thoughts from an amateur philosopher.

06-18-2003, 10:22 AM	#5
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	FYI For all those interested in discussion of Mr. Wardman's article, this thread would be the appropriate place. If the discussion in the Feedback Forum takes on more participants, Don will move it to one of the philosophical fora anyway. Regards, Philosoft, Philosophy mod

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

06-17-2003, 04:53 PM	#2
Dominus Paradoxum Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: California Posts: 1,000	The main problem that I had with the article is that it didn't really discuss the multiverse theory. If that's true then a universe with constants like ours is bound to turn up eventually, and the "vast conspiracy" of so many life producing factors no longer seems mysterious.

06-17-2003, 07:06 PM	#3
jon1 Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: md Posts: 58	If I haven't been clear enough here's further elaborationon what I'm saying. I'm saying I can't accept the fine tuning argument because it doesn't allow for the particular B facts or properties that obtain in our universe to supervene on any other set of A facts or properties than the ones that obtain in our universe.

06-18-2003, 05:57 AM	#4
Toby Wardman Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: York, UK Posts: 8	There's a discussion of this article going on over in the Feedback Forum, so either or both of you might want to stroll over there and join in.

06-18-2003, 10:43 AM	#6
Toby Wardman Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: York, UK Posts: 8	Oh, sorry. In that case I'm not sure I understand the system, but not to worry.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.