Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Thomas,
This is really nothing more than the lottery analogy with some extra numbers thrown in. It fails in the same way the lottery analogy does to accurately model the issues of fine tuning.


This analogy fails to distinguish any meaningful pattern or behavior. That is there is nothing distinguishing about your numbers '354 99 122 2 98' other than that they are the numbers '354 99 122 2 98'.

To illustrate this: suppose your computer randomly colors 5 of the 1000 numbers white and all the rest of the numbers black. In addition your computer randomly chooses between A-returning 5 numbers at random, and B-simply returning the white numbers.

Lo and behold the numbers '354 99 122 2 98' are all white.


Which routine do you think your computer ran? A or B?

SOMMS

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas ]</p>

Dr S

No, you can't. You can statistically infer an average number but not a random one which is by definition haphazard. The average number of blacks you got should have been forty-two. But since you were chosing without any guidance any number was possible.


Unless they had specific information as to my actions there is no way to tell if a single grain of sand was picked randomly or by intent. There would be no indication that a grain of sand was special in any way throught it's own value.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Dr. S,
???

Uh...this was an actual court case in the 1950's. They DID determine it was not random. They DID determine this after the fact.

PS-I was not 'chosing'

Exactly!

The only way you know your black grain of sand is special is because it completely contrasts the billions and billions of white grains of sand.

You know it's special by comparing it to other 'instances' of sand granuals.


Tell me honestly: would you look at your black grain of sand...peer out over the entire sandy, white beach your sitting on, then solemnly declare 'I see nothing unique about this black grain of sand' then toss it aside?




SOMMS

Thomas Metcalf

It's different from the lottery analogy because we know there's no room for tampering. Improbability alone is not evidence that something did not happen by chance...


Suppose I tell you my hypothesis that a magical elf exists who influences computerized random number generators to produce "352 99 122 2 98." Do you think this hypothesis is likely? Do you know the probability that that sequence happened by chance? Which is the better explanation?

Tercel

Hi Jamie_L,

If you're thinking of the Fine Tuning idea as being 'an explanation as to "why"', then I think you're going about it the wrong way.

Think of it as a discussion of the question of: "What is the most likely reason for fine tuning?". It's not some monumental thing that demands an explanation, it's more like two philosophers have sat down and one of them's said "I wonder whether chance or design is a more likely explanation of why the universe is the way it is?"
Or perhaps it's like a man who's been sentenced to death by a firing squad. The squad fires... and all the bullets miss. Is it part of a planned rescue attempt? Or was it chance? You can imagine the frantic workings of the prisoner's mind as he tries to determine which hypothesis is the more likely.

Non-praying Mantis

Here's a thought...

What WOULD happen if the big bang started off with constants that made it collapse quickly?

Obviously, it would collapse. BUT, what might happen after that?

Perhaps the event which initiated the big bang started uncounted times, with different constants each time, and all of the other previous universes collapsed quickly. This universe stuck around because it is very stable.

NPM

Vorkosigan

It's nothing like the firing squad, as we've said before. In that case, the intended victim has some idea of the odds of several men firing rifles at close range all missing, and of the possibility of a rescue attempt. But the "odds" about universes are completely unknown. The analogy, consequently, does not apply.

Vorkosigan

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Thomas,
Excellent question.

The answer depends entirely on when you proposed your elf hypothesis. Notice that if you tell me before your computer progam runs the entire population of numbers is broken into two sets A-the set containing your single choice of number and B-all other numbers. If you told me a priori the specific sequence '352 99 122 2 98' AND your computer generated '352 99 122 2 98' THEN I could statistically infer that this probably did not happen by chance.

Now, what if you told me after the fact? There is no way to statistically infer anything about your hypothesis because your choice is simply 'the sequence that wins'! ANY number could've come up and the same hypothesis 'the sequence that wins' could be made from it.

However, your example has nothing to do with the FTA. The issue of fine tuning is that there is something implicitly distinguishing about this particular configuration of the universe (this particular sequence of numbers). That instead of collapse or expanse it resonates in equilibrium...even though the odds of this happening at random are unfathomable. That subatomic forces are balanced just right as to allow atoms to form...even though the odds of this happening at random are unfathomable.


And this is where your analogy fails to model the issues of fine tuning. BY DEFINITION...there is nothing implicitly distinguishing about the numbers your computer generates...they are DEFINED as being completely random. Every number in your population is exactly like any other number save for it's unique identifier. This is not to say that your numbers are not unique.

It is a mistake to confuse the terms unique
with distinguishing. An example will help illustrate: we have 26 identical black marbles with labels A through Z. Is each marble in this set unique? Yes. Is there anything distinguishing about any of the marbles? No.

Now suppose we have one 26 marbles labeled A through Z; 25 are identical black marbles, 1 is white (we don't care which). Let's pose the same question: Is each marble in this set unique? Yes. Is there anything distinguishing about any of the marbles? Yes. The white one is not like the others.

Again...this is where your analogy fails. You have 'unique' numbers but there is nothing 'distinguishing' about them.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Datheron

SOMMS,

The problem with your argument, as I see it, is that the claim of being distinguished is given as after-the-fact explanation.

There is nothing that says that if the constants were different, then the resulting universe wouldn't be distinguishable. The core point is that we have not established what it means to be "distinguished" - is the existantial laws of physics and the presense of life in one small corner of the universe considered distinguished when limitless possibilities exist otherwise?

Furthermore, there is no evidence that the constants are in fact themselves "random". Is the gravitional constant "random", or can it be deduced from other properties of the object? By the same token, if I let a coin go in the air, do I pronounce it a miracle if it appears on the ground a moment later? Do I look at the coin on the ground and claim that it was designed to fall?

Also, remember that nature itself seeks to establish equilibrium all the time, w/o the aid of foreign intelligent beings. Just because gas seeks to fill a chamber equally does not mean that there is someone behind the scenes, manipulating atoms and constants until everything is evenly spread out. And just because the speed of light inside a vacuum never speeds up or slows down, does not mean that someone is lending his willpower to keep the beam of light in that constant state of velocity.

Finally, as Non-Praying Mantis stated, we also have no clue as how many tries we are given to obtain this state. If you were to sit down and draw cards, you will eventually draw royal flushes. If an infinite number of monkeys were to spend an infinite amount of time typing, they would produce the works of Shakespeare in addition to a lot of excrete waste. Even if it is determined that our configuration is distinctly unique, there is nothing that requires this to be a one-shot trial. Of course, with current scientific findings that suggest that the Universe will expand forever b/c of the lack of matter to gravitationally pull it back in, I'm not that impressed by this statement of having it "fine-tuned". Perhaps it would be more impressive if God had chosen the constants so it would stay balanced at an expansionary equilibrium?

Bottom line is, we are simply too ignorant to claim the processes that started the Universe to be natural or designed.

One-eyed Jack

There is a huge hole in SOMMS use of the fine-tuning argument, and that is the plain fact that if the universal constants were not as they are then we would not be here to comment on it.

Duh.

There are a number of physics hypotheses which allow for a nearly infinite number of universes to bud off or be created continually, each with its own set of physical constants. Is it surprising that we find ourselves in one which is conducive to carbon-based life?

No. In fact, it is such an obvious precondition that it is laughable. Again, DUH!

Imagine a universe in which physics did not allow matter as we know it to form but in which gravity could give rise to self-replicating, evolving energy structures. Imagine an intelligent energy-matrix wondering over the fact that its universe was "fine-tuned" such that life--ie self-replicating energy matrices--could exist. Hah! No matter what the physical laws of a universe, if life arises in that universe then BY DEFINITION the laws of that universe will be found to be "fine tuned" to allow that life to exist.

It's about as mysterious as porridge. For the third time, DUH!