Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Koy,
Why is it not legitimate?


Now we are getting somewhere.

Nor does it need to prove fraud for you to make the informed decision to get up and walk out. It is a probablistic argument. The person is 'probably' cheating.


Suspicions, yes. Math, no. In fact you would be quite foolish if someone you just met played 3 royal flushes against you AND you keep playing! In truth...there isn't a gambler in the world who would stay at the table.

Thoughts and comments welcomed,


SOMMS

Vorkosigan

Isn't the probablity of all of the FTA parameters falling into just the right order a bit higher than simply the odds of winning a lottery?

What are the odds that the ocean, with its thousands of physical parameters -- temperature, salinity, heat retention, etc -- would so perfectly suit fish?

The answer to your questionis "No" because everything in the universe evolved to fit those parameters. Other parameters would give us other universes. The FTA argument looks at everything exactly backwards.

HRG

"Falling into" suggests sub rosa that they are the result of some process (like a roulette ball falling into a particular slot) and might be different. That's exactly what the debate is about, however.
In the card analogy, you know

1) the space of all posssible configuration of the cards;
2) the (chaotic) dynamics of cards thrown into the air; and therefore
3) an a priori estimate of the probability of a particular outcome is possible.

For the universe, neither point is valid.

1) We have no idea about the space of "all possible universes", much less about a natural probability measure on this space.
2) We have no idea about the dynamics of the process which "chose" a particular universe - or whether such a process even existed.

Thus it could well be that only universes which can sustain some form of life are possible, or that the subset consisting of such universes has large probability. The fine-tuning argument, if it is supposed to point to a designer, must first exclude both of these two scenarios - which it hasn't done.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Vork,
Your analogy isn't quite right. First, it presupposes a life supporting universe. Second, it creates a strawman by associating the probability of the ocean having the right physical attributes for fish with the probability of a life-supporting universe occuring.

Certainly, given that life is permissable one should not wonder that the ocean seems 'fine tuned' for fish. Life developed in the ocean. We should expect to see life inclined to such an environment.

However, this merely begs the question. What is the probability that life is even permissable?

This is where your analogy is misapplied to the Fine Tuning Argument. The probabilities that the FTA is based on are not the probabilities that some specific lifeform X developed in some specific medium Y (your analogy). Rather they are the probabilities that ANY lifeform X could develop in ANY medium.


Thoughts and comments welcomed,

SOMMS

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

luvluv, Vork, HRG, Koy and all...

I am really beginning to doubt that people are reading entire posts here. Either that OR I am just not being clear enough.

It seems the '3 royal flushes' example I've mentioned has been interpreted as an analogy of the Fine Tuning Argument by not only Koy but luvluv as well. This however is a misinterpretation...probably from my lack of clarity. The poker scenario was *never* meant to be an analogy of the FTA (although it probably could be applied in some manner).

Because of this apparent confusion I feel compelled to explicitly say:

THE '3 ROYAL FLUSH' SCENARIO IS NOT AN ANALOGY OF FINE TUNING...IT IS AN EXAMPLE OF USING STATISTICAL INFERENCE TO MAKE A DECISION.


I would hate for this discussion to get off track by people assuming that it is something that it is not.

Thoughts and comments welcomed,


SOMMS

Koyaanisqatsi

Then stop using it as an analogy!

I.E.: Suspicions, yes. Math, no. In fact you would be quite foolish if someone you just met played 3 royal flushes against you AND you keep playing! In truth...there isn't a gambler in the world who would stay at the table.

And while we're at it, I would appreciate a response to the fact that the FTA proves (from a pointless probabalistic perspective) that life could, in fact, arise "naturally," thereby upholding parsimony and dismissing a supernatural explanation effortlessly.

And while we're at that, what are the chances that life arose from the will of a magical fairy god king from ancient mythology?

Zero.

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Jamie_L

From reading all the recent fine tuning threads, this is my attempt to boil down both sides of the arguement:

Pro FT: The universe could not support life if certain universal constants were not exactly right. The chance of these constants being exactly right is so small that we can infer a designer forced these constants to their current state.

Anti FT: The fact that certain universal constants must be exactly right does not tell us anything about the probability of those constants being some other value. Thus, we have no real statistics from which to infer anything.

Did I get it right?

Jamie

Koyaanisqatsi

No. The fact that the probability can be calculated affirms a "natural" origin.

There would only be an argument if the calculations established that under no circumstances could life arise "naturally."

In other words, there is no FTA; only a grossly misconstrued strawman.

Asha'man

The whole fine tuning arguement seems meaningless to me, and adding statistics is just an attempt to confuse the gullable.

Look at this scenario: You are sitting in a room. What are the odds that you are now in a room?

How about this one: What are the odds that I was born to my parents in my hometown? Of all the places I could have been born, surely I picked an unlikely one. And of all the combinations of 5 Billion people that existed when I was born, what are the odds that my particular parents would get together? The question is simply meaningless, since I am the one asking it.

There is only one universe to observe, and it has life. What are the odds that that universe has life? If the universe didn't have life in it, nobody would exist to ask the question.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Jamie,

A few thoughts...
I think a more accurate outline of the FTA is...

Pro FT: Life is a non-arbitrary phenomenon or classification. For life to exist universal constants must be 'just right'. The probability of a randomly configured universe having constants that are 'just right' is zero. One should have little confidence in the hypothesis that the universe was randomly configured.


That's more or less it.


Thoughts and comments welcomed,


SOMMS