Fine Tuning

[UNBeliever905]

I wanted to discuss this topic after watching an intelligence squared debate quite awhile ago and again while reading the head to head debate between OSTENG and NENB.

Now the "Fine Tuning" of the universe, theory is "the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood."

Now in this case i would argue, that the theory itself is not as important as why it is believed. It is believed because people who have a preexisting belief in a designer, see the actual fact that if certain things in our universe were different we, and this is the important bit, AS WE ARE HERE AND NOW could not be here. Now they see this fact and say "Well if there is no God, WHY is the universe perfect for us". Admittedly a slightly reductionist version of the argument but i dont think it misrepresents it honestly. My point is can a believer in fine tuning tell me why me thinking a god of the gaps argument based on a pointless question is an acceptable argument in an intelligent conversation?

[Nickman]

I wanted to discuss this topic after watching an intelligence squared debate quite awhile ago and again while reading the head to head debate between OSTENG and NENB.

Now the "Fine Tuning" of the universe, theory is "the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood."

Now in this case i would argue, that the theory itself is not as important as why it is believed. It is believed because people who have a preexisting belief in a designer, see the actual fact that if certain things in our universe were different we, and this is the important bit, AS WE ARE HERE AND NOW could not be here. Now they see this fact and say "Well if there is no God, WHY is the universe perfect for us". Admittedly a slightly reductionist version of the argument but i dont think it misrepresents it honestly. My point is can a believer in fine tuning tell me why me thinking a god of the gaps argument based on a pointless question is an acceptable argument in an intelligent conversation?

The fine tuning argument (not theory) leaves out a very important aspect. The effects that we have named "laws" are the result of how matter acts on other matter. That is it. We are still figuring out how all matter acts on other matter. So the reason that things are the way that they are today, is because that is how the matter acted. In our instance, matter collaborated and acted the same way it is seen elsewhere in the universe. It just so happened that the collaboration of matter that we call earth did so in a spot close enough the the largest collaboration of matter closest to us (sun). Thus it was in the right spot for enough heat to help support life and allow liquid water. The fine tuning argument creates a fallacy by saying "if the earth was just a little closer or a bit further there would be no life....therefore God." The conclusion doesn't follow the premise.

[Jashwell]

First and foremost, we don't actually know which conditions enable life. We just know the conditions we have now, and are aware of some extents which would make our life impossible.

But secondly, with most constants I don't think we know the possible range. Sure, it's easy to imagine any real number, but what if the fine structure constant (7.29735257×10−3) could only take values between 7x10^-3 and 7.5x10^-3?

We also don't even know how they're distributed. Is it purely a random uniform distribution? Maybe it's twice as likely to be 7.1x10^-3 as it is to be 7.4x10^-3.

We also don't know if they're all independent. Maybe there's an undiscovered link between the fine structure constant and the ratio of gravitation to electromagnetism.

We're only aware of one Universe, and no intelligent statistician takes samples of size one.

We're in no place to say "this is too unlikely to be a coincidence".

[McCulloch]

Here is what we know. We exist in a universe with certain physical constants. We know that if any of these constants were changed a small amount, the resulting universe would not be stable and could not have produced life.

Imagine that there is a huge dark sheet which represents all conceivable combinations of these fundamental constants. Our universe represents a small pin hole in that sheet. Now imagine being on one side of that sheet and observing light passing through that pin hole. There are two possible explanations for this. The first is that there is some highly precise intelligent being on the other side who directed an extremely narrow beam of light exactly at that pin hole. The second would be that there is a general source of light on the other side and some light passed through the pin hole. Which conclusion would you think is more likely?

[otseng]

Here is what we know. We exist in a universe with certain physical constants. We know that if any of these constants were changed a small amount, the resulting universe would not be stable and could not have produced life.

I agree.

Imagine that there is a huge dark sheet which represents all conceivable combinations of these fundamental constants. Our universe represents a small pin hole in that sheet. Now imagine being on one side of that sheet and observing light passing through that pin hole. There are two possible explanations for this. The first is that there is some highly precise intelligent being on the other side who directed an extremely narrow beam of light exactly at that pin hole. The second would be that there is a general source of light on the other side and some light passed through the pin hole. Which conclusion would you think is more likely?

What would be the general source of light you are referring to?

[UNBeliever905]

Imagine that there is a huge dark sheet which represents all conceivable combinations of these fundamental constants. Our universe represents a small pin hole in that sheet. Now imagine being on one side of that sheet and observing light passing through that pin hole. There are two possible explanations for this. The first is that there is some highly precise intelligent being on the other side who directed an extremely narrow beam of light exactly at that pin hole. The second would be that there is a general source of light on the other side and some light passed through the pin hole. Which conclusion would you think is more likely?

What would be the general source of light you are referring to?

in this case what the general light source is, and correct me if i'm wrong McCulloch, isnt known, we cant see the other side of the paper but we can pick between the 2 most likely options, there could be a third option added like "the light isnt there at all and the light is an optical illusion or halleucination" Which is a great way of looking at it i also saw on the wikipedia page for fine tuning that you used in your debate with NENB this refutation:

"imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the Sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this World was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise."

isnt it more likely that we exist as we do because the universe is the way it is and if it wasnt the way it is whatever life or non life may exist instead would also be prefectly "adapted" to the universe it was in?

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 1 by UNBeliever905]

1. I disagree that "the universe is 'fine tuned for life'." The vast vast vast majority of the universe is cold, dark void "bubbles" that extend for millions of millions of miles...no life in any of that as far as we can tell. Most of the matter in the universe is plasma, and there's probably no intelligent life in any of that form of matter. Even if the complex twisting bands of electromagnetic fields generated by stars can somehow generate a form of basic consciousness, there's far more "void" then there are stars. So, NO, the universe is NOT fine-tuned for life if we believe that "life" must exist in complex chemical combinations as we assume.

2. It can only APPEAR...from OUR PERSPECTIVE that PERHAPS our universe is fined tuned "to be the way it is." That's the best statement we can possibly make on the mater. We can't say more because we don't have any other universes to compare ours to. Perhaps the mechanism that causes a "big bang" expansion and subsequent "cooling" epochs that generate and combine the elementary particles can ONLY "explode" in a few ways, or in one way (ours), or in a number of ways--each of which "evaporate" except when they happen to "form" a "stable" universe--of which ours is a type.

3. What if "Big Bang" "expressions" occur constantly in continual perpetuity, but in trillions and trillions of different ways with trillions and trillions of different outcomes/cooling mechanisms/expansions/etc..? Like a tree that drops hundreds of thousands of seeds, perhaps the universe is one of trillions of "universe seeds" that just happened to (by analogy)...have healthy genetic material...land in the right spot...have room to grow...etc, etc...

Note: Every time I think of the cosmological constant, and the idea that if it was off by just a fraction, everything would collapse into a black hole or expand too quickly to form matter to clump together, I have two thoughts. 1. What if most universes that form do collapse into black holes or evaporated nothingness? 2. Even if a universe collapsed into a huge black hole or evaporated nothingness, what if another mechanism takes over and the universe "happens" on a very different timescale from within that universe--or as the particles "evaporate" other types of universe with different timescales are formed and "live" in a different way on a different timescale? Since a universe creates its own time and space, who's to say that a few quadrillion of them haven't been born, lived, and died in the past second?

[UNBeliever905]

[Replying to post 1 by UNBeliever905]

1. I disagree that "the universe is 'fine tuned for life'." The vast vast vast majority of the universe is cold, dark void "bubbles" that extend for millions of millions of miles...no life in any of that as far as we can tell. Most of the matter in the universe is plasma, and there's probably no intelligent life in any of that form of matter. Even if the complex twisting bands of electromagnetic fields generated by stars can somehow generate a form of basic consciousness, there's far more "void" then there are stars. So, NO, the universe is NOT fine-tuned for life if we believe that "life" must exist in complex chemical combinations as we assume.

2. It can only APPEAR...from OUR PERSPECTIVE that PERHAPS our universe is fined tuned "to be the way it is." That's the best statement we can possibly make on the mater. We can't say more because we don't have any other universes to compare ours to. Perhaps the mechanism that causes a "big bang" expansion and subsequent "cooling" epochs that generate and combine the elementary particles can ONLY "explode" in a few ways, or in one way (ours), or in a number of ways--each of which "evaporate" except when they happen to "form" a "stable" universe--of which ours is a type.

3. What if "Big Bang" "expressions" occur constantly in continual perpetuity, but in trillions and trillions of different ways with trillions and trillions of different outcomes/cooling mechanisms/expansions/etc..? Like a tree that drops hundreds of thousands of seeds, perhaps the universe is one of trillions of "universe seeds" that just happened to (by analogy)...have healthy genetic material...land in the right spot...have room to grow...etc, etc...

Note: Every time I think of the cosmological constant, and the idea that if it was off by just a fraction, everything would collapse into a black hole or expand too quickly to form matter to clump together, I have two thoughts. 1. What if most universes that form do collapse into black holes or evaporated nothingness? 2. Even if a universe collapsed into a huge black hole or evaporated nothingness, what if another mechanism takes over and the universe "happens" on a very different timescale from within that universe--or as the particles "evaporate" other types of universe with different timescales are formed and "live" in a different way on a different timescale? Since a universe creates its own time and space, who's to say that a few quadrillion of them haven't been born, lived, and died in the past second?

i agree, i hope you didnt misunderstand what i was getting at i also do not believe the universe is fine tuned, all evidence points to that fact it is not. My point in fact is that the fine tuning argument doesnt have a leg to stand on and nobody has been able to tell me why it should be an acceptable argument. Only reason i made the thread was because it is currently being used in a head to head on this site and we cant interject there haha

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 1 by UNBeliever905]

1. I disagree that "the universe is 'fine tuned for life'." The vast vast vast majority of the universe is cold, dark void "bubbles" that extend for millions of millions of miles...no life in any of that as far as we can tell. Most of the matter in the universe is plasma, and there's probably no intelligent life in any of that form of matter. Even if the complex twisting bands of electromagnetic fields generated by stars can somehow generate a form of basic consciousness, there's far more "void" then there are stars. So, NO, the universe is NOT fine-tuned for life if we believe that "life" must exist in complex chemical combinations as we assume.

2. It can only APPEAR...from OUR PERSPECTIVE that PERHAPS our universe is fined tuned "to be the way it is." That's the best statement we can possibly make on the mater. We can't say more because we don't have any other universes to compare ours to. Perhaps the mechanism that causes a "big bang" expansion and subsequent "cooling" epochs that generate and combine the elementary particles can ONLY "explode" in a few ways, or in one way (ours), or in a number of ways--each of which "evaporate" except when they happen to "form" a "stable" universe--of which ours is a type.

3. What if "Big Bang" "expressions" occur constantly in continual perpetuity, but in trillions and trillions of different ways with trillions and trillions of different outcomes/cooling mechanisms/expansions/etc..? Like a tree that drops hundreds of thousands of seeds, perhaps the universe is one of trillions of "universe seeds" that just happened to (by analogy)...have healthy genetic material...land in the right spot...have room to grow...etc, etc...

Note: Every time I think of the cosmological constant, and the idea that if it was off by just a fraction, everything would collapse into a black hole or expand too quickly to form matter to clump together, I have two thoughts. 1. What if most universes that form do collapse into black holes or evaporated nothingness? 2. Even if a universe collapsed into a huge black hole or evaporated nothingness, what if another mechanism takes over and the universe "happens" on a very different timescale from within that universe--or as the particles "evaporate" other types of universe with different timescales are formed and "live" in a different way on a different timescale? Since a universe creates its own time and space, who's to say that a few quadrillion of them haven't been born, lived, and died in the past second?

i agree, i hope you didnt misunderstand what i was getting at i also do not believe the universe is fine tuned, all evidence points to that fact it is not. My point in fact is that the fine tuning argument doesnt have a leg to stand on and nobody has been able to tell me why it should be an acceptable argument. Only reason i made the thread was because it is currently being used in a head to head on this site and we cant interject there haha

I think it is all about perception. The creationist mind has to see design and fine tuning. The non creationist mind just doesn't. I see the fact that 99% of this universe is harsh toward life. Even on earth, we find it to be very harsh towards life. To me there is no fine tuning.

Here is a list of uninhabitable places on earth.

[Wootah]

It depends on what we are arguing. If we are arguing it proves God - it doesn't.

If however you want me to walk along the beach and see a watch and say,' wow what an amazing thing nature did in producing that watch.' then I feel quite secure in believing in a designer did it over nature did it.

My point is can a believer in fine tuning tell me why me thinking a god of the gaps argument based on a pointless question is an acceptable argument in an intelligent conversation?

God in the gaps has always been a fallacious argument against Christianity.

Christians do not expect to see God causing the material universe - we expect God caused the universe. Understanding that difference means you understand why science came from Christianity.

You have to do a lot of work and turn a blind eye to a lot of information, that in and of themselves do not prove God, to get to the atheist position that there is no god. Looking at creation and not seeing a designer is one of them.