Universal Design: Logic or value judgment?

[Furrowed Brow]

In the thread One of many or specially designed Otseng and myself found ourselves opposed. Otseng believed that study of physical phenomena and the physical constants provided evidence that the universe is finely tuned for carbon based life, and that this fine tuning is evidence of design. Otseng felt that this position was strengthened because multiple universes are not observable, and that we should only take the universe as it is observed to guide us.

As a counter point, rather than debate the "observed evidence" I insist this debate needs strangling at conception. I say this because I think the interpretation of fine tuning has nothing to do with the "evidence", or even the rejection of multiple universes, and everything to do with semantics and the logic of argument.

So for the sake of argument. Assume [1] that there are no multiverses. That [2] there is just this and only this universe. Also assume that [3] the physical constants are very very finely balanced for carbon based life. So finely balanced that this universe provides the only possible permutation of values to the physical constants that can lead to carbon based life. Also assume [4] that only carbon based life counts as what can be meant by life. Given all the these assumptions I still maintain that it is invalid to argue that the universe is designed, and that it requires an aesthetic bias to see the universe in that light.

Here are some basic reasons as to why Id say that:

A/ The above assumptions guarantee that if there is life then we will see the universe with the exact values to the physical constants that we in fact do see. This is the week anthropic principle. Which I believe is a truism.

B/ If there is only one way to generate/create carbon based life then it is impossible to infer the fingerprints of a designer on that particular permutation of values. Whether the universe sprung from nothing, is eternal or designed by a creator it is impossible to tell.

C/ If one finds its suspicious that the values of the physical constants just happen to be the right ones for carbon based life, then so what? They are also the right ones for galaxies, black holes, puddles and rocks. By what objective criteria absent of value judgement do we single out life as a special case?

So given the above assumptions 1 through to 4. Is it valid to infer that the universe is designed?

[Goat]

Design can never be a long term answer to anything because eventually the desinger requires a designer.

If the designer began to exist, yes. If the designer is eternal, no.

In which case, you are usign the logical fallacy of 'The designer is eternal' and nothing else is.

You are giving the unique quality of 'existiing eternally' to the designer.

THis makes it the logical fallacy of special pleading.

[Fisherking]

Design can never be a long term answer to anything because eventually the desinger requires a designer.

If the designer began to exist, yes. If the designer is eternal, no.

In which case, you are usign the logical fallacy of 'The designer is eternal' and nothing else is.

You are giving the unique quality of 'existiing eternally' to the designer.

THis makes it the logical fallacy of special pleading.

If the designer began to exist, yes. I'll leave it at that so the thread doesn't turn into a totally different argument.

[Goat]

Design can never be a long term answer to anything because eventually the desinger requires a designer.

If the designer began to exist, yes. If the designer is eternal, no.

In which case, you are usign the logical fallacy of 'The designer is eternal' and nothing else is.

You are giving the unique quality of 'existiing eternally' to the designer.

THis makes it the logical fallacy of special pleading.

If the designer began to exist, yes. I'll leave it at that so the thread doesn't turn into a totally different argument.

No, to say the designer did not begin to exist IS the special pleading.

[Fisherking]

No, to say the designer did not begin to exist IS the special pleading.

If the designer began to exist, yes. I'll leave it at that so the thread doesn't turn into a totally different argument.

[The Duke of Vandals]

If the designer began to exist, yes. If the designer is eternal, no.

This is a tremendous cop out.

You haven't the sligtest shred of evidence anything (god or otherwise) is "eternal" (whatever that's supposed to mean).

Also, if you create the precedent that certain things are "eternal" then we don't need god anymore. We can simply declare the universe is "eternal" and not bother with such nonsense as god.

A few more notes from Dawkins:

First, most of the traditional arguments for God's existence, from Aquinas on, are easily demolished. Several of them, such as the First Cause argument, work by setting up an infinite regress which God is wheeled out to terminate. But we are never told why God is magically able to terminate regresses while needing no explanation himself. To be sure, we do need some kind of explanation for the origin of all things.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins ... index.html

[The Duke of Vandals]

Yes... I too am puzzled and amused when someone I've decided to debate makes an outlandish comment and then flees like a frenchman faced with Germans when the flaws of his argument are illustrated.

Perhaps you'd like to take a look at the URL of the site, yes?

[otseng]

Where the assumptions of the OP differs from the version of the APs expressed by Hawkings and Penrose is that we are assuming that there are no other places and times, nor alternative universe. Only this observed universe counts. And even under that assumption it is still a truism to say that as carbon based intelligent life we should not be surprised about the fitness of the universe for carbon based life. Another truism.

As I've argued, it would be a truism if it has always been a self-evident statement. But, we have only recently been able to determine that the universe is fine-tuned (or gives the illusion of being fine-tuned) for us to be here. Also, it is more than the fitness for carbon-based life.

Part of the problem is that it seems like everyone has their own view and definition of AP. So, it is entirely possible to find someone's definition of AP and to view it at face value as a truism.

Another problem is that people have such ambivalent definitions that one is not sure what it really means. And also people don't want to say too much lest it would have metaphysical implications.

Let's look at some definitions in the Wikipedia.

Carter's Weak anthropic principle (WAP): "we must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers."

"Must be prepared"? "Necessarily privileged"? "Being compatible"? I'm not sure what he's driving at here.

Carter's Strong anthropic principle (SAP): "the Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage".

I think I know what he's trying to say, but it's not a particularly "strong" statement. And it does have a hint of being a truism.

Barrow and Tipler's Weak anthropic principle: "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so."

There seems to be a bit of a circular statement here.

Barrow and Tipler's Strong anthropic principle: "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history."

Doesn't seem too different from Carter's SAP.

Let me propose a definition, otseng's Mighty Anthropic Principle (MAP):
"The conditions of the universe and the Earth are within a precise range so that complex, intelligent life can exist on Earth and that life cannot arise elsewhere in the universe."

I just made this up on the spot, so it probably could use some revisioning. But, I think this definition is not a truism. It is not circular. It is falsifiable. And it is supportable by scientific data.

[olivergringold]

"Must be prepared"? "Necessarily privileged"? "Being compatible"? I'm not sure what he's driving at here.

He's saying that our position in the universe contributes to our being here to observe from it. It's more of a tautology than a truism.

I think I know what he's trying to say, but it's not a particularly "strong" statement. And it does have a hint of being a truism.

It's a very strong statement: He's saying that no matter whether or not we exist, an intelligent life form must come to exist in a universe such as ours based on our knowledge of its ability to do so and the probability that it would occur over such a large area. It, in short, entirely refutes the point you attempt to make later.

Let me propose a definition, otseng's Mighty Anthropic Principle (MAP):
"The conditions of the universe and the Earth are within a precise range so that complex, intelligent life can exist on Earth and that life cannot arise elsewhere in the universe."

I just made this up on the spot, so it probably could use some revisioning. But, I think this definition is not a truism. It is not circular. It is falsifiable. And it is supportable by scientific data.

It is circular because you state that, because we are here, we know that life cannot be elsewhere because life is here. You use the fact that we are here to state that we are here without using it to prove that we could not have been elsewhere. It sure as heck is falsifiable, given that you seem to have pulled it out of a hat...and the laws of probability and our knowledge about planet formation and star structure DEEPLY disagree with you. So, no, science is not on your side. You fail to grasp just how big a place the universe is, don't you?

[Furrowed Brow]

Let me propose a definition, Otseng's Mighty Anthropic Principle (MAP):
"The conditions of the universe and the Earth are within a precise range so that complex, intelligent life can exist on Earth and that life cannot arise elsewhere in the universe."

I think that can be severely doubted. But it is not necessary to doubt the truth of MAP. By now I also think youll probably be getting the drift of my criticism of the design argument. Whatever the limitations are placed upon the existence of life - including in the very strong form of MAP - it is still not valid to conclude design.

MAP says that for life to exists it can only exist here on earth. Thus if life does exist, guess where its going to find itself. Put another way: if life turns up in the only place it can turn up - that does not imply the universe was designed for life to turn up there. It just means life tuned up where it could.

Ok I think the idea behind MAP is something like well isnt it strange that life can only appear here on Earth and no where else and in no other alternative universe. Well it certainly is then a unique result. But uniqueness doe not imply design.

This is where the design argument gets itself all out of shape - it is valid to cite physical evidence, place very strict limitations upon the possibilities of what is observed, and then draw the conclusion that what is observed is unique. But uniqueness doe not imply design. However it is invalid to conclude life as a unique result is a special result that requires design to explain its uniqueness.

[Cathar1950]

Our brains seem to be structured to look for patters or even make them up from our experiences. We not only see design, we look for it and create it.
Design seems to be a projection, necessity and creation of our own.
It is a high form of abstraction or interpretation.
It is a social/personal construct we share with other life forms that create and use patters.

I am thinking of creatures that resemble their environment.
We can see that this camouflage could come about by trial and error and those that blended in didn't get ate. But is it designed that way or did it just happen to work?