Do CA selection rules rule out atheism?

[harvey1]

QED and I have been having a constant dialogue for quite some time about whether the selection rules inherent in the Universe are so unique as to rule out atheism. My question is whether there is good reason to think that the Universe could, in principle, have selection rules by random luck.

[harvey1]

...should we all consider ourselves as incredibly lucky to be who we are? Some of us -- like Queen Elizabeth for example -- could wonder how extraordinarily lucky they were being a reigning monarch when everyone else around them was their subjects. Should all this incredible luck convey any particular significance to us?

It depends on whether you think our existence is contingent or necessary. If contingent, the answer is "yes" and if necessary then the answer is slightly more complex. For example, if our existence is probabilistically necessary (e.g., >50% but <60%), then we might be lucky depending on how close to 1 our probability of being here is based on. In addition, something can be necessary after a certain event, but not necessary prior to that event. For example, prior to a batter hitting a ball into the air, it was not necessary that a certain window to be broken, but after the ball is hit and the ball is approaching the window, it becomes necessary that the window will be broken. In that case, it is unlucky that the window is broken in the sense that the batter didn't have to hit the ball toward the window, but after the ball was deterministically heading for the window, it was not a matter of bad luck that the window broke.

So, if someone proposes a contingent universe, then it is lucky that we are here since it could have been otherwise. It is lucky that Queen Elizabeth is a queen in that first contingent event sense. However, if we ignore this contingent event and just concentrate on the deterministic processes that follow, then at some point it becomes necessary that one person will be queen, and that just happens to be Queen Elizabeth. Assigning luck to her being queen is based entirely on what event that we suggest is lucky. If that event was contingent, and it could have been otherwise, then she really was lucky. If the event being referred to is deterministic, then in that case luck was not a factor.

I'm trying very hard to look at this in as many ways as I can. I can certainly see it your way but I can also see it in many other ways. Even if Barrow & Tippler are right about conscious life needing exactly 3 large spatial dimensions and all the other remarkable "cosmic settings" (I don't know how we can be absolutely sure that other forms of life could not evolve in other universes - but I must say the arguments are pretty persuasive) we have to expect to find ourselves in such an apparently remarkable environment, simply because we're here.

Sure, but that doesn't explain why we are here unless there are a sufficient number of other worlds that we could have been at so that our being here versus there should be considered probabilitistically near 1 that we'd at least be somewhere. If these other worlds do not exist, then our remarkable environment is not explained by us being here. Likewise, if these other worlds exist contingently, then our remarkable environment is all the more lucky since it could have been otherwise.

[QED]

...should we all consider ourselves as incredibly lucky to be who we are? Some of us -- like Queen Elizabeth for example -- could wonder how extraordinarily lucky they were being a reigning monarch when everyone else around them was their subjects. Should all this incredible luck convey any particular significance to us?

It depends on whether you think our existence is contingent or necessary. If contingent, the answer is "yes"

I don't get this. You seem to be saying that there is something significant about Elizabeth Windsor. This would mean that she should be waking in the middle of the night and thinking "Goodness -- why me?" I don't think she deserves to be burdened like this. Surely it could have been any one of us at any place and at any time.

This seems like such a fundamental disagreement. Let's see if we can get it out of the way first.

[harvey1]

I don't get this. You seem to be saying that there is something significant about Elizabeth Windsor.

I don't think so. I'm saying that Queen Elizabeth is lucky there's a universe, just all of us are lucky there is a universe. Luck exists since a contingent beginning says that it didn't have to be that way.

Surely it could have been any one of us at any place and at any time.

Right, but this gets back to my comment here:

addition, something can be necessary after a certain event, but not necessary prior to that event. For example, prior to a batter hitting a ball into the air, it was not necessary that a certain window to be broken, but after the ball is hit and the ball is approaching the window, it becomes necessary that the window will be broken. In that case, it is unlucky that the window is broken in the sense that the batter didn't have to hit the ball toward the window, but after the ball was deterministically heading for the window, it was not a matter of bad luck that the window broke.

She is lucky the universe exists (as are we all), but her being the Queen is not necessarily luck unless there was a real contingent event that made it so. For example, she can't consider herself lucky to be a woman and be Queen since the probability is 0 that anyone other than women can become queen. However, she can consider herself lucky that King Edward VIII abdicated the throne and let his brother (her father) King George VI to take the throne. That was lucky for Elizabeth Windsor.

[QED]

I don't get this. You seem to be saying that there is something significant about Elizabeth Windsor.

I don't think so. I'm saying that Queen Elizabeth is lucky there's a universe, just all of us are lucky there is a universe.

Thank goodness for that! Putting aside our supposed luck in having a universe like this for one moment, we can agree that the Queen is not "the chosen one" in the sense that she was singled out from many potential humans to be transported into the role by some unknown agency. Babies were being born all around the world in April 1926 and she just happened to be one of those. Surely madness would lie in any other interpretation by the individual concerned?

So why then is it not also madness to think that there is something special about our place in the cosmos?

[harvey1]

we can agree that the Queen is not "the chosen one" in the sense that she was singled out from many potential humans to be transported into the role by some unknown agency.

I never signed up for that. I am merely saying that whenever complete contingency is implied (versus necessity or strong probabilitistic necessity near 1), there is luck involved. I have no idea if people like Hitler were predestined in some way to find themselves a prominent figure in pre-world war II Germany.

Surely madness would lie in any other interpretation by the individual concerned?

Coming from the atheistic mindset, I suppose it is madness. Of course, I think the atheistic mindset is not without its own forms of madness.

So why then is it not also madness to think that there is something special about our place in the cosmos?

It is not a matter of contingency that someone would be part of the English royal family, and therefore the probability is very high that there is a queen (close to 1). Therefore, there's no luck involved from that perspective. But, that's like saying that there's no luck involved that the baseball broke the window when it is heading right for the window at sufficient velocity to shatter it. That's true, but it doesn't take into consideration the other contingent issues that happened before (e.g., Georgie's dad accidentally gave him the signed Barry Bonds baseball that passes up Babe Ruth's record which he shouldn't have played with, now he won't recover that baseball; Georgie had his shoe untied and at the last second it caused him to point his swinging bat in the wrong direction; Jason's dad happened to be at the playground and threw a fastball which a distracted Georgie accidentally and very unlikely got a piece of it so that the ball went much further than anyone could expect, etc., etc.).

If you want to stay away from contingency, then I'll stay away from mentioning luck. But, if you introduce contingency, then luck is part of the ballgame.