5 ms·

The fine-tuned universe is not a scientific concept though. The only hypothesis at a high level is that the constants or initial conditions of our only observab

by zwkrt 4y ago

The fine-tuned universe is not a scientific concept though. The only hypothesis at a high level is that the constants or initial conditions of our only observable universe could have been different. However we have no data or reason to believe this is the case. We have no other universes to observe. We have no statistics about the distribution of possible constants. There are no experiments we could run. Even the headline of this article smells bad, right? Typical as opposed to what? When I see an albino squirrel, I know that it is atypical. I have seen thousands of squirrels, and other mammals, and I have good reason to believe that an all-white squirrel with red eyes is out of the ordinary. I can calculate how many of them there are out of the population and get a ratio to operationalize my definition of "atypical". I can learn more about genetics and biology and melanin and understand an underlying cause for the condition and make predictions about albino-ness in other animals that is falsifiable through further investigation. In this case though we just have an untestable mathematical model for 'possible universes' (whatever that means) that puts our universe near the top of some abstract bell curve. I understand that smart people made it and that it is very technical and fancy, but I also know that it is made outside of the scientific process becuase I know that we have never observed another universe, we don't have an understanding of how universes are made, we don't know what the possible bounds are for the constants of nature (because they are...constant...). So I consider this to be like a very technical art project. The argument that god created the universe is also a fine tuning argument, but no one seems to give that one much credence.

technothrasher 4y ago
When I asked a Jehovah's Witness who was proposing the fine tuning argument to me, "So what would a non-designed universe look like?" He just stared for a second and then said, "Are you like, a scientist or something?"
- kulahan 4y ago
  I'd probably get thrown off by such a basic question too. "Look, these cards are only standing because they were so carefully placed!" "So what would it look like if they weren't?"
  - pixl97 4y ago
    That's easy "Entropy"
- nxmnxm99 4y ago
  That’s not as clever an answer as you seem to think
  - technothrasher 4y ago
    It wasn't a clever answer. It was a very basic question. The point was that the guy who was throwing out the fine tuning argument hadn't even given it an second's though himself.
  - a9h74j 4y ago
    Notably, a combination of: 1) significant (improbable) information content, and 2) appearance of fulfilling a functional specification ... is taken by some philosophers as supporting a hypothesis of design. FWIW, Return of the God Hypothesis by Stephen Meyer is a surprisingly well-argued book, exploring such support.
    - technothrasher 4y ago
      On point 1, how would you know it is improbable? We're back to the initial issue of having nothing else to compare it to. Perhaps it's not improbable but in fact inevitable? Can't tell with only one example. On point 2, it only looks to fulfill a functional specification if you beg the question. Otherwise, we're simply generating a description of what is. Stephen Meyer is a founder of the Discovery Institute, a political group who lobby conservative issues and state as part of their mission to promote "a rigorously God-centered view of creation". That doesn't mean Meyer's work on intelligent design is incorrect, per se. But it does strongly suggest that he is starting with a conclusion and then working backward, which is the antithesis of proper scientific research. There are also plenty of eviscerating rebuttals to Meyer if his bias doesn't dissuade.
      - a9h74j 4y ago
        > But it does strongly suggest that he is starting with a conclusion and then working backward, which is the antithesis of proper scientific research. His is not scientific research, but the book IMHO is a surprisingly effective and professional weaving of philosophy, history of philosophy, popular science, and history of science toward consideration of Natural Theology. Point 1: Shannon applies. Point 2: s/supporting a hypothesis/required to support an interpretation/ He acknowledges IIRC that we do not know ranges for potential tunings of physical constants, if that description applies. Has his reference to unexplained low entropy in the Universe been eviscerated? I can't assess his arguments about sparse solutions in protein/fold design space; if you cite a rebuttal of course I'm interested.
deltarholamda 4y ago
>becuase I know that we have never observed another universe You should hang around people who do a lot of mushrooms, they can clue you in to the others, duuuuuude.

by zwkrt 4y ago

technothrasher 4y ago

When I asked a Jehovah's Witness who was proposing the fine tuning argument to me, "So what would a non-designed universe look like?" He just stared for a second and then said, "Are you like, a scientist or something?"

kulahan 4y ago
I'd probably get thrown off by such a basic question too. "Look, these cards are only standing because they were so carefully placed!" "So what would it look like if they weren't?"
- pixl97 4y ago
  That's easy "Entropy"
nxmnxm99 4y ago
That’s not as clever an answer as you seem to think
- technothrasher 4y ago
  It wasn't a clever answer. It was a very basic question. The point was that the guy who was throwing out the fine tuning argument hadn't even given it an second's though himself.
- a9h74j 4y ago
  Notably, a combination of: 1) significant (improbable) information content, and 2) appearance of fulfilling a functional specification ... is taken by some philosophers as supporting a hypothesis of design. FWIW, Return of the God Hypothesis by Stephen Meyer is a surprisingly well-argued book, exploring such support.
  - technothrasher 4y ago
    On point 1, how would you know it is improbable? We're back to the initial issue of having nothing else to compare it to. Perhaps it's not improbable but in fact inevitable? Can't tell with only one example. On point 2, it only looks to fulfill a functional specification if you beg the question. Otherwise, we're simply generating a description of what is. Stephen Meyer is a founder of the Discovery Institute, a political group who lobby conservative issues and state as part of their mission to promote "a rigorously God-centered view of creation". That doesn't mean Meyer's work on intelligent design is incorrect, per se. But it does strongly suggest that he is starting with a conclusion and then working backward, which is the antithesis of proper scientific research. There are also plenty of eviscerating rebuttals to Meyer if his bias doesn't dissuade.
    - a9h74j 4y ago
      > But it does strongly suggest that he is starting with a conclusion and then working backward, which is the antithesis of proper scientific research. His is not scientific research, but the book IMHO is a surprisingly effective and professional weaving of philosophy, history of philosophy, popular science, and history of science toward consideration of Natural Theology. Point 1: Shannon applies. Point 2: s/supporting a hypothesis/required to support an interpretation/ He acknowledges IIRC that we do not know ranges for potential tunings of physical constants, if that description applies. Has his reference to unexplained low entropy in the Universe been eviscerated? I can't assess his arguments about sparse solutions in protein/fold design space; if you cite a rebuttal of course I'm interested.

deltarholamda 4y ago

>becuase I know that we have never observed another universe You should hang around people who do a lot of mushrooms, they can clue you in to the others, duuuuuude.