3 ms·

>As I understand it, it is that if various natural constants had values other than those we observe, either life as we know it, or even the universe itself, cou

>As I understand it, it is that if various natural constants had values other than those we observe, either life as we know it, or even the universe itself, could not exist. This is just a fact, no? The fine-tuning argument is something like, Premise (1) this fact is true, and it must be because of chance, necessity, or design. Premise (2) it is not by chance or necessity. Conclusion: it is by design. You can reject the premises (probably premise 2), but it's a valid (even if unsound) argument whose conclusion points towards a creator. And its rejection probably warrants some explanation rather than an out-of-hand dismissal.

f30e3dfed1c9 3y ago
Good lord. Your (2) is entirely unfounded and can absolutely be rejected with no further explanation than that. All you have is (1), from which no conclusion can be drawn. Again, nothing about (1) itself "points towards a creator." You just seem to wish that it did.
- knightoffaith 3y ago
  At first glance (2) seems plausible, no? Given that there's an apparently narrow range in which certain universal/cosmological constants lie, outside of which life (possibly the universe itself in the way we know it) would be impossible, it seems that that these constants are what they are is a very low probability event. And in the same way that we would probably say a coin that turns up heads a thousand times in a row isn't by chance (we would probably have no trouble saying it's by design in this case, that is, the coin has been rigged), it seems plausible to say the Goldilocks state of affairs isn't by chance. And it seems that the state of affairs could have been other than what they are, so it seems that it's not by necessity. So it's not obvious that we can reject (2) out of hand. There is, I think, a good case to be made against (2)---for example, an appeal to the anthropic principle, or an appeal to multiverse theory. But this is far from a rejection with no further explanation.
  - f30e3dfed1c9 3y ago
    > At first glance (2) seems plausible, no? Not particularly. > it seems that that these constants are what they are is a very low probability event. Pure speculation. > we would probably say a coin that turns up heads a thousand times... [is] by design This is just yet another misplaced, unhelpful analogy similar to many others made by creationists of various stripes. It gets you nowhere. > it seems that the state of affairs could have been other than what they are Again, pure speculation. > So it's not obvious that we can reject (2) out of hand. Given that it is entirely unfounded, I would say that we not only can, but should. I think that you just want to get to a particular conclusion and will postulate whatever it takes to get there.
    - knightoffaith 3y ago
      >Pure speculation. But saying that the constants are what they are not being a very low probability event isn't pure speculation? Saying that the state of affairs can only possibly be what they are isn't pure speculation? >unhelpful analogy Maybe so, but I don't see why it's not fruitful to spell out why this analogy is unhelpful. >Given that it is entirely unfounded, I would say that we not only can, but should. Does it not warrant an explanation for why things are by chance, or why things are by necessity? An explanation for why things being by chance or necessity is founded? Otherwise, (2) appears intuitive, I can conceive that the gravitational constant could have been something other than what it is, and since I can imagine it, it seems that things could have been this way, and there should be an explanation why they are not. Now, maybe it's the case that conceivability isn't the same as possibility, but I think that warrants being addressed. Or maybe it's that there is an explanation, e.g. that if the constant wasn't what it is, we wouldn't be around to talk about it. But again, I think that warrants being spelled out. >I think that you just want to get to a particular conclusion and will postulate whatever it takes to get there. Maybe so, but I think if someone postulates something intuitive but false, regardless of their motivations, it's better to address why it's false instead of shutting down discussion.
      - defrost 3y ago
        > Does it not warrant an explanation for why things are by chance, or why things are by necessity? Sure .. and here physics has no necessity for a purposeful creator. Of all the multitudes of parallel universes that can come into existence .. the only ones that have any observers who can comment on what a long shot it is to be in a universe with observers are those universes that have the dice rolled just right for such observers to exist. The existence of billion dollar lottery winners is not proof of the existence of god, it's strong evidence that multiple lotteries with many entrants exist.

f30e3dfed1c9 3y ago

Good lord. Your (2) is entirely unfounded and can absolutely be rejected with no further explanation than that. All you have is (1), from which no conclusion can be drawn. Again, nothing about (1) itself "points towards a creator." You just seem to wish that it did.

knightoffaith 3y ago
At first glance (2) seems plausible, no? Given that there's an apparently narrow range in which certain universal/cosmological constants lie, outside of which life (possibly the universe itself in the way we know it) would be impossible, it seems that that these constants are what they are is a very low probability event. And in the same way that we would probably say a coin that turns up heads a thousand times in a row isn't by chance (we would probably have no trouble saying it's by design in this case, that is, the coin has been rigged), it seems plausible to say the Goldilocks state of affairs isn't by chance. And it seems that the state of affairs could have been other than what they are, so it seems that it's not by necessity. So it's not obvious that we can reject (2) out of hand. There is, I think, a good case to be made against (2)---for example, an appeal to the anthropic principle, or an appeal to multiverse theory. But this is far from a rejection with no further explanation.
- f30e3dfed1c9 3y ago
  > At first glance (2) seems plausible, no? Not particularly. > it seems that that these constants are what they are is a very low probability event. Pure speculation. > we would probably say a coin that turns up heads a thousand times... [is] by design This is just yet another misplaced, unhelpful analogy similar to many others made by creationists of various stripes. It gets you nowhere. > it seems that the state of affairs could have been other than what they are Again, pure speculation. > So it's not obvious that we can reject (2) out of hand. Given that it is entirely unfounded, I would say that we not only can, but should. I think that you just want to get to a particular conclusion and will postulate whatever it takes to get there.
  - knightoffaith 3y ago
    >Pure speculation. But saying that the constants are what they are not being a very low probability event isn't pure speculation? Saying that the state of affairs can only possibly be what they are isn't pure speculation? >unhelpful analogy Maybe so, but I don't see why it's not fruitful to spell out why this analogy is unhelpful. >Given that it is entirely unfounded, I would say that we not only can, but should. Does it not warrant an explanation for why things are by chance, or why things are by necessity? An explanation for why things being by chance or necessity is founded? Otherwise, (2) appears intuitive, I can conceive that the gravitational constant could have been something other than what it is, and since I can imagine it, it seems that things could have been this way, and there should be an explanation why they are not. Now, maybe it's the case that conceivability isn't the same as possibility, but I think that warrants being addressed. Or maybe it's that there is an explanation, e.g. that if the constant wasn't what it is, we wouldn't be around to talk about it. But again, I think that warrants being spelled out. >I think that you just want to get to a particular conclusion and will postulate whatever it takes to get there. Maybe so, but I think if someone postulates something intuitive but false, regardless of their motivations, it's better to address why it's false instead of shutting down discussion.
    - defrost 3y ago
      > Does it not warrant an explanation for why things are by chance, or why things are by necessity? Sure .. and here physics has no necessity for a purposeful creator. Of all the multitudes of parallel universes that can come into existence .. the only ones that have any observers who can comment on what a long shot it is to be in a universe with observers are those universes that have the dice rolled just right for such observers to exist. The existence of billion dollar lottery winners is not proof of the existence of god, it's strong evidence that multiple lotteries with many entrants exist.