4 ms·

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 l

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.
    - knightoffaith 3y ago
      Yes, right, exactly, this is the kind of explanation that I've been saying is warranted spelling out. And there's a lot to discuss here - what does it even mean for a multitude of parallel universes to exist? why should we believe that's something that's possible? how does it work exactly? what are the implications of such a theory? is there any rigorous science we can do to flesh out how this works? and other questions. And people have written a lot on this topic.
  - f30e3dfed1c9 3y ago
    > saying that the constants are what they are not being a very low probability event isn't pure speculation? I am not suggesting that that is the case. You are speculating here, I am not. > I don't see why it's not fruitful to spell out why this analogy is unhelpful. Not the way it works. Your analogy, your burden. > 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? I am not speculating that either of those is or is not the case. You speculate because it gets you to the conclusion that you clearly want. I have no such need. > I think if someone postulates something intuitive Your speculation is not actually "intuitive." You describe it that way only because it is to your liking. > but false, regardless of their motivations, it's better to address why it's false instead of shutting down discussion. Depends on the discussion. As for this one, I will decline to continue it further.

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.
  - knightoffaith 3y ago
    Yes, right, exactly, this is the kind of explanation that I've been saying is warranted spelling out. And there's a lot to discuss here - what does it even mean for a multitude of parallel universes to exist? why should we believe that's something that's possible? how does it work exactly? what are the implications of such a theory? is there any rigorous science we can do to flesh out how this works? and other questions. And people have written a lot on this topic.
- f30e3dfed1c9 3y ago
  > saying that the constants are what they are not being a very low probability event isn't pure speculation? I am not suggesting that that is the case. You are speculating here, I am not. > I don't see why it's not fruitful to spell out why this analogy is unhelpful. Not the way it works. Your analogy, your burden. > 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? I am not speculating that either of those is or is not the case. You speculate because it gets you to the conclusion that you clearly want. I have no such need. > I think if someone postulates something intuitive Your speculation is not actually "intuitive." You describe it that way only because it is to your liking. > but false, regardless of their motivations, it's better to address why it's false instead of shutting down discussion. Depends on the discussion. As for this one, I will decline to continue it further.