3 ms·

I certainly am trending that way as I grow older. As I've recently started to re-dive into Christian theology, the fine-tuning argument seems more and more inte

I certainly am trending that way as I grow older. As I've recently started to re-dive into Christian theology, the fine-tuning argument seems more and more interesting, and it's pretty difficult to find "good" secular arguments against it.

roncesvalles 2y ago
Aside from the mountain of actual evidence, just to build a philosophical intuition against fine-tuning - you need to appreciate the enormous scale of trial and error at play. - The Earth seems like the perfect planet but looking out into the sky there are trillions of planets that aren't perfect at all. - Most likely the universe also appears "perfect" for the same reason - there must be a graveyard of universes where the parameters just didn't work out for life. - Evolution is much the same - many mutations occur all the time, most are fixed by cellular machinery, most that aren't are deleterious, but once in a while a helpful mutation emerges. Take a moment to understand the timescale involved. Don't just handwave away 3.8 billion years as some number - feel it, starting at 1 year and stepping up each order of magnitude. You will realize that a million years is essentially "forever ago", and we had 3800 of those to get here. Consider how many species exist that aren't civilizational sentient intelligence.
- _1tem 2y ago
  You’re misunderstanding the point about fine-tuning entirely. It doesn’t matter how many billions of years it took, if some of the parameters of fundamental physics were slightly different, even trillions of years would’ve resulted in nothing.
- beltsazar 2y ago
  Fine tuning for the earth might be able to be explained away most easily, like you said. Fine tuning for the universe, though... Firstly, we have zero evidence for multiverse. Some scientists even argue that the idea is untestable and unfalsifiable. When you said: > there must be a graveyard of universes where the parameters just didn't work out for life You just committed inverse gambler's fallacy. It's like: > You wake up with amnesia, with no clue as to how you got where you are. In front of you is a monkey bashing away on a typewriter, writing perfect English. This clearly requires explanation. You might think: “Maybe I’m dreaming … maybe this is a trained monkey … maybe it’s a robot.” What you would not think is “There must be lots of other monkeys around here, mostly writing nonsense.” You wouldn’t think this because what needs explaining is why this monkey—the only one you’ve actually observed—is writing English, and postulating other monkeys doesn’t explain what this monkey is doing. — https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-improbable-existence-is-no-evidence-for-a-multiverse/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-improbable-ex...
  - roncesvalles 2y ago
    Sure, but I think that's a form of arguing about semantics. Let's say I argue that our universe is fine-tuned because the constants of the universe were decided by dice roll and that there are a trillion other universes with no chance of life. What about the "substrate" within which these trillion universes formed? Wasn't it fine-tuned enough to give rise to at least one universe (ours) with life, just as our universe was fine-tuned enough to give rise to our planet? Now I could argue that actually there are a trillion such "universe substrates" and ours is the one that's fine-tuned. However, it's clear that eventually, everything must converge to a single base layer of existence that just so happens to be "fine-tuned" enough for everything above it to produce at least one instance of life. But this is trivial.
Terr_ 2y ago
I don't know, I think the arthropic principle is still going really strong: It's like this because if it wasn't we would be asking different questions or not around to ask at all. It's hard to consider something "so improbable that it must have been God" when we look out at a universe so incomprehensibly bigger that the real question becomes why we haven't evidence of it happening more.
- philsnow 2y ago
  I know it was just a typo but "arthropic principle" sounds like something from A Deepness in the Sky
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    That would dovetail with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation
- beltsazar 2y ago
  The anthropic principle is ridiculous. Suppose that, against all odds, you survive the worst plane crash in history. Then you ask NTSB what caused the crash and why you survived. They answer: "Nonsense! You wouldn’t have asked the questions if you hadn't survived." Questions stand alone, regardless of whether someone or something exists to ask them.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  As it's often used, the anthropic principle is fatally flawed. It often starts with an argument between a creationist (could also be an advocate of intelligent design, but I'll just call them the creationist) and an evolutionist. The creationist says, look, the origin of life by purely naturalistic means is ridiculously improbable (and therefore it's reasonable to consider the possibility that God did it). They trot out some generally-accepted scientific principle, do a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and come up with a number that is, in fact, ridiculously improbable. The evolutionist responds with the anthropic principle - if no life had arisen in this universe, we would not be here arguing about how life arose. This is clearly logically correct. It is also completely irrelevant. The creationist didn't argue that life couldn't have arisen in this universe. They argued that it could not have arisen by purely naturalistic means. They're arguing about how, not about whether. The creationist might answer: "Yes, I agree that if life had not arisen in this universe, either by creation or by naturalistic processes, then we would not be here having this conversation. But the question is, which way did life begin?" The anthropic principle doesn't address that issue whatsoever. It doesn't address that issue unless you add an assumption - that life had to begin by purely naturalistic means, that is, that the probability of creation is precisely zero. Then the anthropic principle is relevant, but then there's a new issue, that of begging the question. I suspect that this assumption is present on the side of everyone on the evolution side that pulls out the anthropic principle in an argument with a creationist, but I have never heard it explicitly stated. I'm not even sure the evolutionist realizes they're making an assumption - it's so ingrained in their world view that they can't think that the alternative might be possible. I grant you that the universe is huge and the evidence available is small. But that can turn into an "evolution of the gaps" argument quite easily, so I'm not sure you want to seriously use it.

roncesvalles 2y ago

Aside from the mountain of actual evidence, just to build a philosophical intuition against fine-tuning - you need to appreciate the enormous scale of trial and error at play. - The Earth seems like the perfect planet but looking out into the sky there are trillions of planets that aren't perfect at all. - Most likely the universe also appears "perfect" for the same reason - there must be a graveyard of universes where the parameters just didn't work out for life. - Evolution is much the same - many mutations occur all the time, most are fixed by cellular machinery, most that aren't are deleterious, but once in a while a helpful mutation emerges. Take a moment to understand the timescale involved. Don't just handwave away 3.8 billion years as some number - feel it, starting at 1 year and stepping up each order of magnitude. You will realize that a million years is essentially "forever ago", and we had 3800 of those to get here. Consider how many species exist that aren't civilizational sentient intelligence.

_1tem 2y ago
You’re misunderstanding the point about fine-tuning entirely. It doesn’t matter how many billions of years it took, if some of the parameters of fundamental physics were slightly different, even trillions of years would’ve resulted in nothing.
beltsazar 2y ago
Fine tuning for the earth might be able to be explained away most easily, like you said. Fine tuning for the universe, though... Firstly, we have zero evidence for multiverse. Some scientists even argue that the idea is untestable and unfalsifiable. When you said: > there must be a graveyard of universes where the parameters just didn't work out for life You just committed inverse gambler's fallacy. It's like: > You wake up with amnesia, with no clue as to how you got where you are. In front of you is a monkey bashing away on a typewriter, writing perfect English. This clearly requires explanation. You might think: “Maybe I’m dreaming … maybe this is a trained monkey … maybe it’s a robot.” What you would not think is “There must be lots of other monkeys around here, mostly writing nonsense.” You wouldn’t think this because what needs explaining is why this monkey—the only one you’ve actually observed—is writing English, and postulating other monkeys doesn’t explain what this monkey is doing. — https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-improbable-existence-is-no-evidence-for-a-multiverse/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-improbable-ex...
- roncesvalles 2y ago
  Sure, but I think that's a form of arguing about semantics. Let's say I argue that our universe is fine-tuned because the constants of the universe were decided by dice roll and that there are a trillion other universes with no chance of life. What about the "substrate" within which these trillion universes formed? Wasn't it fine-tuned enough to give rise to at least one universe (ours) with life, just as our universe was fine-tuned enough to give rise to our planet? Now I could argue that actually there are a trillion such "universe substrates" and ours is the one that's fine-tuned. However, it's clear that eventually, everything must converge to a single base layer of existence that just so happens to be "fine-tuned" enough for everything above it to produce at least one instance of life. But this is trivial.

Terr_ 2y ago

I don't know, I think the arthropic principle is still going really strong: It's like this because if it wasn't we would be asking different questions or not around to ask at all. It's hard to consider something "so improbable that it must have been God" when we look out at a universe so incomprehensibly bigger that the real question becomes why we haven't evidence of it happening more.

philsnow 2y ago
I know it was just a typo but "arthropic principle" sounds like something from A Deepness in the Sky
- Terr_ 2y ago
  That would dovetail with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation
beltsazar 2y ago
The anthropic principle is ridiculous. Suppose that, against all odds, you survive the worst plane crash in history. Then you ask NTSB what caused the crash and why you survived. They answer: "Nonsense! You wouldn’t have asked the questions if you hadn't survived." Questions stand alone, regardless of whether someone or something exists to ask them.
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
As it's often used, the anthropic principle is fatally flawed. It often starts with an argument between a creationist (could also be an advocate of intelligent design, but I'll just call them the creationist) and an evolutionist. The creationist says, look, the origin of life by purely naturalistic means is ridiculously improbable (and therefore it's reasonable to consider the possibility that God did it). They trot out some generally-accepted scientific principle, do a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and come up with a number that is, in fact, ridiculously improbable. The evolutionist responds with the anthropic principle - if no life had arisen in this universe, we would not be here arguing about how life arose. This is clearly logically correct. It is also completely irrelevant. The creationist didn't argue that life couldn't have arisen in this universe. They argued that it could not have arisen by purely naturalistic means. They're arguing about how, not about whether. The creationist might answer: "Yes, I agree that if life had not arisen in this universe, either by creation or by naturalistic processes, then we would not be here having this conversation. But the question is, which way did life begin?" The anthropic principle doesn't address that issue whatsoever. It doesn't address that issue unless you add an assumption - that life had to begin by purely naturalistic means, that is, that the probability of creation is precisely zero. Then the anthropic principle is relevant, but then there's a new issue, that of begging the question. I suspect that this assumption is present on the side of everyone on the evolution side that pulls out the anthropic principle in an argument with a creationist, but I have never heard it explicitly stated. I'm not even sure the evolutionist realizes they're making an assumption - it's so ingrained in their world view that they can't think that the alternative might be possible. I grant you that the universe is huge and the evidence available is small. But that can turn into an "evolution of the gaps" argument quite easily, so I'm not sure you want to seriously use it.