Fine Tuned For Life? Surely not! Off Topic? Definitely!

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

They don't, not the way you are presenting it. You are fundamentally misrepresenting these scientists.

The scientists you mention don't think the universe was actually fine tuned for a purpose. "Fine tuned" is a lay-man's term for the way the different properties of the universe work to form the universe we are currently in, rather than some other universe.

It's like saying "All scientists think there was a loud bang at the start of the universe" because you came across the "Big Bang" theory. :rolleyes:

Sorry, you are the one misrepresenting my position and frankly your analogy is typically sneering and condescending but at this stage I would not expect anything else from you.

If you go back to my post #10 I clearly say the majority of astrophysicists accept the fine tuning argument. I also identified a few scientists who use it as justification for their personal worldviews, Haisch (a theist) who argues for a creator conclusion and Stenger (an atheist) who argues that the fine tuning argument is a fallacy.

Maybe a good start is defining what the "fine tuning argument" is in scientific terms rather than lay man's terms. From the above article by Luke Barnes "The claim is that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits the evolution of intelligent life is very small". That is all the "fine tuning argument" says and the vast majority of astrophysicists, with the notable exception of Victor Stenger, accept this.

My initial mention of this topic was in response to the opening post on the original thread this thread sprang from where the poster defined themselves as "100% atheist". Given we do not know how our universe emerged and why it has the specific set of parameters it has, I do not accept that a 100% atheist position is credible. My personal worldview is independent from this observation, an observation which I believe even Dawkins would agree with.

Morbert

nagirrac wrote: »

Sorry, you are the one misrepresenting my position and frankly your analogy is typically sneering and condescending but at this stage I would not expect anything else from you.

If you go back to my post #10 I clearly say the majority of astrophysicists accept the fine tuning argument. I also identified a few scientists who use it as justification for their personal worldviews, Haisch (a theist) who argues for a creator conclusion and Stenger (an atheist) who argues that the fine tuning argument is a fallacy.

Maybe a good start is defining what the "fine tuning argument" is in scientific terms rather than lay man's terms. From the above article by Luke Barnes "The claim is that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits the evolution of intelligent life is very small". That is all the "fine tuning argument" says and the vast majority of astrophysicists, with the notable exception of Victor Stenger, accept this.

My initial mention of this topic was in response to the opening post on the original thread this thread sprang from where the poster defined themselves as "100% atheist". Given we do not know how our universe emerged and why it has the specific set of parameters it has, I do not accept that a 100% atheist position is credible. My personal worldview is independent from this observation, an observation which I believe even Dawkins would agree with.

Note that this is categorically distinct from the fine tuning argument as tendered as an argument against atheism, which claims a supernatural intelligence is required to fine tune the universe.

nagirrac

Morbert wrote: »

nagirrac, you are completely misrepresenting the scientific position on "fine tuning".

But this is where your side goes spectacularly wrong. You insist an explanation must be tendered for materialism to be a valid position, but have no answer to the equivalent question "Why is there a God, rather than nothing?"

If I am, I assure you it is not deliberate. I try and separate my personal beliefs from what science has established but on occasion they get muddled. I do think it is very healthy for scientists to speculate however.

I am not sure what you mean by "my side", perhaps you can elaborate?

If we do not know why the universe exists or how it came into being, how can one side of an discussion on the liklihood of a creator be "wrong" and the other side "right"?

nagirrac

Morbert wrote: »

Note that this is categorically distinct from the fine tuning argument as tendered as an argument against atheism, which claims a supernatural intelligence is required to fine tune the universe.

I agree, that is a philosophical argument, not a scientific argument.

Dades

^^ So do you accept that any "fine-tuning" as referenced by scientists (with the obvious exception of theistic scientists) is not a concept that should be hijacked by someone trying to show evidence for a creator outside of science?

Naz_st

nagirrac wrote: »

"The claim is that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits the evolution of intelligent life is very small"

Yes, but so what? I don't understand what this definition has to do with your original post that seemed to suggest that this above statement had some bearing on the God question?

I could rephrase your statement:

"The claim is that in the space of possible [configurations of DNA] the set that [makes me] is [of size 1]".

So? Does the almost impossible odds of my exact DNA existing mean I don't exist? Or that God does? Does it have any bearing on either question? I don't see how.

Morbert

nagirrac wrote: »

If I am, I assure you it is not deliberate. I try and separate my personal beliefs from what science has established but on occasion they get muddled. I do think it is very healthy for scientists to speculate however.

I am not sure what you mean by "my side", perhaps you can elaborate?

If we do not know why the universe exists or how it came into being, how can one side of an discussion on the liklihood of a creator be "wrong" and the other side "right"?

Just as I would argue against any inference of God from cosmology, I would similarly argue against any inference of atheism from cosmology.

nagirrac

Dades wrote: »

^^ So do you accept that any "fine-tuning" as referenced by scientists (with the obvious exception of theistic scientists) is not a concept that should be hijacked by someone trying to show evidence for a creator outside of science?

There are very few scientists who bring their religious views into their science, so not sure why you are excluding theistic scientists. Religious or deist views do not make people "good" or "bad" scientists, just as atheist views do not make people "good" or "bad" scientists.

In general terms I would agree with your point above, but for balance this also applies to Dawkins for example constantly hijacking science to make an argument for evidence against a creator. Furthermore he uses science to scorn religious beliefs when it has been demonstrated over and over in debates with leading theologians this is a subject area he is clueless on.

Fundamentally I do not like science being hijacked to defend or attack religious or spiritual beliefs and regard all hijacking as unfortunate and frankly a bit ignorant on both sides. The debate about God is a philosophical one not a scientific one, at least until we have some objective proof one way or another. I see no problem however using the fine tuning scientific argument or any scientific argument to demonstrate "philosophically" we do not know whether a creator exists or not, which is in essence what I was doing in my original post. That is an agnostic position.

nagirrac

Naz_st wrote: »

"The claim is that in the space of possible [configurations of DNA] the set that [makes me] is [of size 1]".

So? Does the almost impossible odds of my exact DNA existing mean I don't exist? Or that God does? Does it have any bearing on either question? I don't see how.

The fine tuning argument simply says that there is a very small set of physical parameters that allow life in our known universe to emerge and that is the set we have, however that came about.

You should know surely how you came about and why you have the DNA you have. It is not almost impossible odds, once your parents decided on a certain course of action, the odds of your exact DNA existing became quite high.

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

If fine tuning is a religious argument why would professed atheist scientists not just propose it and accept it but even go to the lengths of writing books about it? Martin Rees is an atheist and yet has written the most comprehensive book on the subject.

Zombrex responded to this point.

nagirrac wrote: »

If you actually read my posts you would see I have never made such an argument. The multiverse hypothesis provide an alternative to fine tuning, in exactly the way you describe, eventually you get the right set of parameters for a universe like ours.

So you are not suggesting the multiverse theory supports the argument for fine tuning? OK, this wasn't very clear, but thank you for clarifying.
What is your opinion on the multiverse theory then? Do you think it successfully contradicts the fine tuned argument?

nagirrac wrote: »

String theory is not related to fine tuning, it is related to multiverses. String theory fails in a universe with 3 spatial dimensions, thus the need to expand the number of spatial dimensions which allow parallel universes. Unlike fine tuning there is no experimental evidence for multiple spatial dimensions beyond our known 3 and no evidence for parallel universes.

There can be no evidence for fine tuning. Because, as you said, the argument is not for fine tuning its for the appearance of fine tuning. You can't present scientific evidence for something appearing to be something, (it would immediately and successfully countered by someone saying that that something appeared to be something else). You give scientific evidence for what something actually is.

nagirrac wrote: »

I am not accusing you of it but the majority of responses on this topic do not seem to grasp what fine tuning is. It has nothing to do with evolution, abiogenesis, the specific kind of life form in the universe, etc. It is solely related to the experimentally observed values of physical constants at the beginning of our universe. It is not an argument against life as we know it evolving based on the environment, in fact it supports it.

And that is a religious argument. Specifically pointing out that life (exactly like ours) will only arise with the universal constants we experience only matters if you assume life to be important (over anything else in the universe). But everything in the universe will only arise like it is with the universal constants there currently are. So why is life so special?

Besides, going by what is actually most abundant in this universe, if you are going to argue its fine tuned, then the only logical thing you can say it is fine tuned for is space/time itself.

nagirrac

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you are not suggesting the multiverse theory supports the argument for fine tuning? OK, this wasn't very clear, but thank you for clarifying.
What is your opinion on the multiverse theory then? Do you think it successfully contradicts the fine tuned argument?

In the article I posted earlier the conclusion of the author is that the universe is finely tuned for the existance of life (not a specific form of life). He goes on to speculate whether future developments in physics "would solve the problem of fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life, without the need for a multiverse". There is no conclusion reached there.

I agree with the author's conclusion as there is a wealth of supporting solid experimental evidence that is falsifiable to support it. I would enourage you if you have the time to read the article as it is a very good overview and cites every important paper published on the topic.

There is no supporting experimental evidence for string theory or the multiverse hypothesis at this time and neither can be falsified. So my conclusion has to be no, at this time I do not think the multiverse hypothesis contradicts the fine tuning argument.

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

"The claim is that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits the evolution of intelligent life is very small".

But you could equally say "The claim is that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits honey is very small". Why is life so special?

The true, non religious claim is:
"that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits our specific universe is very small".
But even if the set that permits our specific universe is unique, does that actually mean anything? No two rain drops will ever fall along the exact same path, rotate the exact same way, strike the ground with the exact same force, does this make any individual raindrop special?

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

If we do not know why the universe exists or how it came into being, how can one side of an discussion on the liklihood of a creator be "wrong" and the other side "right"?

Well one side of such an argument (no one knows the right answer) can be shown to be wrong (fallacious reasoning) but that wouldn't make the other side right (that would be a false dichotomy).

nagirrac

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But you could equally say "The claim is that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits honey is very small". Why is life so special?

The true, non religious claim is:
"that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits our specific universe is very small".
But even if the set that permits our specific universe is unique, does that actually mean anything? No two rain drops will ever fall along the exact same path, rotate the exact same way, strike the ground with the exact same force, does this make any individual raindrop special?

Read the article and we can discuss further, I am not getting into a philosophical discussion on the relative merits of raindrops or life.

The scientific (not religious) claim is: "in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits intelligent life is small".

The conclusion of the author after an exhaustive review of the literature and a thorough refutation of Stenger's falsification of the fine tuning argument is: "We conclude that that the universe is fine tuned for the existance of life". Because (I assume) sufficient evidence is not there, he does not conclude that the universe is fine tuned for intelligent life.

I would imagine most people would say life is special and intelligent life is even more special

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

In the article I posted earlier the conclusion of the author is that the universe is finely tuned for the existance of life (not a specific form of life). He goes on to speculate whether future developments in physics "would solve the problem of fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life, without the need for a multiverse". There is no conclusion reached there.

Why does the argument go from only fine tuned for life (non specific) but then to intelligent life (ie specific)?

The author says in the conclusion (pg 63):
"Anthropic coincidences, on the other hand, involve a happy consonance between a physical quantity and the requirements of complex, embodied intelligent life. The anthropic coincidences are so arresting because we are accustomed to thinking of physical laws and initial conditions as being unconcerned with how things turn out.".
This seems very similar to the intelligent design argument that human life is too complex to arise naturally, that it had to be designed, as it implies the importance of complex intelligent to physical laws and initial conditions. Even if it turned out that there is only one possible, but random universe and our permutation of constants and conditions was the one to arise, why would that assume that those constants and conditions were concerned with how things turned out?

The article also contradicts your earlier statement that the fine tuned argument is only about the appearance of fine tuning. In the conclusion (Pg 63) the author says :"We conclude that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life".

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

Read the article and we can discuss further, I am not getting into a philosophical discussion on the relative merits of raindrops or life.

It is not a philosophical discussion, its a scientific discussion. Scientifically, life is just a set of physical properties, no more special than nuclear fusion* so why would a scientific astrophysical argument centre on it?

* If anything, given that stars outnumber humans by about 30,000,000,000,000 to 1, nuclear fusion should be considered far more special than life, if you are going to talk about the universe being fine tuned for anything.

nagirrac wrote: »

I would imagine most people would say life is special and intelligent life is even more special

"Special" is a subjective human notion, so saying that humans consider themselves special is pretty irrelevant.

nagirrac

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why does the argument go from only fine tuned for life (non specific) but then to intelligent life (ie specific)?

The article also contradicts your earlier statement that the fine tuned argument is only about the appearance of fine tuning. In the conclusion (Pg 63) the author says :"We conclude that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life".

I accept my prior use of the word assume may be misleading. However, the distinction is what kind of life are we referring to.

again, the claim of the fine tuning argument is that fine tuning leads to intelligent life or "life as we know it". I would say "appears" to lead to intelligent life or "life as we know it" (my words, not the article).

"Life as we know it" is the only life we are aware of, so while fine tuning could have (and perhaps has) led to a variety of life in the universe, we only know our form of life emerged.

The fine tuning argument can logically be used to argue for the existance or for the non existance of a creator. It is used a lot by theists which I imagine is why there is such resistance from atheists to the argument.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

The fine tuning argument can logically be used to argue for the existance or for the non existance of a creator.

Can you clarify your use of the word "logically" there, since in regular logic, it's not possible to use the same facts to support opposite conclusions.

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

Can you clarify your use of the word "logically" there, since in regular logic, it's not possible to use the same facts to support opposite conclusions.

I suppose on the surface it does seem to violate the law of non-contradiction, what do you think yourself?

Theist: The universe is fine tuned for life so therefore it must have been fine tuned by some intelligent entity, that entity must be God.

Atheist: Although the universe is fine tuned for life, it is due to a natural process and requires no designer.

I don't think its a cortradiction as one case is arguing for a God cause and the other for a natural cause.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

Theist: The universe is fine tuned for life so therefore it must have been fine tuned by some intelligent entity, that entity must be God.

Atheist: Although the universe is fine tuned for life, it is due to a natural process and requires no designer.

Rephrasing these two items slightly:

Theist: (a) the universe is "fine tuned"; (b) "fine tuning" requires "an intelligence"; (c) this "intelligence" is the same deity as described in my holybook.
Atheist: (d) the universe is "fine tuned"; (e) "fine tuning" does not require "an intelligence".

I have no idea what you're trying to do here, since (a), (b) and (c) are unrelated factual claims and are not connected by logic; same for (d) and (e). And that's ignoring that (d) is a view which is not held by any atheists or scientists I know of.

Otherwise, well, recycling a post from a few years back:

Near the mid-Atlantic Ridge,
There's a hydrothermal vent,
With there lives a small amoeba
Who wondered what it meant.

He pondered all around him,
Surveying the wide, deep sea,
Then finally concluded,
"The whole lot's made for ME!".

Dades

nagirrac wrote: »

There are very few scientists who bring their religious views into their science, so not sure why you are excluding theistic scientists. Religious or deist views do not make people "good" or "bad" scientists, just as atheist views do not make people "good" or "bad" scientists.

Theistic scientists obviously believe there is a creator already so I don't think it's too unfair too assume their views on fine-tuning are somewhat fixed.

nagirrac wrote: »

In general terms I would agree with your point above, but for balance this also applies to Dawkins for example constantly hijacking science to make an argument for evidence against a creator. Furthermore he uses science to scorn religious beliefs when it has been demonstrated over and over in debates with leading theologians this is a subject area he is clueless on.

Dawkins only uses science to debunk things suggested in support of a creator. Science says nothing about a god or a creator, but religious people make claims that science will show to be simply untrue.

Regarding being clueless of theology... really? Leaving aside the fact hat he knows more about religion than the vast majority of *believers*, theology is not a subject that anyone outside of it feels they have to accept as anything but someone else's wordy nonsense. It's myth masqueraded as fact, disguised as debate.

nagirrac wrote: »

Fundamentally I do not like science being hijacked to defend or attack religious or spiritual beliefs and regard all hijacking as unfortunate and frankly a bit ignorant on both sides. The debate about God is a philosophical one not a scientific one, at least until we have some objective proof one way or another. I see no problem however using the fine tuning scientific argument or any scientific argument to demonstrate "philosophically" we do not know whether a creator exists or not, which is in essence what I was doing in my original post. That is an agnostic position.

Were you not the one to bring it up? Aren't you the one hijacking science?

Nobody knows, and ever claims to.

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

And that's ignoring that (d) is a view which is not held by any atheists or scientists I know of.

Perhaps its true of the atheists you know of, but the vast majority of astrophysicists accept that the universe is fine tuned for life with the notable exception of Victor Stenger who has been soundely rubbished in the article I posted earlier.

Read the article, there is no question the universe is fine tuned for life, the question is how that occured. It is an exhaustive review of the science relating to the fine tuning argument. If you don't have time to read the whole article at least read the introduction and conclusions (pages 62-63).

The rest of your post makes no sense to me, maybe its me. Why is it so hard to understand that the fine tuning of such a wide range of parameters (that could have any values) suggests either a designer or is a naturally occuring event?

nagirrac

Dades wrote: »

Theistic scientists obviously believe there is a creator already so I don't think it's too unfair too assume their views on fine-tuning are somewhat fixed.

OK, I give up.

If you could take off your atheist blinkers for a minute, no scientist worth his salt brings belief or disbelief in a supernatural entity into science. The proof of this is that the majority of the work done to demonstrate experimentally that the universe is fine tuned for life was done by atheists!

I did not hijack science in my opening post. I suggested to someone that described themselves as 100% atheist that their position may not have credibility, given how many open questions (fine tuning being one) there are regarding how and why the universe came into being in the fashion it did. Science may someday or may never answer these questions.

That is a purely agnostic statement and one that any agnostic athiest would understand and accept (even Dawkins with his 6.9 score), opposition to which suggests to me that much of the opposing opinion here, including your own, represents a dogmatic atheist worldview, on a forum where supposedly none exists.

If that gets me a ban, so be it.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

The rest of your post makes no sense to me, maybe its me.

I was going to try and break my last post down into even simpler pieces, but to be honest, after reading it again a few times, it's as simple as I can make it.

I'm assuming here, btw, that "fine-tuned" means "fine-tuned-for-us", the same sense that the term is used by the religious. It is not used in that sense by that small number of careless physicists who misuse semi-religious terminology to make a lously point, poorly.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

If you could take off your atheist blinkers for a minute [...] represents a dogmatic atheist worldview [...]

When I warned you against using tediously predictable sleights yesterday, I was trying to help you move on from the desperately small set of tiresome cliches that most posters here would be embarrassed to produce once, let alone with the regularity you do.

At a certain stage, and it happens very early on, most posters actually feel rather embarrassed that some other poster will continue cliche'ing away and apparently cheerfully unaware of it.

Dades

nagirrac wrote: »

If that gets me a ban, so be it.

Eh? You'll need to try harder than that.

joseph brand

nagirrac wrote: »

Nothing constructive to offer then?
Sadly predictable that attacking the poster is perfectly acceptable on this forum so long as one agrees with the dogmatic atheist mindset.
Pathetic, and almost cult like, behavior.

Said he, with his tongue wedged firmly in his cheek.

I like you, you're funny.

joseph brand

oldrnwisr wrote: »

1. Time[/B]

So far we are 13.75+/-0.11 billion years into our current universe. Our current best guess for the timeframe for the end of this universe (heat death) is approximately 10^100 years. So when we consider the length of time during this period in which life is possible we can see that the universe can only sustain life for one thousand billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billionth of the total lifespan of the universe. That's hardly fine-tuned now is it?

2. Fundamental forces

To get back to my previous post, fine-tuning proponents always talk about adjusting parameters by "a few percent" and life being impossible. So what if we start scrapping parameters entirely.

Here for example is what happens if we scrap the weak nuclear force:

A universe without weak interactions



Now, how this happened is something like this:

1. A light sensitive patch of skin develops conferring an evolutionary advantage on the creature by allowing it to distinguish light from dark.
2. Through the process of selection, the light sensitive patch becomes a shallow depression in the skin, allowing for some basic directionality, allowing the creature to sense movement and possibly evade predators.
3. Next, the increased advantage gained by directionality is exploited and the depression becomes deeper and deeper until it becomes like a pinhole camera allowing for maximum information to be gained.
4. Next, the mucus produced by the cells accumulates due to the narrowed opening.
5. Then, the mucus hardens and forms a primitive lens which acts to concentrate the incoming light.
6. After this, the cells forming the interior surface of the eye become free to move relative to the surrounding tissue, allowing for an even greater field of vision.
7. Finally, the increasing use of movement of the eye leads to the development of muscle tissue around both the eye exterior and lens, putting both under control of the creature. We now have an eye similar to our own.

I didn't believe in a god, but now I do. He is both older AND wiser. I call you the 'Platinum Poster'.

Can't believe this is my first time reading about the development of the eye. Fascinating.

Tip for the OP: If your views are counter to 'oldrnwisr', give it up. Pour yourself a whiskey, have a smoke and lay back.

nagirrac

A theist, a deist and an atheist return from the pub and find their living room inhabited by a clock, a device they have never encountered before. They eagerly take the cover off and marvel at the inner workings.

Theist: Glory to God, proof at last of my Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah/Zeus

Deist: This was obviously designed by a very intelligent being, more intelligent than I am. I wonder how it works?

Atheist: Who left the fcuking window open. That was some wind that blew through the house and made this thing out of the siht that was lying on the floor.

nagirrac

joseph brand wrote: »

Tip for the OP: If your views are counter to 'oldrnwisr', give it up. Pour yourself a whiskey, have a smoke and lay back.

I am actually going for the smoke as I prefer that first and then move on to wine and then possibly (but probably) whiskey. It has been a long tiresome day on here trying to educate people.

I am a big admirer of oldrnwiser. He is a great poster, steeped in science. His speciality and primary interest is Evolutionary Biology which means he likely hates physics, especially those waffling astrophysicists. I am sure he will read the "fine tuned" article I posted earlier and give us some of his wisdom. Don't expect it to be as much of a slam dunk though as debating evolution with some of your other much loved cannon fodder.