Naturally Fine Tuned for Life - A Defence of Metaphysical Naturalism

roosh

I've written a paper on the fine tuning argument and would welcome any thoughts or comments. Ideally, I would like to get it published in a journal, so if anyone has any specific feedback in that regard, I would greatly value it. I've set up a feedback session on PhilPapers, if anyone is interested (or just comment here):

https://philpeople.org/access_tokens/jER4FejVn_R3v8xJi3NIEHHO6XDvzH-xP03PWquKoyVyTwTvGGIPXpzHu151Og1rzZ6-zO67ZTfaG63BAGvAnQ

This paper attempts to demonstrate why the theistic Fine Tune Argument fails. However, if the key assumption of the FTA is granted, it is possible to infer a Multiverse.

https://philpapers.org/rec/COLNFT-3

Hotblack Desiato

Douglas Adams dismissed the fine-tuning argument far better than I ever could:

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/70827-this-is-rather-as-if-you-imagine-a-puddle-waking

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

roosh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119813598#Comment_119813598

While I agree with the sentiment, the problem with the puddle analogy is that the emergence of the water in the first place doesn't depend on the initial conditions of the hole.

If the nuclear forces weren't what they are, for example, atoms wouldn't hold together.

magicbastarder

why not make your argument here?

robindch

the problem with the puddle analogy is that the emergence of the water in the first place doesn't depend on the initial conditions of the hole.

The origin of the water has nothing to do with the puddle analogy.

roosh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119815807#Comment_119815807

That's the issue. That's why the puddle analogy doesn't work, because the initial conditions of the Universe do have something to do with the emergence of life.

robindch

*gives up*

roosh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119843375#Comment_119843375

Probably wise if there's no valid response.

Just for posterity. The reason the puddle analogy doesn't work is because for puddles, water fills a hole and takes on the shape of the hole. The size of the hole doesn't matter, the water will take on the shape of the hole regardless. In this analogy, the existence of the water is a given, its presence isn't dependent on the dimensions of the hole.

With regard to the fine tuning argument, life is not something that is poured into the Universe, it emerges from it. The fine tuning argument takes the position that if the parameters of the Universe were ever so slightly different, life would not have emerged because gravity would have been too strong/weak, atoms would not have bound together, etc.

In the context of the puddle analogy, it would be like saying water only appears in holes of a certain size and there is a very narrow range for a water permitting hole. The water would have to emerge from the hole (not be poured in). Varying the dimensions of the hole would mean that there would be no water.

Hotblack Desiato

Is this the only universe that has ever, or will ever exist, or just one among a possible multitude of universes?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119911099#Comment_119911099

How could we possibly know? Genuine question.

Seems to me that anything we can empirically observe, directly or indirectly, is not another universe; just a remote or exotic part of our universe. We can postulate that other universes exist, if their existence provides an answer to otherwise hard-to-answer questions of cosmology, but we can never empirically verify that they do (or do not) exist because, if we could, they would not be distinct universes.

(Unless cosmologists use "universe' to mean something different from what I understand it to mean. In which case, what does it mean?)

Hotblack Desiato

Well, that's just it isn't it - we can't know because anything outside our universe cannot possibly be observable. We can't know whether the fine-tuning argument is being postulated for this one and only universe, or just one out of numerous (possibly infinite in number) universes. In the latter case the anthropic principle applies - of course everything appears to be just right to create the universe we observe, because we are here to observe it. Just as the hole fits the puddle. But there could be any number of 'failed' universes out there too.

Looked at another way it's like saying "Isn't it amazing that everything on Earth was 'just so' in order that humans could evolve" when (a) the evolution of humans was far from pre-ordained in any non-theistic view (b) it's looking down the wrong end of the telescope. Now that we know there are vast numbers of potentially Earth-like planets out there, there must be a large number of planets where complex life could evolve.

Peregrinus

But, then, it seems to me that the multiverse hypothesis for explaining the existing of a universe capable of supporting us is just as speculative, just as faith-based, as the God/intelligent designer hypothesis. In both cases there is, and can be, no empirical evidence by which the hypothesis can be verified or falsified. Neither can claim to be more scientifically respectable than the other.

Or am I missing something?

Hotblack Desiato

Well, no, I don't think you are. I'm not putting a multiverse hypothesis forward as such, just saying that as long as we can't rule it out (and how would we do that?) it renders the notion of a universe being fine-tuned as not all that special, there could be any number of universes.

I'm multiverse agnostic-apathetic I suppose.

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119918598#Comment_119918598

I'd disagree with this. While neither multiverse hypotheses nor claims of God / Intelligent Design are supported by empirical evidence, much of what is claimed by those advocating the mythology surrounding the God / Intelligent Design hypothesis is directly contradicted by empirical evidence. e.g. the age of the planet Earth, Noah's ark etc... Over the course of time, an increasing number of claims made by Christianity as being literally true have been dismissed and are now considered allegorical. With respect to intelligent design (not capitalised), it does not imply or even support the notion of a Christian God. The mice in the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy for example provide another possible solution for intelligent design.

Similarly, if we have many unsupported hypotheses that we consider tenuous does this imply that they are all equally preposterous? For example is the belief in the tooth fairy or the flying spaghetti monster or the mice in Hitchhiker's any more or less preposterous that the belief in the Christian God, Allah or Vishnu? If we allow for a scale on how tenuous varying unsupported hypotheses are, how are we to graduate such a scale?

Lastly, most of those proposing a multiverse hypothesis do it on the basis that it is a philosophically derived possibility as opposed to hard fact or indisputable truth. Those proposing God / Intelligent Design do it on the basis of supporting a pre-existing belief system which they do consider indisputable truth.

Peregrinus

The question I'm asking is not whether the multiverse hypothesis and the Creator God hypothesis are equally preposterous. It's whether they are equally unscientific.

I'm asking this with respect to the hypotheses themselves, not with respect to your characterisations of those who advance them.

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119929761#Comment_119929761

Well, no, while both are speculative they are not equally unscientific. If we take science as based around observation of the universe that we are part of, multiverse hypotheses has neither supporting nor contradictory observational evidence as we can only observe this universe. Christianity has made many claims about this(or the) universe which are contradicted by observation, e.g. the age of the planet, that we are all descendants from Adam and Eve, Noah's ark etc.... Christian creationist mythology is not compatible with our accumulated scientific understanding of our universe.

I would also not consider comparison of religious belief to be compatible with scientific method as it does not invite rigorous testing and interrogation of its fundamentals. Science does not demand faith.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119929761#Comment_119929761

The multiverse is unscientific as it neither observable nor testable.

ohnonotgmail

this article seems relevant

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/26/physicist-sabine-hossenfelder-there-are-quite-a-few-areas-where-physics-blurs-into-religion-multiverse

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119930085#Comment_119930085

I don't know that I can put this any more simply. I am just asking about the multiverse hypothesis and the creation ex nihilo hypothesis. I'm not asking about the age of the universe, or the descent of humanity, or the flood. I'm not asking about the characteristics you impute to any or all of the people who advance any or all of these hypotheses. If your reason for regarding the multiverse hypothesis is that you don't like the people who advance the creation ex nihilo hypothesis or that you reject hypotheses that aren't being asked about but that you associate with people who advance the creation ex nihilo hypothesis — well, those are not valid reasons for regarding the multiverse as more scientifically respectable, are they?

Let me try one more time: is there anything in the two hypotheses themselves which gives one of them greater scientific credibility or validity than the other?

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119930272#Comment_119930272

As per the article linked by ohnonotgmail, the multiverse hypothesis is ascientific as it is unsupported by observation. While the creation ex nihilo hypothesis can be described similarly, what follows it in terms of claims made by Christian and other Abrahamic mythologies often does run contrary to scientific understanding. I'd consider both to lie in the realms of philosophy rather than science. While I appreciate you are trying to keep creation ex nihilo distinct from the religious belief system from which it originates, I'm not convinced the two are so readily separable.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119930839#Comment_119930839

This is fair, but we could equally make the point that a preference for the multiverse hypothesis can equally be driven by commitment to an unscientific, or ascientific, belief system.

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119933807#Comment_119933807

Also fair, though creation ex nihilo (by God) would seem to be taken as a given rather than a hypothesis by many of those that advocate it as a mechanism to support their religion whereas, so far as I'm aware, even those who advocate for any of the multiverse hypotheses still consider them to be entirely hypothetical. Personally, I consider both to be philosophical speculation, though I'd see more cognitive bias in those advocating for creation ex nihilo as I consider it done in support of a tenuous religious position, notably by Christian 'Scientists' and young earthers. Searching for peer reviewed articles on creation ex nihilio brought up this article in Science Direct, which interestingly makes no mention of God or a creator. While somewhat unusual, this makes it distinct from your original God/intelligent designer hypothesis. i.e. creation ex nihilio does not demand the existence of a god or a creator, nor does it imply intelligent design.

Peregrinus

Let me take a step back. I was probably unwise to use the term "creation ex nihilo".

In this thread (as the thread title indicates) we are starting from the observation that various fundamental constants of the universe are such that, if they varied even by a very small amount, the universe would not be stable and would not be capable of developing conscious life. There is no a priori reason why the fundamental constants of the universe have to be as they are. Is it just an incredibly fortuitous coincidence, then, that the one universe that exists has the constants it does, and so is stable and capable of supporting the evolution of consciousness?

One possible answer to this question, obviously, is "yes, it's an incredibly fortuitous coincidence", and I don't think that answer can be (scientifically) refuted. But if you're not happy with incredible fortuitous coincidences then there are (at least) two other possible answers.

One is the multiverse hypothesis — "this is not the only universe that ever existed; there are many". I think one variant of the hypothesis holds that one all possible universes exist. On this view, it is not at all unlikely that the conscious-life-supporting universe would exist; it is likely or even inevitable. And it is of course inevitable that the universe that we observe will be such a universe.

The second is the intelligent design hypothesis — the happy setting of the fundamental constants is not an incredibly fortuitous coincidence; it is intentional.

Both hypotheses involve speculation about unobserved and unobservable realities — one, a large and possibly infinite number of other universes; the other, an intentional being with the capacity to influence the fundamental constants of this universe. Both speculations seem, if we're honest, pretty extravagant in terms of the scale and significance of what they speculate, but I guess that's cosmology for you. Everything in cosmology is extravagant, so perhaps cosmologists are conditioned to accept philosophical extravagance as well.

In the necessary absence of any scientific reason for accepting either hypothesis, which do you prefer? (This is the generic "you", not you, smacl.) I suggest the answer to that question can't tell us anything about either hypothesis, but it may reveal much about the person answering the question.

William of Ockham would point out that we shouldn't be postulating unnecessary entities. What is it that makes postulating either the multiverse or the intentional creator necessary? Only our reluctance to accept the "happy coincidence" explanation.

Theists who already believe in a creator God might favour the intentional design hypothesis because it accords with their existing beliefs. Both from a scientific point of view and from Ockham's point of view, that's not a good reason for favouring this thesis. But what of the non-theists who favour the multiverse hypothesis? They might favour the multiverse hypothesis because it affords them an alternative to the intentional design hypothesis, which is at odds with their existing beliefs. But what is it that stops them accepting the "happy coincidence" account, which from both a scientific and Ockhamistic point of view, is perfectly cromulent?

smacl

Theists who already believe in a creator God might favour the intentional design hypothesis because it accords with their existing beliefs. Both from a scientific point of view and from Ockham's point of view, that's not a good reason for favouring this thesis. But what of the non-theists who favour the multiverse hypothesis? They might favour the multiverse hypothesis because it affords them an alternative to the intentional design hypothesis, which is at odds with their existing beliefs. But what is it that stops them accepting the "happy coincidence" account, which from both a scientific and Ockhamistic point of view, is perfectly cromulent?

This really comes back to my original response to you in this thread. If we 'plump' for a hypothesis such as Intelligent Design by the Christian God based on a preferred pre-existing narrative, it invites us to look at other claims within that narrative to see how well they accord with our current understanding of our universe. We might as well say the universe was blown out of the nose of Great Green Arkleseizure if we looking for alternatives to a multiverse hypothesis. While multiverse hypotheses are tenuous they stack up better than Intelligent Design by the Christian God for the following reasons

• Multiverse hypotheses are considered no more than entirely hypothetical possibilities, not truth or fact. Some may consider them probable on the basis of being the least unlikely alternative proposed thus far.
• They were not created to support a preferred pre-existing narrative.
• Of the infinite possible alternatives to multiverse hypotheses, Intelligent Design by the Christian God seems unlikely as it has been created to support a belief system that makes claims about this universe which are contradicted by scientific observation

Let me ask you an admittedly flippant question, on what grounds would you consider Intelligent Design by the Christian God more likely than a fictional cosmology such as the Great Green Arkleseizure?

My take on this is that we don't know what happened leading up to the big bang, we may never know, but that does not make inserting our preferred cosmology into the gap and referring to it as fact in any way reasonable. I don't need a strong, viable alternative to Intelligent Design by the Christian God to consider it bunk as the context in which it is embedded runs contrary to scientific understanding. This is not to say some or all multiverse hypotheses may also be bunk, but they are not similarly encumbered.

Peregrinus

1. No, I'm not having this. The intelligent design hypothesis may be favoured by people who are also, e.g. biblical literalists, young earthers, Noah's Ark fans, etc, but that's not a basis for criticising the hypothesis itself. Plus, even to make this point is to (wilfully?) ignore the fact that there are also people who accept some form of intelligent design hypothesis but who reject biblical literalism, etc. and embrace the big bang. (Case in point: George Lemaître.) Clearly, there's more to intelligent design that a desire to prop up simplistic biblical literalism.
2. As I know literally nothing about the Great Green Arkleseizure, I can't offer even a flippant answer to your flippant question.
3. I'll also mention, because I don't want it to go unremarked, that you keep expanding references to "intelligent design" into "intelligent design by the Christian God". I haven't mentioned the Christian God at all, and as I understand it the intelligent design hypothesis doesn't require that the designer should be the Christian God. As always, I'm asking for an evaluation of the intelligent design hypothesis on its on terms, and not on the basis of characteristics you impute to people who favour the intelligent design hypothesis.

smacl

I haven't mentioned the Christian God at all, and as I understand it the intelligent design hypothesis doesn't require that the designer should be the Christian God.

While you have not specifically used the term Christian God, you have use the terms "God/intelligent designer hypothesis" and "Creator God". Once you start referring to God, capitalised in the singular in the context of an Irish forum, it is not unreasonable to assume we're referring to the Christian deity. You are the one who is conflating God with intelligent design here, I've previously already pointed out that intelligent design does not demand a god or gods and given an example. Terminology becomes important here, as Intelligent design or ID is commonly considered 'a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins"' Like it or not, it is broadly associated with Christian fundamentalism, creationism and those who deny the likes of evolution.

Perhaps you could be more specific about what you mean by the terms "God/intelligent designer hypothesis" and "Creator God" if you are not specifically referring to the Christian God. Again from the Wikipedia article, we see 'Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.' If you are running with that understanding of intelligent design then you are talking about a hypothesis that is clearly unscientific rather than ascientific.

ohnonotgmail

A question for intelligent design proponents. Intelligent design requires a designer, right? whether you call that designer God or an alien doesn't really matter. So if an entity is responsible then where did that entity come from?

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119938768#Comment_119938768

Turtles all the way up 😉

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119938768#Comment_119938768

And of course it doesn't have to be God or an alien....

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119938701#Comment_119938701

Sorry if I was unclear. My use of "God/intelligent designer" was intended to broaden the concept - we could be talking about the classical notion of God, or we could be talking about any intelligent designer, who might not have any of the other characteristics conventionally attributed to God. All the intelligent designer has to have is (a) intentionality, so it can form a desire for a universe capable of supporting the development of conscious life and (b) the capacity to shape the universe to realise that intention. Which is a lot, but is not nearly enough to make it the Christian God. The intelligent designer doesn't have to be omniscient, for example, or all-loving.

I don't see the intelligent designer hypothesis as inconsistent with an undirected process such as natural selection, or more generally with the idea that undirected, chance events occur in our universe. An intelligent designer could intelligently design a universe in which chance and/or undirected events can and do occur; I don't see a conceptual problem there.

I agree, if you're asserting intelligent design as an alternative to the theory of evolution, that's profoundly unscientific. I'm looking at an intelligent design hypothesis that is offered purely to explain the phenomenon pointed to in this thread; the fortuitous setting of the fundamental constants of the universe.

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119942778#Comment_119942778

My misunderstanding, I'd read that as conflating God with intelligent designer. I think the more you broaden it, the easier it becomes to weed out the logical problems associated with a classic God to make an argument somewhat more resistant to dismissal. For example, we can dismiss any singular God that made man in his own image as this would imply he had genitalia which would seem rather pointless for a singular entity. (Occam's razor falls in the strangest of places at times!) Logically, I'd also wonder why just one designer rather than more than one, and is there any reason to suppose they created just one universe? As per previous posts, we also ask what is the origin of this designer or these designers? Intelligent design, even with this broadened understanding of the meaning of the term, seems to have more loose ends than a multiverse theory while still being compatible with one.

As per my previous post, I'd suggest the simple truth is we simply don't know what led to where we find ourselves now and that it is a mistake to state that we do. I also find the notion underlying the OP that places human intelligence at the pinnacle of the universe to be specious. Reading Entangled life at the moment where the author has some great commentary on the dangers of taking a too human centric view of life, our eco-system and how we perceive intelligence. We may be no more than a solitary mayfly enjoying our day in the sun.

Peregrinus

Thanks for this. Couple of thoughts:

In defence of the "made man in his own image" concept, even in my childhood back in the late middle ages, the sixpenny catechism did explain that "this likeness to God is chiefly in the soul" - i.e. it is is humanity's spiritual capacities that are supposed to image God, not our genitals (or in any physical characteristic).

As for why just one designer, SFAIK nobody specifies just one designer. The designer could certainly be a collective - e.g., I mischievously suggest, a Trinity. 😉

And, as for why just one designed universe - again, I don't think the hypothesis requires that. But two thoughts do occur. One is that we have to define "universe". If we assume a designer, then a perfectly cromulent definition of "universe" is "all that the designer has designed". In which case, we might have a single "universe" that embraces a number of parallel, segregated, mutually inaccessible realities. Obviously, existing in one of those realities, we would have no way of empirically observing any of the others, but they would all be part of the "universe", and you would defend that by saying that the designer can observe them all. But that's just a semantic point about what we mean when we say "universe".

The other, slightly more substantial, thought is that I can see William of Ockham getting very shirty. We're not supposed to postulate entities unnecessarily. If the "necessity" for the postulated multiverse is to avoid the need for an intelligent designer, where is the necessity for postulating both an intelligent designer and a multiplicity of universes?

No doubt, though, it's unfair to suggest that the multiverse is hypothesised simply to avoid the embarrassment of an intelligent designer who might or might not share something in common with the Christian concept of God. I somehow doubt that that is a consideration which would have carried much weight with, say, Hawkings; no doubt he had much more scientifically respectable grounds for hypothesising a multiverse.

But that brings me back to a question I raised earlier. To what extent is the multiverse hypothesised as an alternative to asserting that it is a fortuitous coincidence that our universe has just the "right" constants? If we take intelligent design off the table completely and assume that the choice comes down to just those two, surely Ockham would say, well, the "fortuitous coincidence" explanation is to be favoured? Is there a reason for not going with Ockham on this?

smacl

And, as for why just one designed universe - again, I don't think the hypothesis requires that. But two thoughts do occur. One is that we have to define "universe". If we assume a designer, then a perfectly cromulent definition of "universe" is "all that the designer has designed". In which case, we might have a single "universe" that embraces a number of parallel, segregated, mutually inaccessible realities. Obviously, existing in one of those realities, we would have no way of empirically observing any of the others, but they would all be part of the "universe", and you would defend that by saying that the designer can observe them all. But that's just a semantic point about what we mean when we say "universe".

If you consider the universe to be all of space and time and their contents and postulate a designer that created this universe from outside of the universe, you are de facto implying at least one more universe (the one the designer occupies which has time and space to create universes) and hence a multiverse. From my understanding, a universe within an multiverse is commonly understood to be an unbounded space time continuum and its contents. Thus your single "universe" that embraces a number of parallel, segregated, mutually inaccessible realities is what most would understand to be a universe within a multiverse. Once you go down that path we're back to every possible set of realities potentially existing and any reason for needing a designer evaporating.

All good fun in terms of logic games but no reason to suspect any of it is actually true. From the various hypotheses out there, we seem to be grasping for the least unlikely option which also has the lesser amount of cognitive bias. Personally, a multiverse hypothesis ranks higher than a loose intelligent design hypothesis which in turn ranks considerably higher than a Christian 'Science' notion of Intelligent Design (tm). Intelligent design of any kind, as I see it, demands a multiverse which is where our friend William of Ockham puts the boot (or razor) in.

Hotblack Desiato

...and of course doesn't answer the question of what created the creator...

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119953096#Comment_119953096

It is creators all the way down.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119952432#Comment_119952432

Where do you put "there's just this universe, and the fact that the universal constants favour the development of consciousness is just fortuitous" in your hierarchy of likelihood?

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119957781#Comment_119957781

Difficult to say, probably somewhere between multiverse and loose intelligent design if pushed, though as per my previous post, I think we attach far too much importance to the significance of human consciousness in a universal scheme of things. Firstly, we have no reason to conclude that it is unique within the universe, nor do we know enough about the nature of the universe to do anything other than guess at the probability of its emergence from our universe. I find the argument that intelligence is an emergent property of large interconnected networks to be a reasonable one. This in turn allows for very many classes of intelligence that are radically different than our own. Given consciousness is entirely subjective, we don't really know where else it might exist and in what form. I also think it is feasible that we will create conscious artificial intelligence at some point in the future, either by design or accidentally. Would this make us intelligent designers? Could what we make be a major improvement on ourselves?

The danger of purely speculative hypotheses such as these is that that they are never ending and impossible to conclusively deal with. At some point we have to dismiss, or put to onside, those that seem least probable. That said, the speculation is fun and imagining what might be is often the precursor to greater understanding of, or even inventing, what is.

Peregrinus

I'm not making any argument based on human consciousness. And the argument based on consciousness, as I understand it (and, health warning, it may be that I understand it poorly) is not so much that consciousness is all that crash-hot in itself, but that the conditions that allow consciousness to develop — the conditions that allow the universe to develop large interconnected networks from which intelligence will emerge — have extremely narrow parameters and, if the characteristics of the universe are randomly set, the likelihood that the universe would fall within those parameters is vanishingly small. And yet, it does fall within those parameters, as evidenced by our own existence. And to explain this apparently improbable coincidence we hypothesise (a) intelligent design or (b) the multiverse.

My problem is that, while the likelihood that the universe would have the particular characteristics that it does may be vanishingly small, it is no smaller than the likelihood that the universe would have any other particular set of characteristics. Whatever kind of universe popped out of the big bang, it could be said that that precise universe was an incredibly unlikely outcome. An extremely unlikely event was, in a sense, inevitable, and therefore the fact that it was this extremely unlikely event doesn't look to me like providing robust grounds for hypothesising either the intelligent designer or the multiverse.

Which leaves me curious as to why you would put random contingency below the multiverse explanation. My instinct would be to favour random contingency as the simplest explanation, ahead of both the multiverse and the intelligent designer, and to argue that it's impossible to rank those two as they are both wholly speculative and unevidenced.

smacl

You could well be right. My own feeling is that we simply don't understand the problem well enough to draw any defensible conclusions. As for random contingency, statistically, if we see an outcome that seems highly improbable based on a single random input, we ask why? Possible solutions are that there is a problem with our stochastic model that leads us to conclude the outcome is improbable, or that there are in fact many more inputs that balance out the probability (i.e. multiverses). My instinct, which is admittedly not a particularly solid basis here, is that we lack the degree of understanding of the nature of either the workings of the universe or the formation of consciousness to make definitive statements about the emergence of consciousness from the universe. i.e. our stochastic model is flawed or incomplete. Sean Carroll's dismissal of the fine tuning argument here seem entirely reasonable from my perspective on this.

AllForIt

Consciousness biologically always seems to me to have derived naturally as a necessity for complex organism to make decisions rather than depending on say tentacles with a limited amount of perception of what's out there beyond their immediate vicinity. Those decisions will depend on their survival as a species, otherwise if there was no consciousness capable of making decisions they would be wiped out by naturalistic events, e.g there is a volcano erupting lets make a run for it.

As for the fine tuned universe, and taking Roger Penroses' theory into account which isn't exactly a multiverse, but that the big bang is one of a series of sequential universes i.e not existing at the same time but linearly, one universe after the other after the other, then if this has gone on to infinity in the past and will go in the the future then all sorts of scenarios in terms of concussions could exist. What I'm saying in consciousness may not be limited to biological organisms, even in our iteration of our universe.

I must say I've always thought a one off big bang that expands into heat death over time to be implausible. Because that would be a one-off event even if it takes a very long time to play out, so I'm with Penrose on his theory.

In the discussion below, William Lane Craig argues that the mystery of our existence, i.e abstract ideas, mathematical truths, and personal experiences, can be explained by a divine creator. I'm impressed with Craig's knowledge of cosmology and quantum physics him being a theologian. But as Penrose says here, Craigs 'explanation' doesn't add any value, i.e, you can't test his theory to see if it's true. And Craig can't explain how an entity can not just 'design' a naturalistic universe but even create it in the first place no mind design it. So I don't think Craig's argument that the universe can't be created out of nothing, self create say, when he himself is saying that God created it out of nothing as well.

I think it's no more implausible that time goes infinitely to the past therefore there was no beginning than his divine solution. Both are mind bending but his is more mind-bending imo and a lazy solution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wLtCqm72-Y

robindch

In the discussion below, William Lane Craig argues [...]

WC - professional word-saladist extraordinaire - is certainly going for the Jordan Peterson look!

Anyhow, dreadful shame that somebody of the stature of Roger Penrose is wasting his time with the likes of WC.

Hotblack Desiato

Those initials are appropriate

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119814121#Comment_119814121

I'd be of the opinion that universes are common but most are unstable. Try to make your own bubble mixture. Most of your recipes won't be able to support a stable bubble. But if you get it right you can blow a bubble the size of a house

A universe with life in it, requires a stable bubble and the right nuclear forces that allow for stable fusion in stars.a gazillion popped bubbles to one stable bubble is still a realistic ratio given what we know about how many particles and stars there are in the observed universe

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120153065#Comment_120153065

I think Penrose came off badly in that discussion.

Craig is a philosopher as well as a theologian, and he certainly knows his stuff. Penrose is 'just' a theoretical cosmologist, and nothing else. Well we can all have theories. His theory on sequential universes isn't really an idea that even a child couldn't muster up. In fact I've even thought of that possibility myself before I ever heard of Penrose, because the idea of a one off big bang where the universe eventually expands till it's dead as a one off event never seemed plausible to me.

What I would say to Craig is we don't need a transcendent being to have moral values, which is what Craig always says. He says that moral values have to come from somewhere otherwise moral values are just relative and that any particular moral value is just subjective.

But I don't think that's right. We (humans) can decide what moral values are ourselves without them being dictated to us by a divine creator.

smacl

Penrose is 'just' a theoretical cosmologist, and nothing else. Well we can all have theories. His theory on sequential universes isn't really an idea that even a child couldn't muster up. In fact I've even thought of that possibility myself before I ever heard of Penrose, because the idea of a one off big bang where the universe eventually expands till it's dead as a one off event never seemed plausible to me.

A wee bit more than that, from wikipedia

Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS HonFInstP (born 8 August 1931)[1] is a British mathematician, mathematical physicist, philosopher of science and Nobel Laureate in Physics.[2] He is Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics in the University of Oxford, an emeritus fellow of Wadham College, Oxford, and an honorary fellow of St John's College, Cambridge and University College London.[3][4][5]

Penrose has contributed to the mathematical physics of general relativity and cosmology. He has received several prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize in Physics, which he shared with Stephen Hawking for the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems,[6] and one half of the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics "for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity".[7][8][9][10][a] He is regarded as one of the greatest living physicists, mathematicians and scientists, and is particularly noted for the breadth and depth of his work in both natural and formal sciences.

Penrose's conformal cyclic model is certainly interesting and also does away with the fine tuning argument. The discussion here on quora merits a read in my opinion and gives a decent introduction to those of us that aren't theoretical cosmologists.

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120159882#Comment_120159882

Well I did knee-jerk react in response to @robindch left wing-ish comparison of WLC to Peterson. I thought we didn't do that sort of thing here.

WLC makes the point that there is such a think as transcendent time, and this has noting to do with Einsteins theory of general relativity, where for those that don't know is that time does not pass at the same rate for 'everything' in the universe or more precisely at every point in space.

Been getting my head around the idea that time slows down the closer and closer a thing moves in space to the speed of light. This has been proven, but it seems to me that all that happens is the movement of quantum particles slows down the faster they move through space (not time itself), and this has noting to do with transcendent time, as WLC pointed out to Penrose.

I don't think Penrose's cyclical model does anything to prove there was no beginning of the universe, or universes, aeons he has christened them. It is only Quantum mechanics that can prove that, not cosmology.

So again we are still left with the age old problem, how can the universe form out of nothing. Until Quantum Mechanics can show that either time is infinite in the past or particles can form out of nothing we're really not any closer than we ever were to proving there was no divine creator. Not that I'm saying there was a divine creator just that we still can't disprove it.

Hotblack Desiato

Anyone who would then go on to posit "we don't know, therefore goddidit" is a charlatan (being charitable in my choice of word there)

In any case offloading the "problem" to a supernatural creator doesn't resolve anything. If everything needs a creator then what created the creator?

It's not the job of atheists or physicists or anyone else to disprove the theories of theists / creationists. It's up to the latter to evidence them. Something they continue to completely and utterly fail at. The burden of proof lies entirely with those putting forward the contention that god(s) exist but attempting to reverse this burden ("you can't prove god doesn't exist") is a particularly common and disingenous tactic of the god botherers.

smacl

I don't think Penrose's cyclical model does anything to prove there was no beginning of the universe, or universes, aeons he has christened them. It is only Quantum mechanics that can prove that, not cosmology.

Penrose's cyclical model is a theoretical one, it does not aim to prove anything, it investigates a possibility and tests whether that possibility reasonably stacks up with our current accumulated knowledge, limited as that is (i.e. is it supported by evidence, is it contradicted by evidence?). This is largely how theoretical sciences work, they remain theoretical until such a time as there is sufficient evidence to make them practicably applicable or the theory is shown to be incorrect.

Lane by comparison is a philosopher and Christian apologist. His efforts appear to be directed towards explaining the nature of the universe in such a way as to be agreeable to his pre-existing belief system. To my mind, that is a starting position loaded with confirmation bias based on inheriting an accepted truth based on faith.

robindch

Well I did knee-jerk react in response to @robindch left wing-ish comparison of WLC to Peterson. I thought we didn't do that sort of thing here.

Uh, "Left-wingish"? Have a look at WC's face above, then take a look at a picture of Peterson :)

Lane by comparison is a philosopher and Christian apologist.

I would dispute this characterization and suggest instead that WC is a sophist and a religious evangelist with a record of, amongst many other sins against honest enquiry, of cheerfully justifying religious slaughter.

However, what you and Hotblack say is quite correct - WC starts from the position that his interpretation of the bible is infallible then says whatever he feels he needs to say in order to prop up this point of view. This is lots of things, but it ain't useful - limiting one's search to confirming facts is the province of the conspiracy theorist, not the honest philosopher.

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120182803#Comment_120182803

Funny enough, looks aside, I'd say Lane has quite a bit in common with Peterson in terms of use of rhetoric to defend a conservative religious worldview. There's also rather a lot in common with Christian apologetics and philosophy on the one hand and religious evangelism and sophistry on the other. Lane could well be an honest philosopher, all that really demands is that he believes what he is saying to be true. Not quite sure how you'd characterize an honest philosopher, look up sophist for example and philosopher's what you get 😉

robindch

Not quite sure how you'd characterize an honest philosopher, look up sophist for example and philosopher's what you get.

Well, "sophist" in the sense spoken of in the Gorgias dialog, in which Plato compares Socrates the philosopher to the Gorgias the Sophist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgias_(dialogue)

Paraphrasing the above: Socrates gets Gorgias to agree that the sophist can convince an ignorant audience more easily than an expert can, since a sophist's mastery of the techniques of persuasion is often more convincing than the use of mere facts, as an expert might use. Gorgias accepts this and says that sophists can be considered as more persuasive than experts, but unlike experts, don't need to know anything of substance. Socrates calls sophistry a form of flattery which superficially adorns an absence of knowledge, rather than engages in an informed study of what is really true.

Can't say that I disagree with that.

Things don't seem to have changed much since the days of Ancient Athens either - flagrant chancers, like WC, gonna chance when there's easy money or reputation to be earned.