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.