Naturally Fine Tuned for Life - A Defence of Metaphysical Naturalism
Comments
-
That is a property of a circle because it is the definition of a circle.
Life ain't always empty.
1 -
But, if Pi were any other value than what it is, what then would be the definition of a circle? Right?
Or here's another way to think about it. We know that every object has a 'resonant frequency' at which they become 'excited'. We've all seen the alto belt out a high F and break a wine-glass, haven't we? This is a well understood characteristic property of physical object. And we can calculate resonant frequency from the physical properties, length, cross sectional area, mass, radius of a cavity, etc. It is by understanding this relationship that we can tune antennae to resonate at the specific frequency of the signal being transmitted or received. My point here is, there is no variable 'God' required in any such calculation.
Well, you can think of the universe as a cavity and like all cavities, it has a specific resonant frequency; a frequency at which it 'rings'. Obviously, the radius of the universe is very large and so its resonant frequency will be very very low but the universe is expanding. In other words, since the 'volume of the cavity' is constantly increasing, the resonant frequency of the cavity has been constantly falling. If we go back to the instant of the Big Bang when the radius of the universe was infinitely small, the resonant frequency of the universe was infinitely high. And it has been falling ever since. Since the radius of the universe has passed through every value between its beginning and its current value, the resonant frequency of the universe will have passed through every frequency on its way down to it current value.
Basically, the universe is simply sweeping down the frequency spectrum and the 'tuning' of the universe is constantly changing in the downward direction. In what way can that be considered 'fine tuning'?
Did you ever perform that trick with a 12" ruler where you dangle 10" of it over the edge of a table whilst firmly pressing down on the 2" on the table before tapping the long end causing it to vibrate? Then as you pull the ruler so as to shorten the overhang, the frequency of the 'note' increases? Well, the universe is doing that in reverse. The thing is, doing it in reverse is an efficient way of conserving the energy in the 'spring'. If the length of the 'spring' is constantly increasing then it will never ever stop vibrating. Interesting, huh?
0 -
But, if Pi were any other value than what it is, what then would be the definition of a circle? Right?
Pi and the notion of a circle are interdependent manmade mathematical and geometric abstracts, they do not depend on any physical properties of the universe. Two, three and higher dimensions of Euclidean geometry are best considered as one form of invented language we can use to describe certain aspects of any universe (actual or imagined), e.g. distance between points in space at a point in time, in simplified terms. In an alternate universe with different fundamental physical constants, the relationship between Pi and a circle would remain the same.
1 -
What? You think the ratio of circumference to diameter is an abstraction? 2PiFL, 1/2PifC deal with inductive and capacitive reactance - How did 'Pi' get there? Look at the Basel problem - Why does Pi^2 pop out of that infinite series? Why do colliding blocks compute Pi if Pi is simply an abstraction?
However, you do make my point.
"In an alternate universe with different fundamental physical constants, the relationship between Pi and a circle would remain the same."
And the inverse square law would still apply as would laws of conservation etc. In fact, until it can be shown that our universe is NOT merely the outcome of energy's relationship with itself under the constraints of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I don't see why ANY 'alternate universe' should have fundamental constants that differ from our own.
RIP 'Fine tuning argument'.
RIP 'uncreated eternal designer of creation'.
0 -
"...then a perfectly cromulent definition of..."
LMAO at this - Your soul was embiggened by an episode of The Simpsons, wasn't it? ;)
0 -
Advertisement
-
What? You think the ratio of circumference to diameter is an abstraction? 2PiFL, 1/2PifC deal with inductive and capacitive reactance - How did 'Pi' get there? Look at the Basel problem - Why does Pi^2 pop out of that infinite series? Why do colliding blocks compute Pi if Pi is simply an abstraction?
Yes. PI is a geometric ratio and a mathematical constant, it is not a physical constant such as the speed of light for example. It appears in most formulae wherever we are considering circular or spherical geometry which are exceptionally common in physics and engineering. Wherever we have uniform expansion from a single source, whether that be light coming from a star or ripples of water from a pebble dropped in a pond, we will see circles. While mathematics and geometry are invaluable in helping describe these circles and the physical universe, they are nonetheless abstract as they are independent of the physical universe. If we had a different universe with different physical constants, there would still likely be circles and the value of PI would still be the same. This does not imply all physical constants between the two universes would necessarily agree.
Post edited by smacl on3 -
smacl "If we had a different universe with different physical constants, there would still likely be circles and the value of PI would still be the same."
Well, we may disagree on the definition of 'abstract' but we seem to agree that the language of mathematics would be equally valid in any universe.
"This does not imply all physical constants between the two universes would necessarily agree."
But what would it take to make the physical constants differ between any two universes? In order to postulate a 'fine-tuning argument', one must show that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not an emergent property of energy. I think it goes without saying that energy must be expended in order to create a universe but why assume that energy in one universe has different properties to the energy in another universe? The implication most certainly is that 'all physical constants between the two universes would necessarily agree.'
I say that every characteristic of our universe is attributable to the existence of energy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If other universes contain energy, as they must, then the 2nd Law also applies in that universe and the same physical constants would hold there as they do here.
"A good indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour."
To claim that the behaviour of our universe has no implications on the behaviour of other universes is actually irrational. Just because you can drown in the sea doesn't mean you can drown in an ocean, right?
Wrong!
You cannot come up with a way to explain consciousness outside of space and time and you cannot describe a mechanism by way of which energy could produce different constants in different universes... Isn't it time to drop the 'fine-tuning argument' and the 'uncreated eternal designer of the universe' altogether now?
0 -
You cannot come up with a way to explain consciousness outside of space and time and you cannot describe a mechanism by way of which energy could produce different constants in different universes... Isn't it time to drop the 'fine-tuning argument' and the 'uncreated eternal designer of the universe' altogether now?
Perhaps you could point out where I suggested that I have supported either the 'fine-tuning argument' and an 'uncreated eternal designer of the universe'. I merely stated that Pi is not a physical constant, circles are abstract geometric entities and gave reasons why we see Pi in so many equations in physics (or any other imagined system where we investigate time and motion of a large number of particles). If you agree that mathematics is a language independent on any physical aspect of the observable universe it is by definition abstract.
But what would it take to make the physical constants differ between any two universes? In order to postulate a 'fine-tuning argument', one must show that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not an emergent property of energy. I think it goes without saying that energy must be expended in order to create a universe but why assume that energy in one universe has different properties to the energy in another universe? The implication most certainly is that 'all physical constants between the two universes would necessarily agree.'
Multiverse theories, of which there are many, are entirely speculative and we can say very little about any other possible universe in any other possible multiverse with any degree of certainty. The answer to your question above is simply "we don't know and in all probability, will never know". When you say "The implication most certainly is that 'all physical constants between the two universes would necessarily agree", i would consider that a misplaced article of faith given we know absolutely nothing about this other universe (if it exists) and may never do so. Your argument is in essence a tautological fallacy, you assume other universes will have the same properties as this universe based on the emergent properties of this universe.
3 -
"Your argument is in essence a tautological fallacy, you assume other universes will have the same properties as this universe based on the emergent properties of this universe."
Bad faith argument... again. I notice that you take exception to some phrases I use but fail utterly to address any argument put. For instance, you were offended enough to challenge me on:
"You cannot come up with a way to explain consciousness outside of space and time and you cannot describe a mechanism by way of which energy could produce different constants in different universes..."
But not brave enough to deal with:
"Isn't it time to drop the 'fine-tuning argument' and the 'uncreated eternal designer of the universe' altogether now?"
That's 'cherry-picking' mate and I'm pretty sure you have a fallacy named after it.
Tautology? Abstract? lol
It is not a tautology to assume that taking the same ingredients and putting them through the same process will produce cakes that look like each other, that feel like each other and that taste the same as each other. Take a line in a sweet factory producing chocolate limes. Why would you expect the next sweet to be turned out to be a chocolate mint crisp? In fact, to not assume that the next sweet will be the same as the last one would be the definition of irrational.
And it is certainly reasonable to proceed on the basis that any lessons we learned about hot stoves in this universe would equally apply in an alternate universe and again, assuming that fire in another universe would not be hot like fire in this one would be irrational.
"Naturally Fine Tuned for Life - A Defence of Metaphysical Naturalism" is what I was addressing and I have shown that given the nature of resonance, not only is the universe not fine tuned for life, it is not 'tuned' for anything at all. Furthermore, I have explained that the entire existence of the universe and its physical constants can be sufficiently accounted for by the existence of energy and the 2nd Law. I have suggested that 'energy and the 2nd Law' are the ingredients and the recipe for the universe we are in and in that respect, the universe is like a chocolate lime. If other universes are created from 'energy and the 2nd Law', why assume that anything but chocolate limes are produced?
But most importantly, if you are going to postulate 'chocolate mint crisps', you have to demonstrate that alternative ingredients and recipes are even plausible. And since we are into tautologies here; if I define 'energy' as 'that which causes change' then how would it be possible for a universe not created from energy to undergo any process of change? In this universe, by definition, any process of change requires some transfer of energy.
Look, in the end, any difference between our universe and any other hypothetical universe would have to boil down to how the 2nd Law might be manifest in different ways in different universes. Perhaps the 2nd Law is more rigorously applied in one universe resulting in a more violent and more rapid inflation while in another, the 2nd Law may be only lightly applied resulting in a less violent, less rapid expansion but if we are going to go there, as the OP, (I believe it was), said, we might as well assume that every possible form of Big Bang that can occur does occur and that there are an infinite number of universes which also puts a stake through the heart of the 'finely tuned' argument.
And how many of those universes could produce magnetism? Or gravity? Or 'life'? The point is, 'energy' and the 2nd Law is what created our universe. Why would any universe created from energy and the 2nd Law differ from our universe in any meaningful way? That's the issue here.
It's 'chocolate limes', all the way down - Prove me wrong. Or just agree with me. Forget about circles and Pi; 'finely tuned universe'; RIP or not RIP?
0 -
You seem not to have read this thread in its entirety. I've already previously linked Sean Carroll's debunking of the FTA and God which in my opinion is concise, well reasoned and convincing. Your involvement of Pi and 'chocolate mint crisps' don't add anything to the argument from my point of view.
3 -
Advertisement
-
Well, I watched that and then I watched the entire debate and I have to say, you are very easily pleased, aren't you? Sean Carroll discounts theism on the basis of a string of 'I would expect x if y were true' statements but you don't seem to regard them as 'tautologies'. And I am afraid that, 'if God tuned the universe, the universe would be different to what it is' is not a very good argument against either the existence of God or the FTA. Isn't there an 'argument from authority' fallacy in your little arsenal of weapons that allow you to add nothing useful to a discussion whilst racking up your post-count?
Besides, you are objectively wrong. If you'd actually read what I posted then you would have realized, might have realized, that not only did I provide an argument that shows there is no fine-tuning taking place at all, I also provided the strongest argument against the existence of a transcendent uncreated being outside of space and time you have ever seen. Not only that, by introducing the concept of 'resonance' to this community in this context, I have given you a new way to think of 'entropy'. I described how the universe is the result of high-frequency energy increasing its wavelength as the resonant frequency of the universe falls due to expansion and therefore, we can say that there is a relationship between the radius of the universe and its entropy.
Now, that may not be interesting to you but those honestly engaging in the discussion might appreciate the implications of such a relationship. Indeed, Sean Carroll actually conceded that the universe is fine tuned, just not for life. So I'm not sure how he convinced you out of the FTA when he clearly has not convinced himself out of it.
I am quite certain that you have never heard the 'cosmic baker' argument before but I do show that, given the same ingredients being subject to the same process, it would be reasonable to expect products with uniform characteristics. Like a cake, or chocolate limes. If all universes are produced by energy and the 2nd Law, then it would be unreasonable to suppose that universes differ in any substantial way from each other. Like I said, you can have an infinite variation from flour, eggs, milk and sugar but under no circumstances are you ever going to produce a gold watch from your oven. It would be silly to simply assert that given enough time, eventually, those ingredients would result in a gold watch, right?
Then of course, there is my piece de resistance; the argument against the existence of a conscious entity that is outside of space and time. Thoughts 'flow' from a to b. Absent space and time, like music, 'thought' is meaningless. Utterly meaningless. When debating with a theist, this argument will force him to admit that the existence of a universe is prerequisite for the existence of 'consciousness' of any form. And if God does exist outside of space and time, He cannot possibly experience 'consciousness'.
Look! I get it. Good looking guy strolls in; strong, confident, strident; all the girls are waving their little fans as he walks by; I get it. You feel like you have to pee against all the walls and demonstrate your alpha male status. I get it so I will let it slide for now but I joined this discussion in order to have a discussion based on honest intellectual inquiry in relation to a topic that interests me greatly. You and you little pal here seem to think that snide comments and straw-man objections attempting to make it about Pi or chocolates limes are clever and funny but they are not. They are disrespectful and rude and serve only to demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty, your double standards and your obtuseness.
But hey. You put a link to a Sean Carroll piece so debate over, right? Well, you're a mod; why not pin your proclamation at the top of the thread and declare the discussion closed? It might save others from making the mistake of thinking that this is a place where they might share their thoughts with like-minded individuals interested in the pursuit of truth.
0 -
Yep, I've heard the 'Cosmic Baker' argument before, variously as God, the Creator etc... You've a couple of posts now where you talk about certainty that your argument about other universes is true while the world's leading voices in theoretical physics and cosmology put forward theories that they consider speculative. To me that suggests a position of faith rather than reason, as all multiverse theories are currently speculative. For someone who lambasts all things holy, you are putting forward a wholly holey argument.
With respect to the crux of your argument, you might list your source which defines "energy" as "that which causes change". A quick search on the interweb brings up The Very Rev. Robert Barron talking about Aquinas' Argument from motion in Catholic apologetics site which seems a rather unusual position for an argument purportedly attacking religion. Given we consider a mass at rest to have rest energy, this does not accord with your definition. We also have yet to arrive at a unified theory between quantum physics and general relativity which further complicates a universal definition for energy.
As for the personal attack at the end of the post, that just undermines your argument further. You're apparently a new poster but please be aware that this forum demands civility and that you play the ball and not the man. Please read the charter and note that this type of behaviour will draw sanctions going forward.
0 -
Sanction away, mate. No point in having a whip if you aren't going to lash people, right?
I don't believe in the multiverse theory; once again, you mischaracterize what has been said. I simply pointed out that if there are other universes then there is no reason to suppose they differ in any substantial way to our own. I literally wrote that down. lol
Lambasts 'all things holy'? I think you have me confused with someone else; I lambasted nothing. I specifically suggested that God may indeed exist but not outside of space and time. If I were to claim that Joe Biden will not live forever, would you consider me to be 'lambasting all things Democratic'?
"With respect to the crux of your argument, you might list your source which defines "energy" as "that which causes change""
From www.eia.gov:
"Scientists define energy as the ability to do work. Modern civilization is possible because people have learned how to change energy from one form to another and then use it to do work."
Now, you tell me: how can work be performed without some form of change taking place? Just one example will do. I won't hold my breath.
"Given we consider a mass at rest to have rest energy, this does not accord with your definition."
Tell you what; take a mass and rest it on wet concrete. Now watch, as change occurs. Even 'rest energy' causes 'change'. And are you seriously under the impression that by 'placing' an object causing it to be at rest, all the atomic particles comprising that object become static and unchanging?
You accused me of making a tautological argument when I said that I would expect any alternative universe to exhibit similar characteristics to those exhibited by this one.
Sean Carroll argues that if there is a fine tuner for the universe, he would expect the universe to look different.
As mentioned, I think you are applying your own definitions to words like 'abstract', 'tautology' and 'lambast' but I would still be interested to know why you are convinced by Carroll's 'tautological argument' but reject my view on the basis that it is a tautological argument; how does that work in an intellectually honest exchange? You are demonstrably guilty of arguing from authority. It's true because Carroll said it; it's not true because Undercover Agent said it = logical fallacies.
'Play the ball and not the man'. Just... lol
0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
