There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Naturally Fine Tuned for Life - A Defence of Metaphysical Naturalism
Comments
-
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)
WLC does not argue 'goddidit', he argues that the universe had a beginning and everything in a naturalistic world has a cause - the Kalam Cosmological argument. He largely leaves his Christian beliefs behind in cosmological/physics debates.
In any case offloading the "problem" to a supernatural creator doesn't resolve anything. If everything needs a creator then what created the creator?
But it does, because a divine creator wouldn't need a naturalistic cause, because a divine creator (if one exists at all) is hardly made of protons and electrons. So you can't assume a divine creator needs a creator itself at all. When you think of a God and where it came from you are thinking in naturalistic terms which is wrong.
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
Well yes but then why did Sean Carroll debate WLC then.
You could argue both of them are biased. That Carroll and WLC formed their views on the naturalistic universe working backwards from their fundamental beliefs. You could equally say Carroll is a sophist as well when he has gone out of his way to disprove any possibility of an outside source that caused the universe.
0 -
Socrates gets Gorgias to agree that the sophist can convince an ignorant audience more easily than an expert can,
WLC hasn't convinced me of anything. What I do know about him is that he is a fierce debater and often far more lucid in his arguments that the people he debates.
1 -
"A divine creator can exist out of nothing because *supernatural woo-ey stuff*" is hardly a rigorous argument.
Scrap the cap!
0 -
he is [...] often far more lucid in his arguments that the people he debates.
In my experience, the only people who have agreed to waste their time discussing anything with him in public are either, like the unfortunate and elderly Roger Penrose above, hopelessly naive or foolish, or like Christopher Hitchens, capable of enough showmanship to beat him at his own oratorical games.
0 -
If a divine creator or at least an outside source for the existence of the universe exists then that outside source is not 'supernatural' in itself (because it came first if it exists), it is only 'supernatural' to those in the naturalistic universe.
Anyway if the universe came into being 'out of nothing' then why equally wouldn't a divine creator come 'out of nothing'. You have the exact same problem in both cases whichever you believe or logically think to be the case.
Now because I detect a note of ridicule in your response I have to remind you I never said I believe there is any outside source for the existence of the universe. In truth I just find the whole topic interesting to think about and don't feel compelled to believe anything either way.
1 -
It's been some years since I watched the Hitchens vs WLC debate but in terms of a debate and being a fan of Hitchens at the time that was the worst performance I've seen from him and was criticized at the time by his fans for letting Craig get the better of him. Hitchens wasn't prepared. One can loose a debate but still be right of course.
1 -
If a divine creator or at least an outside source for the existence of the universe exists then that outside source is not 'supernatural' in itself (because it came first if it exists), it is only 'supernatural' to those in the naturalistic universe.
If that divine creator exists and can currently exert influence on the natural universe from outside that universe it is by definition supernatural. There is also no more evidence to suggest such a being exists than for any other supernatural entity, whether part of folklore such as the tooth fair or santa, or entirely imagined such as the Great Green Arkleseziure. There is so much claimed by Christian mythology that runs contrary to current scientific understanding, e.g. Adam & Eve, Noah's Ark etc..., that I fail to see the mileage in trying to align a Christian creation story with any given cosmology other than to support cognitive bias. It also seems to run contrary to the notion of faith not demanding proof.
1 -
With regard to the 'fine tuning' argument, I would argue that he who puts it necessarily implies that there exists an intelligent creator; the entity that consciously 'sets the dials', so to speak. Right? And since WLC has been mentioned, this 'creator' transcends space and time. I think that a 'consciousness' that exists outside of space and time is problematic and in my view, it can be clearly shown that absent some form of causal space in which to exist, 'consciousness' simply could not occur. And if it can be shown that prior to the creation of space and time, no conscious beings of any sort existed then that would rule out the possibility of 'someone setting dials' and the 'fine tuning argument' could be rightly binned.
This is how I see it. 'In the beginning, God said, "Let there be light," and there was light and God saw that it was good.'
That sequence from the Bible, (loosely), suggests that God went through a process of asking Himself what it was He desires before deciding that He desired 'light' whereupon He created 'light'. How could that sequence take place without occurring over 'time'? And how can God have thoughts at all if there is no 'space' in which to organize them? When we think, one part of our mind 'talks' to another part of the mind and that requires spacial separation. Without time, how could thoughts 'flow' and without space, where would they flow to or from? It seems clear to me that space and time are prerequisites for consciousness and like music, without a space for a stage upon which to perform and a time over which a performance can unfold, 'consciousness' is meaningless.
I am not claiming that God does not exist but rather, if God does indeed exist, He is a lot younger than He looks and given that His 'consciousness' became manifest after the creation of some form of 'space' and 'time', He cannot possibly be responsible for setting up any of the parameters that gave rise to the characteristics and properties of the Universe in which He exists.
0 -
Another way of looking at this, as per one of my previous posts, is that if God exists outside of this universe in another place with its own space and time, that is by definition another universe and therefore to believe in God you must also believe in a multiverse. Given the fine tuning argument does not stand up where we have an unknown multiple number of universes, the fine tuning argument as an argument for the existence of a creator is fundamentally flawed and we're back to turtles all the way down.
1 -
Advertisement
-
Well, theoretically, you could have an infinite number of universes all of which are 'fine tuned'. The set of all universes does not necessarily contain any universes where the physical constants vary at all. I mean, You could have a baker constantly producing cakes based on a single recipe for an infinite amount of time and he will never produce a Lasagne or a Baked Alaska from his oven. Although there may be infinite variations of the cake, all of them are made from the same ingredients according to the same set of rules.
For me though, even if the multiverse hypothesis, such as it is, is correct, the existence of a baker, his kitchen, his ingredients, his mixing bowls, his oven and, in particular, his recipe is contingent upon the pre-existence of some spacial framework that supports causality. (I actually prefer to put it this way because I don't believe that 'time' is anything but an abstraction. But that's another story.)
Another small issue. If before He 'Let there be light' God existed in an environment outside of space and time, then His desire to create light and the creation of light would exist at a singularity and that makes it impossible to know whether it was the existence of light that caused God to desire light or vice versa. By infer that one caused the other we acknowledge the existence of a spacetime-type environment within which the mind of God is contained. Without the spacetime-type environment, God Himself would be unable to differentiate between His desires and His actions and therefore could not be credited with any coherent plan.
However you cut it, the existence of a universe is a prerequisite for the existence of a God. And if God does exist, He had absolutely nothing to do with the relationship between energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Also, what if the fundamental constants were different to what they are? Would that necessarily mean that no processes of change would be possible in a universe where the speed of light is slightly different? As long as interactions take place, any universe with any set of parameters will result in ordered systems of one sort or another. There may be no stars or planets as we understand them in those universes but I am quite certain that at some scale, all universes will exhibit structures that are analogous to atoms, planets, stars, etc. And at some scale, something analogous to 'life' would emerge.
Frankly, I think it would be far more helpful to discard the notion of 'fine tuning' altogether and replace it with the notion of 'natural resonance'. Without doubt, it is quite remarkable that every point along its circumference is equidistant to the centre of a circle but do we need to postulate the existence of a God responsible for endowing circles with that property? Wouldn't the properties of a circle be precisely the same in any universe regardless of any change in the speed of light?
So yes, I agree with you but for slightly different reasons maybe. :)
0 -
That is a property of a circle because it is the definition of a circle.
Scrap the cap!
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 -
"Many cosmologists claim" that Alan Guth's theory of Eternal Inflation would give rise to multiple bubble universes, so it could be argued that there is some scientific support for the multiverse.
It could also be argued that, if there is an insistence that fine tuning is probabilistic, then a multiverse could be inferred from that claim as there would need to be some justification for why it's probabilistic.
The ex nihilo nihil fit principle means that, given a single universe hypothesis, fine tuning would be a brute fact and not probabilistic (and therefore not improbable).
0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
