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

nagirrac wrote: »

I accept that, but do you not admit or at least consider that atheists are the most guilty of this?

No, I don't accept that - I don't think atheists are more likely than others to accept arguments from authority.

The theory of evolution is consistently used as an example to argue for lack of belief in a creative intelligence. While it is a beautiful theory and can be used to blow holes through illogical "young earth creationist" positions, it says absolutely nothing about why there is a universe to begin with.

Personally, I don't think evolution has any bearing whatsoever on the origin of the Universe.

I agree that it is usually biblical literalists who make an issue of evolution, as they feel that evolution is incompatible with creationism, so they deny it.

nagirrac wrote: »

If ever there was evidence needed regarding the the closed minded worldview of atheists, this thread is it.

The argument for fine tuning is firmly rooted in science, not in philosophy. Yes, there are scientists who argue that fine tuning is evidence for a creator (Bernard Haisch, The God Theory) and scientists who argue against fine tuning to defend their dogmatic atheist position (Victor Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine Tuning), but to jump on either side of that debate is missing the point.

The list of eminent scientists who accept the fine tuning argument is exhaustive: Rees (Just 6 numbers, the book on the subject), Deutsch, Davies, Carter, Smolin, Susskind, Hawking, Guth, Greene, Penrose, Barrow, Hamilton, Sandage, Tegmark, etc. etc. Roughly half these scientists are theists / deists and the other half agnostic athiests. What they all have in common is making no dogmatic claim on what conclusion we should draw from the evidence of fine tuning. The only scientist I am aware of who openly disputes the fine tuning argument is Stenger.

If you don't mind, I'll stay with the open minded fecking stupid crowd.. and of course be accused yet again of using arguments from authority by the same people who predictably wheel out Dawkins at every opportunity.

If you want to maintain an open mind on the subject of fine tuning then start by reading "Just 6 Numbers" by Martin Rees (an atheist) and work from there.

As Tim Minchin once said: "If you open your mind too much your brain will fall out."

As I said in my previous post there are lots and lots of flaws in the fine-tuning argument and making appeals to authority (and no I don't invoke Dawkins at every opportunity) doesn't change this.


1. Time

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

2. Fundamental forces

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

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

A universe without weak interactions

and here's what happens if we discount gravity:

Molecular dynamics simulation of melittin in a dimyristoylphosphatidylcholine bilayer membrane

So there's half the fundamental forces of nature scrapped without any effect on the possibility of life developing.


3. Adaptation

This is probably the biggest facet of the fine-tuning argument which you have failed to understand. Life adapted to the conditions of the universe not the other way around. As other posters have pointed out you've got the cart before the horse. The problem with the phrasing of the fine-tuning argument is the "as we know it" part. Just because life as we currently understand it may not have developed had the initial conditions of the universe, there's no reason to suggest that the train runs off the track. Life may just evolve in a different manner. Let me give you an example.

At the moment, our eyes are capable of perceiving light in a narrow band of the EM spectrum, roughly 380-740nm wavelengths. So using the premise of the fine-tuning argument you could argue that the sun was fine-tuned to support our vision but that is to entirely miss the point. The reason we see light in the "visible" portion of the spectrum is because the sun emits its radiation most prominently in this band as you can see below:



Now, how this happened is something like this:

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

OK, back to the point. Now humans as we are now are sensitive to X-rays. In a high enough dose they can kill us. However, if life had arisen around an object like, say, Scorpius X-1, there's no reason to suggest that life wouldn't have adapted to the radiation it emits so that there might be "people" living on a planet in its orbit who can see x-rays.



4. Volume



Like time in the first example, the sheer scale of the universe poses a problem for fine-tuning. At the moment life on this planet exists on no more than say 4% of the shell of this planet. And our planet is one of 9 in our solar system. Assuming that our planetary configuration is unremarkable then there are about 4 trillion planets in our galaxy alone and 125 billion galaxies. Life seems to be awfully rare in a universe which was fine-tuned for it. Why is biogenesis so rare if the universe is fine-tuned?



5. Incompleteness


One of the key and often overlooked problems of the fine-tuning argument is how amazingly shallow it is as an analytical argument. The problem is that scientists and philosophers have examined different cosmological parameters and found that if some of them are altered then life could not have developed. Indeed Paul Davies who you reference in your post highlights this when he said: "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". The first stumbling block is that we don't even know how many independent physical constants there are. So as much as we might say, oh here are ten fine-tuned constants there may be a hundred more which aren't. The second obstacle is that we already know of cosmological parameters which can be altered which do not impact the development of life. So the fine-tuning argument at its core is nothing but a fallacy of composition.



6. Testability


Another key problem for the fine-tuning argument is testability. The universe is just that little bit inflexible that it won't let us actually mess with the cosmological parameters to see what the effects would be. So as much as you go on about a closed minded atheist argument and unfalsifiability you should take a good long look at the tree branch you're sitting on because you're sawing right through it.

You see here's the thing. The astrophysicists and cosmologists who have bought into the fine-tuning argument are no doubt excellent physicists and leaders in their field but the one thing they really suck at is being biologists. Just look at Michio Kaku talking about evolution, its cringeworthy. The problem is that all of these physicists have gotten themselves hung up on the idea of life as we know it. So all of their simulations and calculations are predicated on an a priori position that life as it exists now is either a) desirable or b) inevitable. But that's not the case and that's why fine-tuning fails.




7. Probability


This is one that sbsquarepants touched on in one of his posts. This idea of using probability to determine the chances of an event that has actually occurred of occurring in the first place is ludicrous. The main reason is that you have to know the range of values available to select from. In the case of fine-tuning that presents a problem. Take one of Martin Rees' 6 numbers, for example, D (no. of spatial dimensions in spacetime). Physicists are still arguing over what this number should be so the idea that a change in this number would have an effect on life is laughable.


Anyway, I've got to cut it short there for the moment. If I get time I'll finish this list tonight but it might be tomorrow.

nagirrac wrote: »

They are simply reporting their science. What "I" think is sort of irrelevant, but the observation that so many fundamental constants of cosmology "appear" fine tuned to allow life (as we know it at least) to exist is rather interesting.

"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers appear to be very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life"
Stephen Hawking (an atheist)

I agree that the fundamental constants do appear very finely tuned to allow life, and intelligent life at that. However I think the important point you make is this:

Obviously some scientists choose to also argue a philosophical opinion but they are in a small minority.

So, most scientists accept the fine tuning observation (how can they not, it's clearly evident) but they do not extrapolate from that towards a creator or towards metaphysical or paranormal entities. They simply accept it as an interesting observation, as do I.

*Edit* missed oldrnwisr's post - what he said.

Right, on one hand we've got the anthropic principle; if the universe had developed so that it couldn't support life, then there'd be no-one to observe it. Therefore, any universe we can observe MUST, automatically, be hospitable - at least locally hospitable.

On the other hand, if the universe was different, with different laws of physics, then different forms of life could have evolved. So they could be sitting around talking on their internet saying "just look how much life-sustaining gamma radiation suffuses this universe! It must be designed to support our life!" As said by Douglas Adams: '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!"'

Either way, this fine-tuning stuff just doesn't fly with me, never has.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Encyclopaedic Post of Knowledge

Zombrex wrote: »

Because people are fecking stupid :pac:

99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999% of the universe kills all known life instantly.

But some how the universe is "finely tuned" for life. :rolleyes:

FACT!

"Look at this hole," said the puddle. "it's exactly the same size and shape as me. It must have been made just for me."

nagirrac wrote: »

If ever there was evidence needed regarding the the closed minded worldview of atheists, this thread is it.

The argument for fine tuning is firmly rooted in science, not in philosophy. Yes, there are scientists who argue that fine tuning is evidence for a creator (Bernard Haisch, The God Theory) and scientists who argue against fine tuning to defend their dogmatic atheist position (Victor Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine Tuning), but to jump on either side of that debate is missing the point.

The list of eminent scientists who accept the fine tuning argument is exhaustive: Rees (Just 6 numbers, the book on the subject), Deutsch, Davies, Carter, Smolin, Susskind, Hawking, Guth, Greene, Penrose, Barrow, Hamilton, Sandage, Tegmark, etc. etc. Roughly half these scientists are theists / deists and the other half agnostic athiests. What they all have in common is making no dogmatic claim on what conclusion we should draw from the evidence of fine tuning. The only scientist I am aware of who openly disputes the fine tuning argument is Stenger.

If you don't mind, I'll stay with the open minded fecking stupid crowd.. and of course be accused yet again of using arguments from authority by the same people who predictably wheel out Dawkins at every opportunity.

If you want to maintain an open mind on the subject of fine tuning then start by reading "Just 6 Numbers" by Martin Rees (an atheist) and work from there.

You seem to be operating under the mistaken impression that
scientist accepts idea = idea is scientific

This is not the case. The fine-tuning argument is embarrassingly poor and utterly human-centric. I have already explained why I think so.
I have yet to hear a sensible, let alone convincing arguement for the idea. It is possible for human life to develop in the universe in which human life developed....you don't say!! It might not be possible for human life to develop in a universe human life has not developed in.... no way, you gotta be kidding me!?

I'm not disputing that even the slightest change to the universal constants might well render all life impossible. I just think this fact is zero evidence for a designer. The powerful, stunning arrogance to think that if something is suitable for you, even perfectly suitable, that you must have been the intention.
There are many species on earth whose adaptation to their enviornment is highly specified. If you were to alter the eco-system even a little they would not have evolved as they are and could not survive. Does this seem to you then, even slightly, that their enviornment was designed with this species in mind?

I don't care if you are Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein or Issac Newton. If you find this argument convincing, I think you are not reasoning very well on it.

You suggest my view on this is close-minded. You owe me a new irony meter.

McG wrote: »

That's crazy talk; the life we observe is tuned via evolution for the universe, not the other way around. Who's to say that if the universe was different that different life that we can't currently imagine would have emerged.
What a ridiculous argument!

The argument deals with more funadamental properties of our universe. Like gravity and the forces that hold atoms together and so on. Changes to some of these constants can make even matter as we know it impossible. Essentially, there might not even be stuff that could evolve into anything.

That said, it is still a bad argument.

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

The constants the standard model that require "tuning" are empirical values set so that the model produces accurate predictions. They are not ontological statements about some metaphysical set of dials that are literally tuned.

The fine tuning argument, when it is presented in an intellectually honest way, amounts to the following: "Why does this life-permitting universe exist, as opposed to some other conceivable, but unrealised universe?" which is a more specific version of the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" The answer, of course, is that we don't know.

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

See, at the most fundamental level, a self-contained explanation for the universe might simply not exist. The universe is not obliged to be something that can be fully understood, just as God would not be obliged to be something that can be fully understood.