As a relatively recent arrival here at TSZ, I am somewhat intrigued to still see the Fine-Tuning Argument in regular rotation. It appears often in comments, but the two most recent OP’s that I have come across dedicated to the topic are Mung’s ‘The Wonder of Water‘ and RobC’s ‘The Big Numbers Game‘.
That I find the Fine-Tuning Argument completely unconvincing will not come as a surprise to anyone who has read any of my comments on TSZ. But I think it is worth taking a moment to explain why that is as my reasoning differs slightly from that of others whose comments I have seen. In a comment on the ‘Wonder of Water’ thread, Joe Felsenstein comes closest while referring to the ability of the Schrodinger Wave Equation to model all of the properties that we see expressed in Chemistry:
“If Michael Denton’s Intelligent Designer wants to fine-tune properties of water she has to do it by tinkering with the SWE. Which would mess up a lot else.”
In a UD post cited on RobC’s OP, vjtorley argues (with his emphasis) that God fine-tuned the universe because He wants us to discover His existence through the fine-tuning of the cosmos.
I will circle back to Joe Felsenstein’s comment momentarily.
For starters, it is important to make certain that everyone is familiar with the idea of Kettle Logic as expressed by Sigmund Freud in “The Interpretation of Dreams”. That is, using multiple arguments which are inconsistent with one another.
The example used by Freud is that of a man who is accused of returning a borrowed kettle to his neighbor in a damaged condition. He responds with the following 3 arguments:
1- The kettle was undamaged when he returned it.
2- The kettle was already damaged when he originally borrowed it.
3- He never borrowed the kettle in the first place.
Individually, any one of these arguments might be true. However, used together they represent an absurdity since they are each mutually exclusive of at least one of the remaining two.
To relate this to the Fine-Tuning Argument, I will put forth 3 statements that reflect the position of proponents of the argument as I understand it. We can hash out semantics in the comments.
1- An infinitely powerful being, God, created the Universe ex nihilo.
2- The same being carefully tuned a number of fundamental physical constants to extremely narrow ranges outside of which life as we know it would not be possible.
3- God’s creative hand is clearly visible in the structure of our Universe and its properties.
As with the Kettle Logic example above, any one of these three arguments might be true by itself. However, also as with the previous example, I don’t see any way that all three can be true simultaneously.
Scenario A: Assume statement 1 is true – If God is infinitely powerful and God created the Universe from nothing, then there can be no limit as to which values God could set physical constants to. If he literally sets the rules, then he would be able to make any combination of values work for his desired outcome (If 1, then not 2). And whatever set of values he chose, it should appear to any observers who might emerge within the Universe to be a brute fact (If 1, then not 3).
Scenario B: Assume statement 2 is true – If there are only very narrow ranges of physical values that will allow life to emerge, then God could not have created the Universe from nothing. In that case there must be a pre-existing substrate upon which reality is built which limits the creative actions of God (If 2, then not 1). And similarly to Scenario A, if the constants were set at the beginning, they would appear to any observers in the Universe to be an unchanging brute fact (If 2, then not 3).
Assuming that statement 3 is true brings me back to Joe Felsenstein’s comment that I quoted above. The chemical properties of water are indeed exceptional. However, as Joe points out, changing anything about the properties of water would necessarily change the nature of all of chemistry since water is made up of components which are common to all elements.
Deducing the creative action of God would require the observation of something that did not follow the established norms of the universe. The divine nature of Jesus is not believed based upon the observation of his normal habits of respiration and digestion for example. It is rather believed based upon the accounts of miraculous events in the Gospels which stand out from everyday commonplace events.
One way to look at it is as the difference between what I have occasionally heard described as tuning (setting of initial conditions) and tinkering (on-the-fly adjustments). Experiencing a miraculous event could lead one to deduce Divine action in the Universe. However, the mere fact that the event is miraculous means that it departs from the expected pattern of natural occurrences (If 3, then not 2).
Since this is my first OP, I apologize in advance for any formatting errors. I also apologize if I have misrepresented the position of proponents of the Fine-Tuning Argument. I would be happy to have my understanding enlightened.
My exposure to the argument has come primarily by way of Christian Apologists such as William Lane Craig and Fr. Robert Spitzer. Therefore, my statements here are primarily informed by that mindset versus more esoteric versions of Christian belief or by ID.
That’s what passes as “argument” in Mung’s universe. heh
Sorry about that. I didn’t know that it was directed at me. I’m still a bit new at this.
I’ll paste a comment I put up earlier and if you want to discuss it further, let me know. I suspect that we agree more than we disagree on that aspect of the multiverse.
The “brute fact” of Life’s exquisite adaptations was once considered an instance of divine providence until Darwin provided an explanation according to evolutionary principles … and yes there are theists who insert God as the originator of these evolutionary principles. But at least these Theists are engaging us in more intelligent fashion than those who take a literal reading of Genesis with no understanding of Biblical Hebrew.
The fact is – that at some point, you too must accept the fact you will be obliged to shake hands with theists and walk away in unsettled fashion; as the empirical method will never be able to confirm or deny religious experience.
The best you can hope to manage is that your theist gainsayers will concede you have moved their original goal posts, no differently than Kepler entertained and then dropped the suggestion that angels were directing planets in eliptical orbits
I do not think your invocation of Ockham’s razor applies here…
Turns out it is only one angel. Boy are they powerful!
The others are just involved in fine tuning the orbits.
I personally don’t think it would. We would presumably just be talking about alternative ‘multiverse’ characteristics that God could have chosen. I think that whether we are talking about ‘really big’ like the multiverse or ‘really small’ like the quarks and bosons, there will always be another level of complete mystery to consider. It simply depends on what informs each individual’s assumption as they contemplate that mystery.
I disagree. Positing a God who operates as the Fine-Tuning Argument adds a cause that does not provide any explanatory power. Why do you disagree specifically?
Hmmm I say.
Again, I cannot agree.
The issue here is that those life forms (or ourselves for that matter) cannot conceive of emergent intelligence along the lines they themselves witness the universe, because they are proscribed by their own laws of physics. All that is required of emergent intelligence is a universe that permits sufficient complexity of particles’ interactions (our brains being reducible to interacting particles on a complicated level).
I am no expert in Feynman diagrams, but if I understand correctly, most so-called alternatives collapse. However, it may not be impossible to consider alternative scenarios which generate the required complexity for emergent intelligence in a universe we cannot comprehend… unless of course, my earlier suggestion that even more fundamental Natural laws delimit options to what we experience.
for your enjoyment
In your own words, it’s ruled out because it makes no sense. Classical Theism does straightforward deductions, not probabilistic arguments. Things that make no sense cannot enter the system.
Someone might argue that any miracle would be a sort of instance of fine-tuning, but a classical theist would explain miracles diffirently – supernatural is highly natural, not other than natural. It’s super as in superpure compared to pure, there’s no anti or contra or sub involved.
I have no problem with agreeing to disagree with Theists on their beliefs about the Universe and its origins when they are stated as such. It is the attempt to use the apparent Fine-Tuning of the Universe as a proof of God’s existence that is a problem.
As I stated in my response to you, in general, the current location of their goalpost will be a function of the level of scientific knowledge at a given time.
I disagree with the Fine-Tuning Argument in principle because I think it is based upon fallacious reasoning regardless of who is using it and where it is applied.
I am pretty sure Ockham’s Razor does not apply
Ockham maintained that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
I may be missing your point, but I do not think your statement on its own provides prima facie evidence where the alternative of 10^”Unreasonably Large Exponent” universes invokes fewer assumptions than just one universe. What were your cosmological assumptions for 10^”Unreasonably Large Exponent” universes and what were your cosmological assumptions for one universe.
Frankly, I am not qualified to answer that question, but according to my reading, neither alternative is easily dismissable by experts in the field. Maybe I got that wrong.
As Aristotle was wont to declare: “…let us first define our terms”
What is your definition of “belief”?
Do you maintain that you yourself have NO assumption-premised beliefs?
‘enjoyment’ being a relative term;-) I have to give him credit for being dedicated. Not very pitchy either.
maybe there are no laws of physics, instead there are only properties of energy, matter being an instance of energy
does that simplify things?
let’s say time and space are illusionary constructs on our part (as I have heard said by some credible physicists), then each elementary particle does not need to carry around enough information to produce the entire universe (as Guth once declared) because each elementary particle is simultaneously (for want of a better word, given time is illusory) connected somehow to each and every other elementary particle
if I am even close to understanding these scribbles (and I am not) then Laws governing the universe would themselves be illusory… the universe becomes a mathematical self-actualizing tautology which would make Pythagoras proud.
OK – let’s file that with crank.net
I have earnestly wrestled with such speculations by minds greater than mine, but I am not embarrassed to say I have feet of clay and cannot comprehend such celestial thoughts.
ok, sure. what do you mean by define?
😉
That’s not entirely accurate.
Ockham’s Razors
I am pretty certain you have not managed to contradict me.
I genuinely want to understand your viewpoint, but I’m concerned that we are arguing past each other.
I think that we need to discern between which example we are discussing. If we are dealing in what I personally believe, then that is one thing. Whether the laws of physics in our Universe are one iteration of the Cosmic popcorn popper or if the Multiverse has properties which dictate those of individual Universes is an interesting question. I don’t pretend to be able to do anything but light up a doobie and speculate about it. I’m just scratching the surface of Quantum Mechanics in Grad School and the math is brutal.
For the purposes of this OP, I’ve been assuming arguendo that a Creator which reasonably fits the description given by Christianity exists and possesses the powers traditionally attributed to him. Within that frame of reference, I think that the Fine-Tuning Argument breaks down. And I don’t see how moving the ‘fundamental’ level of physical reality up or down rescues the argument.
I categorically deny that I have no assumption-based beliefs. I assume that I have the normal amount, however I can’t prove that assumption without inhabiting the bodies/minds/personas of other rational beings. What I am interested in is identifying assumptions which have been erroneously labeled as proofs and examining them for consistency.
As you said, let’s define our terms.
Occam’s razor as attribute to William of Ockham: “Plurality must never be posited without necessity.”
As formulated by Newton: “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.”
As formulated by Bertrand Russell: “Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.”
While ‘plurality’ in William’s formulation is arguable, Newton and Russell are quite clear. Adding a God to the explanation of a Universe (or Universes) is unparsimonious. Do you agree?
As I’ve said before:
Well-played sir. I naively followed the link.
Hey… I said myself we should file that last post of mine with crank.net
… moving on.
**butts in shamelessly**
No. Because there is no explanation for this universe.
Define ‘shame’;-)
But we have a Universe, so it is more rational to posit more Universes than to posit an omni-being who purports to seamlessly blend the characteristics of Aristotle’s demiurge with those of the Fairy Godmother.
Donald Trump’s missing emotion?
Apparently! But not an explanation for why we have a Universe.
Not sure about the dichotomy there! 🙂
1 – You are correct – the Christian apologists who frequent this site would be unable to contradict you, and your formulation of the Kettle Argument cannot be brooked by their overly naive understanding of theology.
2 – I promise you that I have had the privilege (and I do not use that term lightly) of having received instruction from others who would have no problem slaying your Shibboleths. However, they were Jewish scholars versed in Kabbalah and far more sophisticated than those who pretend to be Christians on this site even while consistently breaking the 8 (9) Commandment.
You ask later:
Depends how you define G-d. If by G-d you mean some celestial voyeuristic Santa Claus who occasionally pulls a string or two, just to remind you who is boss: you are correct again… let us not waste time with ecclesiastical straw man arguments
Your issue is assuming G-d is a noun – a person even – who is to be addressed in the second person singular, when praying.
I assure you that is a very naive and not worthy of further consideration. But the esoterica which I allude to, would be of no interest for your consideration; not to mention I have no right to continue further.
and FTR – sometimes, there are instances when the less parsimonious answer proves to be the correct answer – do not forget a scientific model is not just a miniature representation of the reality it is attempting to model.
A parsimonious explanation must still comport with facts. It can’t be wrong and parsimonious.
lol
petrushka,
Intriguing!
Ursula Leguin wrote The Lathe of Heaven and the short story The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. Seems relevant to an earlier thread asking whether a little suffering for a lot of “good” was worth it.
Thank you… the point I was attempting but you said it better.
contra Tom, who suggested that merely counting assumptions was all that was required.
It is this “without necessity” aspect of Ockham’s Razor that “skeptics” have a bad habit of ignoring.
If you’re positing “plurality” because it is necessary to do so then you are not violating Ockham’s Razor. Simple bean counters need not apply.
Is wikipedia wrong then?
Of the covenants found in the Pentateuch or Torah or the first five books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, the Noahic Covenant is unique in applying to all humanity, while the other covenants are principally agreements made between God and the biblical Israelites.
I have not the slightest doubt of your assertion. I claim no expertise on the matter, simply an opinion that needs shaping. As an aside, if you have a reference or two that you can recommend, I’d be glad to put them on my reading list.
In my experience as a Chemist and Engineer, I can confirm your assertion first hand many times over. However, assuming a complex model initially is a great way to waste time chasing down rabbit-holes. An unparsimonious solution arrived at by exhaustive process of elimination is a world away from a klugey, meandering pursuit of untested (or untestable) variables.
Alan:
If you’re referring to my thread, the question it raised is quite different: whether the evidence supports the notion of a powerful and loving God.
Indeed!!!
Having one, it seems more rational to posit others than to posit a different type of entity altogether. Earlier speculators making a similar induction with regard to planets, stars, and galaxies would have been proven correct in each instance. It is not a stretch to think that the induction might work again on the next order of magnitude.
I love that I’ve now seen it referred to as the ‘Whipped-Cream Orgasm’ thread on at least 2 other posts;-)
Wait, what, did a GROWN MAN WRITE THIS????
How can we possibly evaluate how likely something is, if we don’t know know how likely something else altogether is? We don’t know how likely it is that the Cubs will win the world series next year, so how can we possibly know how likely it is that nature could randomly create life??
Here’s what I know. If the Cubs hold a press conference next year, at the beginning of the year, and announce that they decided they aren’t going to practice this year. On top of that, they also aren’t going to pay any players salary, and of the seven men who have agreed to play anyway, four of them have shoulder injuries which make it impossible for them to throw a ball. And of the three that can still throw the ball, they have announced that their time is not very free, so they probably won’t show up to most games. Lastly, the team has announced that if they play any games at all, they must be in Mexico, because none of the players have permission to enter America.
Now, I am not sure about the other 29 teams, but I believe it is highly unlikely that the Cubs will win the World Series next year.
“Yeah, yeah, but that doesn’t mean some other team will win! Maybe the other teams are all made of aliens, from the some multiverse, and only pop into existence for a few fleeting seconds, or perhaps, the laws of nature are such that Mexico can be part of the United States during some brief instances, specifically when Chicago Cub players are coming to bat. Or maybe, the laws of physics will be suspended when a Cubs player picks up a ball, so they no longer will need to throw it, they will just teleport with thought to the other players to make an out! There are many possibilities, you can’t say the Cubs won’t win!…”
“But the rules say if you don’t field nine players for a game, you automatically forfeit.”
“So!!!??? You still can’t say its unlikely!”
RoyLT:
I suspect phoodoo is too young to remember the following album cover, which is probably a good thing. The woman on the right redid it as a boudoir photo for her husband.
It spawned a thousand imitations.
Love it! I don’t know about phoodoo, but I’m definitely too young to remember it. But I can still appreciate it.
LoL. As a (former) trumpet (actually cornet) player I ought to remember that one.
Though I was more into Maynard Ferguson.
I hope you’ll find time to read the paper posted in this comment. You may actually find it interesting.
From the OP:
Since you mention a thread that I created, was I the one to raise the fine tuning argument in that thread or was it someone else? If I raised it I suppose I shall have to defend whatever it was a said. 🙂
There is an inescapable element of ingenuity, engineering and knowledge that dumb luck seems to possess…
When fine-tuning dark energy (the rate of acceleration of the expansion of the universe) during the process of forming the universe, dumb luck exceeded the best human design–the gravity wave telescope (the best and the most fine-tuned achievement by human intelligence ever) by 10 ^97 …
All one can say is that if dumb luck has been able to exceed human design and engineering by such a vast number, all the Nobel Prizes awarded in physics should be returned and given to dumb luck instead…
Biology: dumb luck did it.
Physics: dumb luck did it.
Chemistry: dumb luck did it.
Cosmology: dumb luck did it
Dumb luck did it all! Return all the glory awarded to “intelligent humans” and give it to the one who deserves it all!
Not need to posit more universes at all. Even accepting the universe as a brute fact is more reasonable than “to posit an omni-being who purports to seamlessly blend the characteristics of Aristotle’s demiurge with those of the Fairy Godmother.”
Speaking of Spitzer, he quotes Einstein:
But maybe Einstein was wrong. Or a closet Christian apologist. 🙂
Do we really need to limit discussion of fine-tuning to Christian apologists? No, we don’t. In fact, that approach appears on it’s face to be a blatant attempt at poisoning the well.
As Tom points out, there are Jewish apologists as well. Even though he can’t share any of the mystical secrets of Kabbalah that they shared with him. And then there are Islamic apologists.
No anti-Christian bigotry here. Move along.
Spitzer quotes Paul Davies (another closet Christian apologist?
The question as to why the constants are what they are is an interesting one. But who is looking for proper explanations? yep, scientists are. What are IDiots doing in the meantime? declaring that it all points to a “Designer” which has even less explanatory power than “godditit” and completely obliterates the classical concept of God. Same old fallacies, same old logic fails, same old crap
J-Mac,
Your problem is that you have a false dichotomy deeply embedded into your psyche: it’s either “God” or abject dumb luck. You cannot imagine that some natural phenomena might have directions on their own.
I accept that some things might be random, some might be pretty much deterministic, some look like mixes of directionality and randomness, etc. And I have no problem accepting all of them as being all natural. You think that any directionality must be some god for no reason but your preference for it to be so.
Perhaps the main question you should ask yourself is how to solve a big self-refuting problem of the idea that directionality requires some magical being to make it so. If so, then how can this god have directionality in intention and power, etc, etc, etc, without some meta-magical being in charge of those directionalities, with some meta-meta-magical being … Or is it directing its own thoughts to have directionality, with some will whose directionality he also has to control, with a control that also has a directionality that he has to control, etc, etc, ad infinitum?
You could fix it all by just saying that this magical being doesn’t require a directionality-giver. That it has directionally by his own nature. But then again, if the magical being can have natural directionality, then natural directionality exists, and you’d have refuted your own false dichotomy. Sure, you might want to delimit the natural directionality to your magical being, but I could not care less. Any attempt at denying my position that there’s such a thing as natural directionality would backfire.
Seems rather convoluted and self-refuting. But it’s your false dichotomy. I guess you can live with it. I rather pass. Thank you very much.
I can imagine it, but it leads to the same conclusion. I believe that it’s known as the teleological argument for the existence of God.