Fine Tuning Argument: Unstated Premises. 1/2

Part 1/2. Shining a light on the shaky premises of the fine tuning argument that usually go unstated.

P1. The set of cosmological constants we see in our world is just one of a vast number of physically possible sets.

P2. Among the physically possible sets of constants, the set we see in our world is no more likely, a priori, to exist than any other.

P3. It is not the case that there are (or have been) regions of spacetime with different cosmological constants than the ones we see in our world.

C4. From p1,2,3 the existence of the set of cosmological constants in our world is exceedingly unlikley.

P5. Our set of constants is the only physically possible set that would allow the emergence of life as we know it.

P6. The capability of permitting life as we know it to exist, is a very special feature within the set of hypothetically possible worlds.

C7. from p5, and p6, the existence of our set of constants is surprising, remarkable and in need of explanation

"The Fine-Tuning Argument Revisited"
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/tuning-revisited.html

Category:

Education

Tags:

• fine
• tuning
• anthropic
• universe

[niinja2]

A universe in which there is life is far more special then the billions of possible universes in which there is no life.

If there really is a natural mechanism that makes life making universes more likely to appear then it would be reasonable to assume that mechanism which sets the constants of the universe is also fine tuned.

If there is a mechanism which makes the mechanism which makes the universe to have life in it, that would also be fine tuned.

[bitbutter]

"A universe in which there is life is far more special then the billions of possible universes in which there is no life."

You need to support that assertion, and i'm pretty certain you can't.

What do you think it is about the quality of being able to support life (as we know it) that is more special than (say) the quality of being able to formation of a fictitious mineral? (see part 2 of the vid). Can you show that your answer is not arbitrarily life-centric?

[niinja2]

if our bowling alley is made a little round so it can increase the number of "hits" it would only give strength to the argument for the creator.

How would a non creator universe know what is a hit and what is a miss?

The computer you described that is taking lotto numbers is tuned because it takes only specific interval of numbers into account. If there is a mechanism that in making a universe favorites kind of constants that favorite life in it, then that kind of mechanism is also fine tuned.

[bitbutter]

"if our bowling alley is made a little round so it can increase the number of "hits" it would only give strength to the argument for the creator."

The point is that we don't know whether the physical constants are free to vary, and to what extent they are. They may be an underlying law that prevents them from arriving at certain combinations. If such a law exists, without knowing anything about it, we certainlt can't yet say whether or not it seems 'fine tuned'.

[iltamian]

I do believe that our conventional science will start some progress after we are able to prove all fundamental forces into one force,seems impossible at this stage as to combine electromagnetic forces took over a century.

[palui]

@Gericho49 Easy, big fella. For one thing, cosmologists *do* have some ideas how to test for multiple universes, but the technology isn't quite there yet. Personally, I think the concept of fine tuning is an interesting one that brings up concepts of selection bias, etc. A very interesting topic. But how theists have glommed onto it to attempt to prove their beliefs isn't very compelling. Yes, you missed my point. Trust me. Most people do. And why have you changed your name from prodigalfather?

[Gericho49]

@palui As for your claim that " we let the scientists do their work and keep studying " I agree but our universe is 100s of billions of light years across. What chance cosmologists would get any data from other "possible" universes? Theres no logical necessity for the immaterial laws of science to be different in different physical universes.This is just one BLIND assumption atheists have in "materialism" but wont admit it. Given Occum's razor arent u at best an agnostic who has no idea?

[palui]

@Prodigalfather1 Why don't we let the scientists do their work and keep studying and see what they come up with in the future. "God did it" may satisfy you, and most other theists, but not the rest of us. Also, you missed my point entirely.

[Prodigalfather1]

@palui Yes, anyone can win lotto when its 1 chance in 45 million. But if the same person won it a dozen time in a row that person would be locked up for fraud.especially when the odds are 1 in 45 quadrillion. If thats not enough the winner is not anyone but one that is just perfect. Maybe ur worldview fantasizes that "a million monkeys sitting at a typewriter for a trillions years will eventually punch out a Shakepearian Sonnet , but realists dont. .

[Prodigalfather1]

Brian Green in his book proposes 9 varieties of multiverses eg. brane world versions, cyclic universes, string theory, chaotic inflation, quantum wave functions, computer simulations& what can exist must exist. But they all conflict with each other. Much more likely none of them are true. Its very easy to propose hypothetical models, much more difficult to propose scientifically observable & testable ones.

[Prodigalfather1]

Bitbutter, ur on a very buttery slop by assuming the multiverse theory is true based on absolutely NO EVIDENCE. The only way an atheist can even hope to refute fine tuning is to fantasise about multiple universes & sets of laws & physical constants. By what logical necessity however should LAWS change or evolve.Theists need but i universe to explain design atheisms have resorted to fanciful theories & then ask theists to try and refute them. This video is a joke!!

[palui]

If only we could get proponents of FT to agree that our universe (understood strictly) is in fact NOT improbable at all. How could we do this? Let's think. One way is the multiverse. Good, but hard to prove. Another would be to argue that the values of the constants aren't equally probable. Hm. OK, but again, vulnerable position. How about this: No one can claim improbability of a random event without an a priori prediction of the random value? BINGO. FT is gone. It's in the trash heap.