Fine Tuning Argument: Unstated Premises. 2/2

Part 2/2. 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
• universe
• god
• anthropic

[facilisdescenus]

"If life is special in an absolute sense" That's because you're a nihilist :) In honesty I think most people think that there are special features about conscious life able to make morally significant choices that inanimate things like minerals do not have.

[bitbutter]

"I think most people think that there are special features about conscious life able to make ..."

I'm sure you're right. But of course a common feeling among biological life forms that biological life is somehow special doesn't mean that biological life is in fact more special than any other kind of phenomenon.

[niinja2]

oh come on

if gravity constant was stronger for 10^-60 the universe would collapse, and there would be no stars, no rocks, no nothing. I think this is quite special.

[bitbutter]

"if gravity constant was stronger for 10^-60 the universe would collapse, and there would be no stars, no rocks, no nothing. I think this is quite special."

You might be right if P1 P2 and P3 were true. I showed in these two videos why assuming their truth is not warranted.

[niinja2]

the important thing on which your argument hangs on is that we are noting special, if that is so then any kind of set of constants is arbitrary because it leads to "nothing special".

But my claim is that we are special. I back this claim with the fact that we are far more harder to make and sustain in the universe then some X name mineral. I think its a good assumption that any kind of life in the universe is more special, or of more value because its rarer then some kind of mineral.

[bitbutter]

"the important thing on which your argument hangs on is that we are noting special,"

Far from it. The fine tuning argument needs five premises to be true in order to succeed. The two videos explain why at least four out of those five remain open questions.

[bitbutter]

"But my claim is that we are special. I back this claim with the fact that we are far more harder to make and sustain in the universe then some X name mineral."

That's far from a fact, it's pie in the sky guessing.

To support this claim you need to show that no universe could exist which includes a structure/system/artifact (eg. a mineral) who's existence is more sensitive to cosmological constants than life is. That's a very tall order.

[Epistemofo]

Brilliant video, thanks for posting. I would only add that even if one were to adopt the God Hypothesis in order to explain physical constants, this would be a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire. Logic would necessitate a probabilistic assessment of God's existence and nature, something which would seem astronomically unlikely. A further leap would be needed to vindicate any conformity to specific doctrine. Theists will have their work cut out....

[GronTheMighty]

well done BB.. well done indeed, now i'm not normally one to pat people on the back since i am Danish, but you effectively chisesled away the faulty bits of the fine tuning argument and then in the end showed well how all that was left was guesswork that the theists don't even have the education to follow through on evidently, as there are no 'creation cosmological science centers' or such :P

[niinja2]

and btw you need to prove that there could be only one or few possible solutions for cosmic constants because there is not reason, no reason whatsoever to think now that current cosmic constants are the only possible numbers from the infinity of numbers.

constants are just numbers and for now they are treated as constants independent on anything, and thus its reasonable to assume that constants can be any real number from 0 to infinitty.

burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

[cyxgun]

The numbers are not the constants themselves. They are our mathematical representations of the constants. To the universe the charge of an electron is the charge of an electron, the universe doesn't care about our math. It's just a construct for us to represent it in a way we can understand.

You're saying "Look, how unlikely, the universe flipped the coin a million times and it always came up heads!"

I'm just saying that we haven't looked at the coin to see if it's the same on both sides.

[niinja2]

why could not they be different? They are just numbers

charge of proton 1.6*10(exp)-19 supports life as we know it, almost any other charge does not. This is incredible coincidence.

if there is a mechanism or a reason that alows only for this number of charge to be possible isnt it odd that the reason that alows only 1 solution for charge alows for life to?

[cyxgun]

You ignore my first point. You have to be able to show that the constants could have been different before you can say "Isn't amazing that they weren't different?"

[cyxgun]

No... it's not. For your counterargument to work you would have to show that in any universe with different constants than ours, nothing as "Complex, fragile and hard to maintain" as life could possibly form. You know this how?

Look, if our universe is 'fine tuned' for life, it's tuned pretty freaking poorly. Life is something like 1/3 of one trillionth of the mass of this planet, and this is the only known place in the solar system we have it. That's fine tuned?

[niinja2]

life is not special because its my perspective but because its complex , fragile and hard to maintain.Your analogy is faulty, it compares the point of view of 2 equivalent organisms, there is nothing in universe that can be compared to the complexity of life and i dont mean necessarily human life, but rather DNA molecules or simple cell organisms.

no matter how complex any kind of mineral or a star in some other universe is, life in that universe made out of that minerals will be more complex.

[niinja2]

the width of the interval for beneficial constants is infinitesimally small compared to all possible numbers

( interval of possible beneficial constants ) / (all possible numbers) = 0

like 3/ infinity =0

or

any limited interval / infinity =0

interval of possible beneficial constants has infinite number of possibilities but the chance that exactly any number from this interval will be chosen is 0

i am amazed in the manner in witch people are trying to dodge this argument.

[cyxgun]

Look at it this way: If somewhere someone who is a stranger to you won the powerball loto, would that be surprising to you? No of course not. However if YOU won the powerball it's "Amazing and special." Why is it more amazing and special when you win it? Because of your perspective, it's the only difference. Your being alive is the coincidence, not that life exists. Life only SEEMS special to us because we are alive. This in no way needs to diminish our appreciation of it though.