In this section, we go round and round about the "fine-tuning" of the universe.
"one evidence for the existence of God is that our universe is fine tuned for life."
You do know that the majority of the universe is empty space, right? And that the majority of the known universe is completely void of life. Life can't even exist in a majority of the earth itself.
"And you do know that if it wasn't almost exactly as it is right now, if the earth were only a little closer or nearer to the sun,"
The distance from the earth to the sun varies by about 3.5 million miles per year.
"if our solar system wasn't at this spot, If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 10 raised to the power of 60, we would not be here."
I fail to see how the statistical improbability of life existing (which is something you cannot know since this is the only known universe or attempt at a universe) serves as evidence for the existence of supernatural phenomena or entities....or more specifically for your particular supernatural entity
"If it is possible that our universe could not have been this way, then it is possible to calculate the probability"
But that's just it. You have a sample of one universe. You have no way of knowing that it could not have happened this way. You have no other universe or attempt at a universe to compare it to. You have a sample size of one. It is impossible to calculate statistical probabilities with a sample size of one.
"The only sense that can be made in suggesting that it is impossible to calculate the probability is if you say the universe could not possibly have been different."
That's just it: you have no way of knowing that it could have been different. You have nothing else to compare it to.
"Simply put, the argument is that it is very, very improbable that these things happened by chance"
But it is not impossible. It is very very improbable that I could go to the casino play one hand of poker and get a royal flush. but it could happen. And I can measure the statistical probability of it happening because I'm dealing with known numbers (52 cards in a deck, four possible royal flushes in a deck all I need now is the number of players being dealt in and I can figure probability). Impossible would be playing only poker and winning at black jack.
"but it is much more probable, that they happened this way because they were intended to. Then, infer a designer."
Why is it much more probable that it happened this way "because it was intended to"? What other universes are you comparing this one to? I know what a sculpture looks like because I know what unsculpted rock looks like. How do you know this universe is designed when we know of no "undesigned" universes to compare it to? Why is it much more probable that conditions were "tailor-made" to suit the universe as it is now than it is that the universe as it is now simply arose as a consequence of existing conditions? That's like saying "it's far more likely that 2 and 2 were designed to go together to make 4 than it is that 2 and 2 just randomly came together to make 4."
So this was a bad analogy on my part. I probably should have said, "than it is that 2 and 2 make 4" and left it at that.
"Your 2+2=4 analogy doesn't work " He's right, but not why he thinks. It was a bad analogy, but the point I made is valid.
You missed the point of the analogy. and didn't answer the question. Why is it more improbable to suggest that the universe "as is" is a consequence of existing conditions than it is to suggest that existing conditions were "tailor made" for the universe when you have no other universe or attempt at a universe to compare it to?
"If the ratio [of proton to electron mass] differed by as little as 1 part in 10^37, life would not exist."
But you have no way of knowing that it could have been different by any amount.
He gave an analogy of a row of 1 * 10^37 dimes where one dime is painted red and a man chooses a dime at random from this set. "The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10^37. Let's face it. he won't pick it."
You have no way of knowing that he won't. It is not impossible that he won't pick the red one. Impossible means that you paint one dime red and he picks one painted blue.
"it seems enormously improbable that such a coincidence could have happened by chance."
But it is not impossible. When you can show that it is impossible you have a case.
"Can you tell my why it [the ratio of proton to electron mass] could not possibly be different?"
As soon as you can tell me the probability of it actually being different. How do you know what the probability of the force of this or the force that actually being off by any amount (regardless of size) is?
"Why would the universe necessarily exist in that extremely narrow window so that it has to produce intelligent beings? "
The universe doesn't "have" to do anything. Intelligent beings exist because conditions were favorable for life to flourish and advance in complexity. A puddle doesn't exist because the ground was intentionally designed to hold a puddle there or because the rain fell with the intent of filling the puddle. A puddle exists because conditions are favorable for rainwater to pool in that particular location.
"If you think anything like that could ever happen by pure, blind, chance, I rest my case. From where I'm standing, nothing like that ever happens unless it is directed. Some things can be so improbable as to be impossible."
From where i'm standing, it looks like the universe had a 100% probability of existing because, it's here. I mean, just check it out. Now since I have no other universes to compare it to, I cannot say with any degree of certainty that this number is accurate. Therefore, I cannot say that I know what the probability of the universe existing is. Now we can play "if such and such was off by this" or "if that was smaller or larger than this" all day long, but the bottom line is: until I can demonstrate what the probability of the force of this or the ratio of that being off (by any amount) is, then I cannot say with any degree of certainty what the probability of the universe existing is. Because I cannot say what the probability of the universe existing is, it follows that I cannot say with any degree of certainty what the probability of the universe not existing is. And Neither Can You. Until you can, you have no case to rest upon.
"You've been suggesting that maybe those things couldn't have been any other way."
No. I'm suggesting that you have no way of knowing that the probability was any greater that they shouldn't have been. We can talk all day about could've been. It could've been different and the question would be moot because there'd be no one to ask it. From where i'm sitting, the odds are 50/50...it either could've gone as it did or it couldn't have. You keep insisting that the odds are against it going as it did and i'm asking you to back that up with a percentage and on what you based that percentage.
"Why are the conditions favorable when the chances were so overwhelmingly in favor of their not being favorable."
Second verse, same as the first: on what are you basing the assumption that the probability was any greater for it not to have been different? Yes, it could have been different, but why should it have been different? On what are you basing the assumption that it is more likely for it to have actually been different?
"The answer to our probability problem is: how many different values could these constants have assumed?"
You still have not addressed the issue of how likely the probability was that these things which could have been achieved should have been achieved. If I flip a coin 100 times, it should land on heads 50% and on tails 50%. We know this because the two sides of a coin are basically similar in size, dimension and weight and nothing about the coin should throw off that ratio. However, there are other variables in play when flipping a coin that can skew those results (force of the flip, position of the coin at the time of flip, whether or not I drop the coin further on one flip than another, angle of the dangle, etc.) Because 0of this, I cannot say with certainty that if I flip a coin 100 times it will land on heads 50 times and on tails 50 times. What does this have to do with the discussion? You have what appears to be one coin. The coin has been probably flipped once and as far as you know it has never been flipped before or since and can probably never be flipped again. You know absolutely nothing about the other side of this coin: and you know absolutely nothing about the conditions in which it was flipped. You're not even sure that it is indeed a coin and not something that just looks like one from your vantage point. All you can say is that it was probably flipped and landed as it did. Could it have landed differently? Yes, it's possible. Should it have landed any differently? We have no way of knowing that. We can speculate, but there is no way to know.
"No, this is nothing like a coin."
Which is the point I was trying to make. You can list off all the possibilities that you like but unless you are proposing that the universe is a closed system then there are a whole lot of variables in play that throw off your probabilities.
"Here, there i [made] an entire list of possible values and by far the majority of them would result in a world with no life."
No life...as you know it. Don't assume that this product is the only possible outcome. There are billions of stars with billions of possible type of life out there that we know nothing of. Be careful that you don't weigh your conclusions on your frame of reference.
"You seem to be saying it wasn't a directed process but was chance influenced by some variables we know nothing about."
No, i'm saying that one action increases the likelihood of the actions that follow. Sort of like a tournament of 64 teams. Each team (in terms of strict probability) has a 1/64 chance of winning. (Now I know this isn't always true....if it were, bookies wouldn't be able to make any money, some teams recruit better than others, some have more experience in big games, a whole bunch of other intangibles monkey with those probabilities, but I digress). With each round of the tournament, the odds of winning increase by 50% until you are left with a 1/2 chance of winning.
"Consider the case of the fine-tuning of the strong nuclear force of the atom. If it were slightly larger or smaller, no atoms could exist other than hydrogen."
And you have no way of knowing what the real probability was for the formation of the nuclear force of the atom because you don't know what may or may not have been in play that would monkey around with your probabilities. You can guess based on number of possible outcomes, but until you know what else is in play (like say for instance the conditions in which the nuclear force was formed) you cannot know what the probabilities were
"There is an infinitely large number of values it [the strong nuclear force] could have taken."
In terms of strict probability, yes. But, you don't know about what other variables may have been in play at the time that would decrease the odds of it being any one of those other values. Take for instance my tournament analogy. Strict probability says a team has a 1/64 chance of winning it all. But, when you consider what that team is seeded, (which affects who they are playing against), where they are playing, what other teams are in their regional bracket, what time of day they are playing, what may be going on behind the scenes that affects team chemistry, who the coaches are, whether or not your star player is on a hot streak, what the team breakfast was that morning, and on and on....there are a ton of other variables that really increase or decrease the team's odds of *actually* winning it all. My point is that if we lived in a universe where strict probability was always valid, I would concede the point. But we don't. Probabilities are often monkeyed with by variables. that's why you always have to take them into account. and in this case, you can't because you don't know what they are.
"You're saying that there had to be some other variables that affected the probability of fine-tuning so that our universe now exists."
Yep.\
"You say that you do not know these factors but you assume that they are there because they are always there. That is the problem."
No, I assume that they are there because the universe is here. Now either i'm correct in assuming that something we have no knowledge of increased the likelihood of the universe's existence, or you're correct and a magic man done it.
"For example, in a poker game if you find that every time a certain player deals he gets all four aces, will you say that there are some unidentified variables that affected it?"
No I wouldn't, because I know people cheat at poker, I have seen people cheat at poker and I understand how the process works. When I see something that I don't understand how it happened, I assume that there is a logical explanation for it that does not involve supernatural mojo. Also, I have never seen a universe formed. And neither have you. And neither has Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, Fred Hoyle, Paul "Bear" Bryant or the Dalai Lama. Therefore it is safe to say that none of us knows anything about how the process really works. One of us is willing to admit that he doesn't know how the universe was really formed. And the other one is you.
"Saying that some unknown variables somehow gave rise to such an incredibly improbable event just won't cut it."
And a "magic man done it" will? Let me get this straight: "Unknown variables" are unacceptable but "magic" is? Explain, please.
"We can see no reason why the values that permit life will be more probable than those that do not so all the values are equally likely."
I'm beginning to understand. Since you "see no reason why the values that permit life will be more probable than those that do not," that gives you the right to assume that all values are equally likely and therefore the values that permit life are automatically less probable by virtue of being outnumbered by all the other likely values.
But there's just one problem: Life exists.
So now we face three possibilities:
1. Life occurred despite the odds.
Problems on my end? None. I've seen improbable odds beat before.
2. Some unknown variable(s) or factor(s) was/were involved which increased those odds in life's favor.
Problems on my end? None. I'm willing to accept that a lot of things are simply unknown, unexplainable or impossible to decipher given our fundamental understanding of current knowledge. This is how people come to believe in the supernatural. Their knowledge can't explain it, so it becomes indistinguishable from magic.
3. There exists a "_?_" that "created" life
Should have added "the universe and everything.".
Problems on my end? Numerous. Who or what is this "_?_"? Where did it come from? Why did it design a universe that is so hostile to life? Why did it design a planet for that life to live on that is comprised mostly of places which are equally hostile to life? Better yet: why didn't it just design life that was better suited to live in the universe it created? Could this be an indication that the "_?_" which designed life is different from the "_?_" which designed a universe mostly inhospitable to it? It would certainly explain a lot. If not, why did the "_?_" go to so much trouble to keep the rest of the universe a secret from us? What's it hiding from us? What's it afraid of us finding out?
"I loved your questions about "_?_"
Thank you.
"but it is my philosophy that unanswered questions have never been proof of anything."
I don't believe that either.
"That we do not know certain things about "_?_" is not proof that "_?_" does not exist."
And I never claimed that "_?_" does not exist. I claim that I have no real reason to believe that it does. Because if a "_?_" is real, it doesn't appear to be and apparently doesn't want to as every single alleged revelation of "_?_" out there requires that the claim be taken on faith alone.
"The value of the gravitational constant was set at the exact moment the universe began existing. There were no influencing factors because there was nothing."
Then there's no reason to believe that it could have realistically been any other value because as you have pointed out, without it, the universe would not exist....and the point would be moot. But it does exist.
"Your response is simply that very improbable things happen (as if the next time you play poker, you would accept that your opponent got all four aces because very improbable things happen)."
A problem with your analogy is this: if I had never played poker before and knew nothing of how people cheated or even that people did cheat, I would chalk it up to probability. I know how to cheat at poker, I know that other people know how to cheat at poker, and I know that people do in fact cheat at poker. I know all this because I have seen it and the process is replicatable. I know how many cards there are in a standard deck, how many suits and how many aces. From that I can determine the likelihood of this person getting 4 aces. With the universe, there's a whole lot I don't know. I don't know how many cards are in this deck or even that it is a standard deck. I have no idea how many aces there are supposed to be, or how many hands have been dealt, how many times the deck has been shuffled, or that poker is the game being dealt for (at the deal, "Go Fish" and Poker look the same).
"All you need to know is the probability of someone getting the four aces and you can see it did not happen by chance."
No. I also need to know that people can and do cheat, meaning that the system can be tampered with. When it comes to the universe, i've seen nothing to indicate that it can be.
"1. The fine tuning of the universe is either due to chance, physical necessity or design
2. It is not due to necessity (no influencing factors)"
That you are aware of. You said yourself that a "cause" can exist outside of time and space. If you get to special plead that, I get to special plead influencing factors.
"3. It is not due to chance (way, way, way too improbable)"
But not impossible. Make 2 and 2 equal 5 and I will concede the point.
"4. Therefore, it is due to design"
Who designed it? Where are they? Who or what designed them?
"The mass of the universe, its expansion rate, etc were all set at the instant the universe began. Unless 'nothing' is an influencing factor, there is no influencing factor."
We're finally starting to agree. But not how he thinks...his god would be an "influencing factor, so he just kind of owned himself.
"We agreed that unanswered questions are not proof of anything."
You are correct. But claims about the existence of supernatural entities or phenomena require independent verification. After all, I cannot "prove" that invisible pink unicorns do not exist. However, if I claim to have one in my garage, I need to show you something other than "you can't prove there's not."
"you're willing to not believe in a designer even if the fine-tuning of the universe strongly suggests it. (Because you know nothing about the designer, I suppose?)"
I don't necessarily agree that the universe is "fine-tuned." This is the old idea that 'the universe is designed because it looks designed.' To which I say: Compared to what?
And as far as what I am willing to believe, i'm willing to believe in the existence of something when I have something to go on other than "revealed" knowledge, and "you can't prove it isn't real."
No comments:
Post a Comment