Fine tuning argument doesn't make sense and here is why
« on: October 11, 2016, 06:41:38 am »
First of all universe isn't fine tuned for life. 99.9999999999999999999999999999% or more of it is deadly to life. Every designer who designed thing in this way would be fired immediately for incompetency. It's as if somone put few grains of sand in Auschwitz during WWII and said "look kid, you have nice sandbox here, it's fine tuned place for kids" But of course it's god so we can use our presupposition and say god has sufficient reason to design universe this way but that's a bit silly to me. We can also say it's the best possible universe for the existence of life, but I think every single person can imagine a more pleasent and hospitable place for life than our universe.

Second of all universe is, what a surprise, "tuned" only for life that we know can exist in our universe! What about forms of life that might exist in universes with different laws of physics? We know that if we slightly changed physical constant matter as we know from our universe couldn'r exist but it doesn't say that other unimaginable kinds of matter are impossible.

Thirdly, we have string theory according to which there are up to 10^500 universes. Even if only small number of them allowed for the existence of any complex matter that could give start to any form of life it still means there is unimaginable number of universes with different type of matter likely habited by strange and unfamiliar to us forms of life.

Fourthly, even if scientist proved that only matter as we know it in our universe can exist  (which for some obvious reasons wasn't proven yet and may not be even provable), then I don't see how it requires design. If god could make our universe in only one way then he didn't design anything, only followed rules that exist beyond him, but since we know sheer forces of nature can create complex structures in a process of time we can completely avoid god in our equation.

Fifthly it's not even the simplest possible explonation. What if for example there is some eternal area ruled by blind, eternal forces of nature capable of creating universes or multiverses? Given enough time the existence of universe supporting intelligent life is unavoidable. And mind that I assume only 3 things: it exists, it's eternal, it's able to create universes or multiverses. In case of god we assume not only those 3 things but also intelligence, free will, god is all pwoeful, all knowing, etc. God simply breaks Occam's Razor. And no, you can't say there can't be infinitely past reality, because that thing I talk about doesn't obey our laws of physic based on which we can judge one way or another.

To me these 5 objections render fine tuning argument completely invalid.

Any objections?
« Last Edit: October 13, 2016, 08:20:05 pm by UnreasonableFaith »
You see a grammar or spelling error in my post? Feel free to point it out, I'm still learning.

1

Gordon Tubbs

  • ****
  • 5608 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Personal Blog
Re: Fine tuning argument doesn't make sense and here is why
« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2016, 09:15:32 am »
I think these objections render the Anthropic Principle moot, but not the Fine Tuning Argument in and of itself. You have to consider the transcendental aspect of fine tuning. Why do the constants stay constant? Why are the constants one value as opposed to another? Why is the number of universes in string theory limited to 10^500 and not infinite? What deterministic natural force is creating universes and setting constants that is forcing energy to become matter, and matter to become life?
Ordained Minister of the Word and Sacrament (PCUSA)
Regent University, Master of Divinity (Chaplain Ministry)
US Navy (Active 2004-2009, Reserves 2012-2018)
Check out my blog!

2
Re: Fine tuning argument doesn't make sense and here is why
« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2016, 01:05:53 pm »
I think my objections hit directly in the heart of argument that is elements like "Physical constants are precisely tuned" (look objections 2, 3), "precise tuning requires god"(look objections 3, 4, 5).

I don't see how your questions corelate to my post or FTA.
You see a grammar or spelling error in my post? Feel free to point it out, I'm still learning.

3

Gordon Tubbs

  • ****
  • 5608 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Personal Blog
Re: Fine tuning argument doesn't make sense and here is why
« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2016, 04:30:25 pm »
Well there is a big difference between:
1. The Universe is fine tuned for life.
and
2. The Universe is fine tuned because the constants were fixed and are sustained.

Those are two different FTAs with different claims and implications. I believe your objections render the first moot, but not the second. I believe the only real way to scientifically argue against the FTA is to observe a large sampling of other Universes, and then determine if the presence of physical laws and their values correlates to the promotion or demotion of self-aware life. But that hypothesis is impossible to test. The only sample set we have is this Universe compared to a theoretical variance in the constants currently observed. Here's the kicker: it may or may not be the case that our Universe was designed for life to emerge but if the laws were different we know for a fact that we wouldnt be here. So actually we can dismiss both Argument 1 of the FTA and your objections because we cant prove nor disprove the anthropic principle. That takes us to Argument 2, which is more of a classical teleological argument that is difficult to counter.
Ordained Minister of the Word and Sacrament (PCUSA)
Regent University, Master of Divinity (Chaplain Ministry)
US Navy (Active 2004-2009, Reserves 2012-2018)
Check out my blog!

4
Re: Fine tuning argument doesn't make sense and here is why
« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2016, 07:37:40 pm »
Ok, so the argument now is as follows

1. Physical constants exist that is are really unchangable
2. Existence of physical constants is best explained by god
3. God exists

Did I get it right?

If so, I don't see how is it difficult to counter. On contrary I'd say:

Premise 1 is higly debatable, we don't know for sure whether physical constants in our universe really are constant, scientists are testing it regularly. Yet because of Occam's Razor we assume they are constant. There are even theoretical models that allows for local changes of physical constants by breaking symmetry. Also it's true for our multiverse at best. What if there are more multiverses in which exist universes with parametres that change?

Premise 2 is feeble too. First of all it presuppose the necesity for explonation. It's the same issue as with cosmological argument. You can ask whatever you want about reality, yet you can't ask it about god because god by defiition doesn't require explonation. Maybe physical constant simply are, and that's deepest possible elvel of understanding we can reach.

Also I can imagine the universe with changing constants in which life may exist. Imagine for example that these changes in physcal constants causes some form of matter to become unstable, increasing life time or stability of other compounds at the same time. I can imagine universe with cyclic changes of physical constants inhabited by beings that simply change their structure from one set of elements to other in order to survive. So I'd say now that premise 0 that is life requires constant constants is questionable too.

Another issue is this:
1. Everything in the world change
2. Constants stay constant
3. We need an explonation for exraordinary constancy of constants

Of course it's clearly visible first premise is wrong.
You see a grammar or spelling error in my post? Feel free to point it out, I'm still learning.

5

Gordon Tubbs

  • ****
  • 5608 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Personal Blog
Re: Fine tuning argument doesn't make sense and here is why
« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2016, 10:59:45 pm »
I mean, you raise some good points, but the reason why FTA arguments and counter-arguments are ultimately unconvincing is because the theist is resorting on God of the Gaps to make their case, and the naturalist is relying too much on theoretical modeling. Until the naturalist determines a natural explanation for how Universes are made, and why constants appear, both parties are sort of wading in the dark. Saying "God did it" is no stranger nor different than "because the Multiverse."

We can debate Premise 1. I wouldn't quite word it that way, but it's irrelevant. Your discussion of Premise 2 is on the nose: "Maybe physical constant simply are, and that's deepest possible level of understanding we can reach." I think that's an honest thing that both the theist and naturalist need to admit. The theist simply sees that necessity as a gap that is best explained by God. It may not be a convincing argument for you in particular, but you have to remember that the theist is making a case for faith in this instance, not an airtight empirical claim. And so the theist goes a step further by simply asking "why are the constants necessary?" I should think that the resulting discussion ought to at least put God on the table as a viable option, which is why the argument is difficult to counter. The naturalist needs to explain why God cannot be an option, but the only way he can do this is to set up a scientific hypothesis to prove God wrong. It might be the case that one day science might in fact figure it out, but right now there is no natural explanation for why the constants both exist and are sustained. That's really the crux of all teleological arguments. If you want to counter it, just say "I'm unconvinced in that because you're resorting to God of the Gaps logic." Ain't no skin off my back. =)
Ordained Minister of the Word and Sacrament (PCUSA)
Regent University, Master of Divinity (Chaplain Ministry)
US Navy (Active 2004-2009, Reserves 2012-2018)
Check out my blog!

6
Re: Fine tuning argument doesn't make sense and here is why
« Reply #6 on: October 15, 2016, 10:52:43 am »
What you described is good reason to believe we may never be able to completely get rid of god. There will be always people unsatisfied with available answer. To me it's special pleading. Such people will always ask "why" and don't accept there may not be an answer, yet when you ask them why god is the way he is, then they tell you you can't ask this and then it's ok for them. I think it's more cosmological argument now.

If someone presuppose only god may not have a cause and we can't ask "why" only in the case of god, then it's practically as if that person simply presupposed the existence of god. Person who presuppose the existence of god is beyond any reasonable discussion on that topic in my opinion.

Also you said:

Saying "God did it" is no stranger nor different than "because the Multiverse."

Why do you think that for example finding mathematical formula that explain why constant must be one way not other is the same as saying "God did it"? By this standard everything explonation is equally valid and reasonable. And then you can ask, why is this mathematical formula the way it is? There are two options You either apply the same rule to everything and also ask why god is the way it is and find eveng greater god etc, or you admit that in fact some things simply maybe the way they are and you can't investigate further. And remember about Occam's Razor. If one presupposes only god may be uncaused then I don't see how he or she may discuss anything.

But I really don't see how it has anything to do with FTA and I sincirely can't see how it is hard to counter. It doesn't make belief in god even slightly mroe reasonable. The sheer fact something isn't proven not to exist or to be wrong doesn't make beleif in it reasonable option. That's like believing that there is even number of grains of sand on earth. Or odd. No matter what option you choose to believe you're irrational.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2016, 10:56:10 am by UnreasonableFaith »
You see a grammar or spelling error in my post? Feel free to point it out, I'm still learning.

7

Gordon Tubbs

  • ****
  • 5608 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Personal Blog
Re: Fine tuning argument doesn't make sense and here is why
« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2016, 01:49:42 pm »
Thanks for the discussion. At the heart of FTA might be special pleading, explanation begging, and a refusal to question our own presuppositions - that goes both ways though.

I'm personally hesitant to employ Occam's Razor because technically I could use it to confirm Solipsism. It's a great principle, but sometimes not applicable.
Ordained Minister of the Word and Sacrament (PCUSA)
Regent University, Master of Divinity (Chaplain Ministry)
US Navy (Active 2004-2009, Reserves 2012-2018)
Check out my blog!

8
Re: Fine tuning argument doesn't make sense and here is why
« Reply #8 on: October 15, 2016, 08:10:21 pm »
You're welcome!

To be honest I don't really see those fallacies in what I presented.

And I don't see how Occam's Razor proves solipsism, on the contrary I think. If you assume you're brain in a vat for example, it doesn't increase your understanding of anything in your world.
You see a grammar or spelling error in my post? Feel free to point it out, I'm still learning.