Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fine tuning: a discussion for the rest of us mortals
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 1 of 83 (261055)
11-18-2005 5:26 PM


The fine tuning argument has turned up more than a few number of times in the past. I really don't understand why people keep referring back to this same old argument again and again.
For those that have been living under a rock, the fine tuning basically says that the universe seems to be fine tuned to support life on Earth.
Why can't people see the obvious flaw in this logic? Allow me to give some analogies to demonstrate how obviously stupid this argument is.
(1) Our fingers seem to be fine tuned to use a keyboard.
(2) Tall skyscrapers in large metropolitan areas have fine tuned the regions to not allow any tornado to form.
(3) My mouth seems to be fine tuned to perform oral sex on David.
All three of these arguments are obviously flawed, not to mention stupid.
Number 1 is backward. Our hands and fingers are not fine tuned to use the keyboard. We designed the keyboard such that it is comfortable to a certain level for us to type.
Number 2 is just dumb. Why would you want to build a big city right in the middle of tornado valley? I have often heard the argument that you can't have a tornado in a city because those buildings just won't allow the wind to gain enough energy to form into a tornado. Again, it's just stupid to think that tornados didn't exist before the modern era.
Number 3 is again just stupid. You make the best with what you have. There's no hidden meaning or design behind it. It's there. It works. You use it.
Considering the age of the universe and the age of life on earth, life on earth have only been a small part of the history of the universe. Through natural selection, life have adapted to survive in the environments that are already there. The environments didn't exist for life to live in. Life had to mold itself to survive in those environments.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminRandman, posted 11-18-2005 7:36 PM coffee_addict has replied
 Message 5 by mike the wiz, posted 11-18-2005 9:06 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 8 by randman, posted 11-18-2005 9:39 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2005 9:48 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 11-18-2005 9:51 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 14 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 11-18-2005 11:34 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 15 by Slim Jim, posted 11-18-2005 11:43 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 24 by Omnivorous, posted 11-19-2005 10:13 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 26 by cavediver, posted 11-20-2005 12:30 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 67 by ikabod, posted 06-08-2006 3:20 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
AdminRandman
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 83 (261109)
11-18-2005 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by coffee_addict
11-18-2005 5:26 PM


well, I'd promote it
But haven't gotten around to learning how to do that. You are talking of the anthropomorphic principle, correct?
Where do you think it should go? Big Bang and Cosmology? Intelligent Design?
This message has been edited by AdminRandman, 11-18-2005 07:39 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by coffee_addict, posted 11-18-2005 5:26 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by coffee_addict, posted 11-18-2005 7:41 PM AdminRandman has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 3 of 83 (261112)
11-18-2005 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminRandman
11-18-2005 7:36 PM


Re: well, I'd promote it
Your choice, boss.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminRandman, posted 11-18-2005 7:36 PM AdminRandman has not replied

  
AdminRandman
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 83 (261128)
11-18-2005 8:50 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
Please note that the topic here involves much more than biological principles which often ID centers on, but since this is a primary ID argument, I think this is the place even though it may be more of a Cosmological issue (but not Big Bang and so moved here).
This message has been edited by AdminRandman, 11-18-2005 08:53 PM

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 5 of 83 (261138)
11-18-2005 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by coffee_addict
11-18-2005 5:26 PM


Lam-logic
Why can't people see the obvious flaw in this logic? Allow me to give some analogies to demonstrate how obviously stupid this argument is.
Honest observation. Read the great debate, "My thoughts on a designer".
The flaw on the logic, is a simplistic viewpoint. It's far more complex than your analogies IMHO. Just some of the instances I mention are observable, and basically are explained very well, via a mind being at play.
I'll give an example so you can understand how I think;
Friction to hold things together. [Why if it's random universe] [Explained if it's a mindful attribute]
Time for things to happen. [Why if it's a random universe] [Explained if it's a mindful attribute]
Heat for energy. Any source too close will cook, so we shall have a large heat source which radiates through a vacuum, and a lesser light for night, which is harmless. [why if it's a random universe] [Explained if it's a mindful attribute].
So as you can see; honest observation and deduction from what I learn.
It's not something I favour. I am not that arsed anymore, if it's random, it just doesn't appear to be, to me.
The consistent question that plagues my mind, is that a random universe wouldn't have so many orderly and purposeful factors. It "just being that way" is almost as useless as "Goddidit".
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-18-2005 09:09 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by coffee_addict, posted 11-18-2005 5:26 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 11-18-2005 9:29 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 20 by Tusko, posted 11-19-2005 8:56 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 6 of 83 (261149)
11-18-2005 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by mike the wiz
11-18-2005 9:06 PM


Re: Lam-logic
mike the wiz writes:
Friction to hold things together. [Why if it's random universe]
It sounds like you're saying that God invented friction for our convenience - i.e. so that we would "stick to the ground" when we walk. That's roughly the equivalent of saying, "The sky is blue because it's my favourite colour."
Wouldn't it make more sense to say that the sky is blue because of the inherent physical properties of air and light? Similarly, wouldn't it make more sense to say that friction is a result of the inherent properties of matter?
Those properties of matter would still be there even if we weren't here.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by mike the wiz, posted 11-18-2005 9:06 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by mike the wiz, posted 11-18-2005 9:36 PM ringo has replied
 Message 25 by Phat, posted 11-20-2005 11:54 AM ringo has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 7 of 83 (261151)
11-18-2005 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ringo
11-18-2005 9:29 PM


Re: Lam-logic
You miss the point. There is no need for friction in a random universe. Nor any of these other traits, which just happen to be absolutely necessary for anything to happen in this place.
As surely as an aircraft allows passengers to fly, if it was random it would simply not be there.
Since the unvierse shows "workings" of a mind, then IMHO, there is no difference.
It sounds like you're saying that God invented friction for our convenience - i.e. so that we would "stick to the ground" when we walk. That's roughly the equivalent of saying, "The sky is blue because it's my favourite colour."Wouldn't it make more sense to say that the sky is blue because of the inherent physical properties of air and light?
Can't I say both? What makes you think they're mutually exclusive? Not that I am suggesting anything like this in the first place, as;
Your analogy poses that the sky being blue is somehow necessary for my survival, and the survival of every living being, ever, and for the existence of matter holding. Since your analogy doesn't show this in any way, then that's not infact an adequate substitution for what I am saying, but rather a cunning analogy with lots of spin on it, IMHO.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-18-2005 09:37 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 11-18-2005 9:29 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 11-18-2005 9:53 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 8 of 83 (261152)
11-18-2005 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by coffee_addict
11-18-2005 5:26 PM


it's more complex
When I first heard of the anthropormorphic principle, I felt the same way; that it was not a good argument, but the more I heard non-simplistic versions of it, the stronger it got.
Here is some interesting comments from Wheeler, but he doesn't get into the specifics.
But it was new in the form that Dicke put it. He said if you want an observer around, you need life, and if you want life, you need heavy elements. To make heavy elements out of hydrogen, you need thermonuclear combustion. To have thermonuclear combustion, you need a time of cooking in a star of several billion years. In order to stretch out several billion years in its time dimension, the universe, according to general relativity, must be several billion years across in its space dimensions.
So why is the universe as big as it is? Because we're here!
Stronger than the anthropic principle is what I might call the participatory principle. According to it we could not even imagine a universe that did not somewhere and for some stretch of time contain observers because the very building materials of the universe are these acts of observer-participancy. You wouldn't have the stuff out of which to build the universe otherwise. This participatory principle takes for its foundation the absolutely central point of the quantum:
No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed (or registered) phenomenon.
Cosmic Search Vol. 1, No. 4 - FORUM: John A. Wheeler
Imo, the participatory principle Wheeler is talking about mandates that no definite, single form of physical existence could occur without observation within the universe itself. It's complicated and perhaps a sort of Universal Observer principle is all that is needed, or perhaps Wheeler is correct, or perhaps something else is, but this is not a lightly dismissed area.
Quantum physics, imo, provides some real teeth to the anthropomorphic principle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by coffee_addict, posted 11-18-2005 5:26 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 9 of 83 (261153)
11-18-2005 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by coffee_addict
11-18-2005 5:26 PM


Planetary range
Also consider that in the early solar system the conditions on venus, earth and mars were fairly similar, enough so that any significant change in the {power\effect} of the sun could easily mean that life would have formed on the second or fourth rock.
Venus and Earth are very similar except for (1) run-away global warming on Venus has transformed it into a hot acidic atmosphere (2) run-away life on Earth has transformed it into an oxygenated atmosphere with secondary regulation mechanisms.
In fact if all the CO2 were 'liberated' the Earth could be another Venus. And there may well be some remnants of an archaic life form in the atmosphere of Venus from before the warming.(1)
We are also aware of the search for evidence of life on Mars and possibly on Titan as well.
What this really means is that the range for a life viable planet to orbit a star like the sun is much greater than the Earth's orbit +/- 10%.


(1) D. Schulze-Makuch, D.H. Grinspoon, O. Abbas, L.N. Irwin & M.A. Bullock (2004 Mar) A sulfur-based survival strategy for putative phototrophic life in the venusian atmosphere. Astrobiology vol 4 no1 p11-18. [Electronic version]. Retrieved 13Nov2005 from
http://www.liebertonline.com/...s/10.1089/153110704773600203

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by coffee_addict, posted 11-18-2005 5:26 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 10 of 83 (261156)
11-18-2005 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by coffee_addict
11-18-2005 5:26 PM


(1) Our fingers seem to be fine tuned to use a keyboard.
Number 1 is backward. Our hands and fingers are not fine tuned to use the keyboard. We designed the keyboard such that it is comfortable to a certain level for us to type.
ask a secretary. besides, remember these?
why would we need a better keyboard if this argument were true? why would people get carpal tunnel syndrome? {edit}also, it takes two hands to type, one to punch numbers, and one to use a mouse. if we were designed to use a computer properly, we'd have at least three hands. i'm sure fps gamers are very familiar with this principle.{/edit}
(2) Tall skyscrapers in large metropolitan areas have fine tuned the regions to not allow any tornado to form.
Number 2 is just dumb. Why would you want to build a big city right in the middle of tornado valley? I have often heard the argument that you can't have a tornado in a city because those buildings just won't allow the wind to gain enough energy to form into a tornado. Again, it's just stupid to think that tornados didn't exist before the modern era.
i'm not possitive, but i think this pattently false. for one, skycrapers tend to create a wind tunnel effect. you just need the low-pressue/high pressure difference to make a tornado. during wilma down here, ft laudy actually had some SEVERE damage, which seemed to have been cause by tornados related to the hurricane. (hurricanes often spawn tornados, believe it or not. the tornados tend to be more dangerous)
(3) My mouth seems to be fine tuned to perform oral sex on David.
Number 3 is again just stupid. You make the best with what you have. There's no hidden meaning or design behind it. It's there. It works. You use it.
actually, better oral sex could be (well, IS) a factor of sexual selection.
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-18-2005 09:57 PM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by coffee_addict, posted 11-18-2005 5:26 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2005 9:58 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 11 of 83 (261159)
11-18-2005 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by mike the wiz
11-18-2005 9:36 PM


Re: Lam-logic
mike the wiz writes:
There is no need for friction in a random universe.
There is no need for "need". You are arguing backwards from what we have, to an assumption that it was provided to fulfil a need.
Nor any of these other traits, which just happen to be absolutely necessary for anything to happen in this place.
No. If any of those factors were different, then we would have "evoleved", as it were, in a different way - or we might not have evolved at all.
As surely as an aircraft allows passengers to fly, if it was random it would simply not be there.
There are some threads around here somewhere about the evolution of wings. There are wings - e.g. chicken wings - which don't allow flight. Apparently the wing evolved before the "need" for flight. It was something that "just happened" which was put to a use because it was already there.
Since the unvierse shows "workings" of a mind....
But that is entirely subjective.
Your analogy poses that the sky being blue is somehow necessary for my survival...."
Once again, the idea of "necessary for survival" is thinking backwards. Life survives because of what is already there. There is no predefined "need".

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mike the wiz, posted 11-18-2005 9:36 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 83 (261160)
11-18-2005 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by arachnophilia
11-18-2005 9:51 PM


the order of the keys on the standard keyboard (qwerty) was to slow down the typing (yes spring-loaded key linkage systems) so that the commonly used keys wouldn't get jammed at the paper\ribbon.
there are other systems that can be used that are much more efficient, but like a bad eye design this has persevered.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 11-18-2005 9:51 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 11-18-2005 10:49 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 16 by randman, posted 11-19-2005 12:09 AM RAZD has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 13 of 83 (261163)
11-18-2005 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
11-18-2005 9:58 PM


well, yeah. hit a key on a typewriter and the key next to it too fast in succession and see what happens.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2005 9:58 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Maxwell's Demon
Member (Idle past 6229 days)
Posts: 59
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 14 of 83 (261167)
11-18-2005 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by coffee_addict
11-18-2005 5:26 PM


Lam writes:
For those that have been living under a rock, the fine tuning basically says that the universe seems to be fine tuned to support life on Earth.
I never really did get this argument either...
If the point of it all truly is life on earth, then why are there literally billions of other stars out there (except for our sun)? Vast ammounts of cold uninhabitable space? Etc. Seems like pretty poor "fine tuning" to me.
If the Universe was fine-tuned for life I'd expect it to be full of it, not a smidge from being completely empty.
It's sort of like if someone brought you a new design for a cup and told you it was fine tuned to hold water. Then you look at the cup, and it's 10^50 cubic meters large, but can only hold a millilitre of water due to design issues. I'm pretty sure your conclusion would be that the cup designer is either joking or an idiot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by coffee_addict, posted 11-18-2005 5:26 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by ohnhai, posted 11-19-2005 1:17 AM Maxwell's Demon has replied

  
Slim Jim
Junior Member (Idle past 6243 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 05-06-2005


Message 15 of 83 (261171)
11-18-2005 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by coffee_addict
11-18-2005 5:26 PM


From a Bayesian probabilistic point of view, I've always been rather fond of the Fine-tuning argument for it seems to undermine ID more than validate it.
Consider the following propositions:
L: the universe exists and contains life.
F: the conditions of the universe are compatible with life existing naturalistically.
N: the universe is solely naturalistic.
WAP: (Weak Anthropic Principle) life can exist in a naturalistic universe only if the conditions of that universe are compatible with life existing naturalistically.
We can comfortably agree that proposition L is true. The claim that the universe is fine-tuned for life (vacuously) implies that life can thereafter exist naturalistically. Thus we can safely agree that proposition F is true. Proposition N is more contentious, so let's assume that either of N (the universe is solely naturalistic) and ~N (the universe is not solely naturalistic) are possible for the moment. Thus both N and ~N have non-zero probabilities of being true. The Weak Anthropic Principle states that L&N -> F, or in probabilistic terms P(F|L&N) = 1.
Things become very interesting when we apply Bayes theorem. This allows us to conclude:
P(N|L&F) = P(F|L&N) * P(N|L) / P(F|L)
         = P(N|L) / P(F|L)
         >= P(N|L)
i.e. the probability that the universe is solely naturalistic given the universe exists, contains life and the conditions of the universe are compatible with life existing naturalistically is greater than the probability that the universe is solely naturalistic given the universe exists and contains life. Thus the Weak Anthropic Principle does not impede the premise that the universe is solely naturalistic.
And since P(~N|L&F) = 1 - P(N|L&F) we can conclude that P(~N|L&F) <= P(~N|L). i.e. the probability that the universe is not solely naturalistic given the universe exists, contains life and the conditions of the universe are compatible with life existing naturalistically is less than the probability that the universe is not solely naturalistic given the universe exists and contains life. Thus fine-tuning does not support supernaturalism.
This is quite ironic - we have arrived at the rather curious position where fine-tuning increases the likelihood of a naturalistic universe.
ID proponents may say "Whoa! Hang on minute Slim. There are two arguments that undermine a solely naturalistic universe. 1. Irreducible Complexity implies that the conditions of the universe are not compatible with life arising by solely naturalistic mechanisms. And 2. the Anthropic argument implies that the universe is so finely-tuned to the existence of life that the universe cannot be considered solely naturalistic."
Ok. Let's have a look what happens when we assume Irreducible Complexity (i.e. ~F):
~F -> ~(L&N) = ~F -> ~N
i.e. given that the conditions of the universe are not compatible with life arising by solely naturalistic mechanisms, it follows that we cannot have both life and a solely naturalistic universe. Since the universe does exists and contains life (L is true), we have that given that the conditions of the universe are not compatible with life arising by solely naturalistic mechanisms, it follows that we cannot have a solely naturalistic universe. Thus Irreducible Complexity tells us that ~F undermines a solely naturalistic universe:
P(N|L&~F) < P(N|L).
Now let's have a look what happens when we assume the Anthropic argument (and hence F is true):
F -> ~(L&N) = F -> ~N
i.e. given that the conditions of the universe are so finely tuned to the existence of life, it follows that we cannot have both life and a solely naturalistic universe. Thus Fine-tuning tells us that F also undermines a solely naturalistic universe:
P(N|L&F) < P(N|L).
This puts the ID proponents in a real statistical bind:
P(L&N) = P(L&N&~F) + P(L&N&F)
       < P(N|L) * (P(L&~F) + P(L&F))
       = P(N|L) * P(L)
       = P(L&N)
which is a contradiction. Ouch!
It would seem that ID proponents would do well to stay away from such naturalistic arguments like Fine-Tuning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by coffee_addict, posted 11-18-2005 5:26 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024