Chance as a sole-product of the Universe

Why?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

We ask because we are curious. We ask because that is part of being human. We ask because we can.Mike may ask but so do physicists and so dedicate their lives to answering the question even if it may be unanswerable.You might also note, Jar, that Mike thinks All of these universal laws and components that JUST HAPPEN to be perfect, need to be answered for.You might note that Mike says "perfect". Perfect? How would I know if it is "perfect".He's also forgetting that puddle who is so terribly excited about how well designed the hole is. How amazingly well it fits him.

Exactly. If the conditions were different would some other entity be asking the same questions?I am reminded of one of my favorite Escher prints. What were the odds that the puddle would be located exactly where it had to be to capture the pine cones and those bicycle tire tracks and that two different people would walk along the same path or that not one but two cars would wander through that same spot.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Good point.For me, I suppose I look for a good answer. I won't pretend that I don't already want that answer to be a Theist one, but it's just how much the person can put down to coincidence, as some kind of infinite regression.Fair play. I personally think that God ends the endless cycle.It's not turtles all the way down, if your first mover is a complete satisfying entity that answer neatly for why everything is. That's all it is to me, a neat package.

I made it clear that if chance operates outside of the universe, then that must be an assumption. One must assume it is not only a universal characteristic created by a unique set of events and that it could exist as some kind of independent and constant feature of any reality. For example, no one would assume a planet of any other universal features, would be outside of the universe.Okay, I call it a "universal feature" and so assume it is. But I think logical positivism favours that, IMHO.I think it's not a big deal to admitt to this assumption being present in a multiple-universe scenario.

What if it's a pond?

quote:

---

I made it clear that if chance operates outside of the universe, then that must be an assumption

---

Which only leads back to the question I started with. Why should we assume that chance isn't a general principle ? It's an abstract generalisation, so if there is anything outside our universe why should we assume that it could not include an element of chance ?(And I'd note that if you are trying to defend the Fine Tuning argument denying one of it's assumptions isn't a sensible way of doing it).

If there is anything outside of our universe, then, possibly, chance could be a general principle.Why? I still see it as the position with the infinite regression. Okay, fair enough, I concede that that's possible, and afterall, it answers for the false-purpose in things, if that's what purpose becomes.But are you satisfied with answers that just give the same questions? You must know that a Theist answer, gives everything an incredible answer, that answers for the one mindful species out of billions of failed attempts.Let's say you're right, and chance is some general principle, then right down the line, you'd have chance as your first mover, because it would have to be. So what then caused chance?Personally, I think the formal causes of the major elements, show that purpose is genuine. it's not just a coincidence. For example, the formal cause of humans, as wiki' described.It seems there is a genuine formal cause for everything, to me, or inexplicable one, in things that are lacking one. ie. a potentiality of the component.Example, a rock.Perhaps way down the line, it was part of a formal cause, but is now rendered meaningless. At this stage, it's best to agree to disagree. You won't budge, but I also won't, because I'm convinced. I have thought deeply about my own position, too.Even the puddle impresses me, because the hole is there in the first place. That fascinates me. It baffles me why it doesn't do that to others.Why is there anything? If there is no reason, then there would be no thing. (just my belief)

quote:

---

Why? I still see it as the position with the infinite regression.

---

What infinite regression ? I certainly haven't suggested one. (If anything such an argument is better directed against the Fine Tuning argument).I'm not budging because you haven't given me any reason to budge. You've got no real arguent or evidence.As I pointed out the Fine Tuning argument assumes that chance is a valid explanation. Thus if a multiverse raises the probability to an acceptable level it provides a valid alternative to Fine Tining, without the problems. And given the fact that the multiverse is not proposed simply as an alternative to Fine Tuning - it's a consequence of some cosmologies - there seems to be no good reason to accept the idea of a Fine Tuner at present.n

The fine-tuning argument isn't my argument.The facts about the universe being habitable, as far as I know, doesn't equal the fine tuning argument. There is no argument required, concerning facts. In this case it's a truism that the universe is able to potentially and does support life/events.I think this concludes my participation in this topic. I apreciate your participation, and will always consider my arguments potentially wrong.

quote:

---

The fine-tuning argument isn't my argument

---

Yet it is an argument you've used in this thread.

quote:

---

The facts about the universe being habitable, as far as I know, doesn't equal the fine tuning argument.

---

It's about half of it - the other half being that this is too unlikely to occur without a creator. Which your denial of chance with regard to universe formation seems intended to defend....f

I listened to a good argument by a philosopher who essentially said that chance by definition is nothing. If chance had any probability of existing---as a concept---than God would be an anachronism. So if we flip a coin, it is commonly said that its a 50/50 chance that it lands heads.We can look at the weight relative to the effort used to flip it. We can look at wind speed. We can look at the method used to catch it, whether it is flipped over after catching, even going into the mechanics of arm movement and type of surface the coin lands on...etc. What we cannot say is "what are the chances that the coin will ....." Chance is not a thing. Chance is nothing.To say, for example, that the universe came about by chance is as ridiculous as saying the universe came about by nothing.I will allow for us to explain our definitions.

Oh Phat, please don't fall for this word game nonsense. It's designed to sound clever but is actually just intellectualised masturbation.Chance is, of course 'a thing'. It's the name of the thing that describes how often a coin toss will result in heads or tails (amongst other things).

In your evidence based opinion...has there ever been a time in the history of time that nothing has existed?

I, like everyone else, have absolutely no idea.Not only that, I doubt that the question has any meaning that three dimensional, temporal objects like people can make any sense of.