Fine tuning argument assessed

[Rayaan]

All we know is that the probability of a life-permitting universe is not zero.

For a life-prohibiting universe we no not even know that.

So how can we possibly infer one is more likely that the other?

You are technically correct.

But according to what we do know about the physical properties necessary for life, whether or not a universe allows life to exist is determined by the specific values of the physical constants in that universe, and physicists have discovered that altering any of the constants in our universe even just by 1% would physically prohibit the emergence of life. So maybe that's why the author of that article said that a life-prohibiting universe is vastly more probable than a life-permitting one.

A 5 dimensional universe with no mass, different rules of physics and so on could support an intelligent life form capable of asking the question "Why does my universe exist?"

Yeah, that is quite possible, I guess ...

But since you're going down that gallery of infinite possibilities route, now you'll also have to concede that the existence of beings like angels, devils, and places like Heaven and Hell and talking snakes in a garden are all just as likely to exist as intelligent life forms living in a 5-dimensional universe with no mass and different rules of physics, right?

[FreeTony]

You are technically correct.

But according to what we do know about the physical properties necessary for life, whether or not a universe allows life to exist is determined by the specific values of the physical constants in that universe, and physicists have discovered that altering any of the constants in our universe even just by 1% would physically prohibit the emergence of life. So maybe that's why the author of that article said that a life-prohibiting universe is vastly more probable than a life-permitting one.

That is life in what perhaps could be the very narrow way we understand it, having only the sample of life on the Earth. If the universe had different constants there could have arisen very different lifeforms asking the same question.

Even if it does turn out that no structures could form without certain narrow parameters, you can't then conclude it must be designed. There are many hypotheses, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_...planations

Perhaps a universe cannot form unless it has certain parameters? Most of this is far beyond testing at the moment. The best thing is to wait until there is enough scientific evidence to support an explanation. Perhaps we will never know.

[Whateverist]

I wonder if it is possible to forcibly change Sword-fighting-Jesus's user name to Wallpaper-guy? How he can find so much to say each and every time without ever actually saying anything is beyond me.

[Sword of Christ]

I wonder if it is possible to forcibly change Sword-fighting-Jesus's user name to Wallpaper-guy? How he can find so much to say each and every time without ever actually saying anything is beyond me.

I can't say "Here is how science proves God is real" then post some picture of a guy with a white beard laying on a specimen table and analysis of the data of concerning obtained from the research. Which is all you want to see so you will filter anything else out.

[Whateverist]

Meh. Not really all that interested. The question of gods is about silly stuff so far as I can tell. If there was anything interesting to bring to the table I think we would have seen it by now. Good luck though. Perhaps you can at least convince yourself.

[Esquilax]

But according to what we do know about the physical properties necessary for life, whether or not a universe allows life to exist is determined by the specific values of the physical constants in that universe, and physicists have discovered that altering any of the constants in our universe even just by 1% would physically prohibit the emergence of life. So maybe that's why the author of that article said that a life-prohibiting universe is vastly more probable than a life-permitting one.

Even accepting that completely, the statements "something improbable happened," and "something impossible happened," aren't the same thing. That's the fundamental weakness of the argument from fine tuning; unless you're assuming that this specific life giving universe was the goal from the start, it isn't even an argument for fine tuning at all. It's just a reminder of how uncommon things are.

Hell, the chances of your specific genetic self arising from your entire familial chain is similarly improbable, but I doubt you'd be attempting to argue that god fine tuned your relatives into having sex.

[max-greece]

But since you're going down that gallery of infinite possibilities route, now you'll also have to concede that the existence of beings like angels, devils, and places like Heaven and Hell and talking snakes in a garden are all just as likely to exist as intelligent life forms living in a 5-dimensional universe with no mass and different rules of physics, right?

Absolutely, just not in this universe and therefore, most probably, with no access to this universe.

We have no idea what sentient life forms are possible in other universes - your devils, angels and talking snakes are no more, nor no less liklely than any of the other possibilities.

[Angrboda]

We do live in a life prohibiting universe. Have you looked outside?

The sad thing is that so many are seduced by the fine-tuning bullshit. Largely because people don't understand probability, but also partly because, as most often stated, it's simply a lie. We can't say that the universe is fine-tuned for life. It might be narrowly tuned for life as we know it, but nobody knows what forms life in the general can take, so there's no way to honestly assert that we even know what conditions are required for life, plural. As typically stated, it's simply a lie and a misrepresentation.

[MindForgedManacle]

The fine-tuning argument is bullshit. It's pretty much nothing more than an updated version of Paley's design argument, simply shifts the focus from the complexity of life to the universe's ability to have life. A few responses to it come to mind:


-As a few have noted, those using/supporting this argument pretty much never know shit about how probability works.

-I'm never quite sure what any particular user of this argument means by the universe being "fine-tuned" for life. They clearly aren't using that phrase in the usual sense, because otherwise we'd see life EVERYWHERE, and it hardly has it easy here on Earth. So they have to mean something much more reserved, like "the universe allows for life to exist". But then that becomes a "So what?" moment. Clearly a universe with a particular class of phenomenon has to allow for that to be possible or elsse it wouldn't be there.
Worse, there are any number of other phenomena that are unimaginable orders of magnitude more numerous in the universe than life. Our own galaxy, of an average size, has at least 100 Billion stars. There are at least 100 Billion galaxies in the visible universe, and much of the universe is not within our sight due to our galaxy blocking them from view. So with stars alone we almost certainly outnumber living organism, and that's not even to claim fine-tuning for, say, atoms which are... everywhere.


Basically, people are trying to confirm their own biases with the fine-tuning argument. They want life to ne special, so that's how they craft the argument.

[houseofcantor]

How he can find so much to say each and every time without ever actually saying anything is beyond me.

He's a politician.

---

Back when I was a theist prophet I reassessed "fine tuning," which served to reinforce the notion that the creator of the universe evolved from machine intelligence. Which makes it an 'even if it is right, it is wrong' kinda thing.