Why nothing is cosmologically fine-tuned.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-05-2017, 02:21 AM
RE: Why nothing is cosmologically fine-tuned.
Quote:Brilliant! What a thorough destruction.

I imagined Craig writing, "But magic!" over and over while Sean talks.

I just laughed out loud hahaha.

Quote:Basically this arguments says... if things were different, things would be different. And I won't argue with that.

Bingo. All we did is add a numerical value to something which was, initially, abstract.

~ The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you ~
-Neil Degrasse Tyson
[Image: stairway_to_heaven_by_tomtr.png]
~ 0 ~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cosmo's post
18-05-2017, 06:52 AM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2017 06:55 AM by mordant.)
RE: Why nothing is cosmologically fine-tuned.
(15-05-2017 03:49 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(15-05-2017 03:25 PM)Cosmo Wrote:  I'm just tired of seeing this "fine-tuning" argument from math out there.

I have a few questions then. The theistic assumption is that certain "fine tuned" properties and relationships were established by God to guide the evolution of the universe. Isn't it possible that in the big bang everything happened but only those properties and relationships which could achieve a kind of stability continued to exist beyond the very beginning? Couldn't the rest have self-annihilated and disappeared early on? In other words, couldn't the "fine tuned" properties and relationships be self-organized simply by what worked -- just like everything else we know is self-organized?
This is basically the principles of natural selection applied to the universe itself. In the case of living things, the driver of natural selection is that the better adaptations lead, over time, to more of the organisms with those traits surviving long enough to reproduce.

It is a little dicey whether this can be applied to universes or the evolution of a universe (or of any non-living thing), because absent reproduction I'm not sure what exactly is providing the "driver" to a process that is, after all, mindless. Then you open the door to theists bellowing "therefore, god".

I understand that you're suggesting that some characteristics will "self-annihilate" but I don't see why there couldn't have been a universe with no life in it or a universe with a very different sort of life. The universe is indifferent to its contents and their status. I am not aware of any evidence that 100% of anything not suited to life would self-annihilate.

To me the more powerful argument is that if the universe had somewhat different constants, any life that resulted from that would be just as justified in crowing that the universal constants are precisely fitted to THEIR existence. It is simply confusing association with cause. Inherently no conscious observer capable of doing the physics could see anything BUT a universe "perfectly suited" to itself, and that is no reason to suggest it is "tuned", finely or otherwise.

There's more. We look poised to start a colony or at least a planned permanent human presence on Mars, a planet with about 40% of earth's gravity, 1% of its atmospheric density and 0.6% of Earth's atmospheric oxygen content. This and the knock-on effects therefrom make this a huge technological challenge, particularly to make living there self-sufficiently in anything but a relentlessly hardscrabble way feasible. No one reading this post the day it's written will probably live to be a fourth-wave Martian colonist and regard it as a better quality of life than could be had on Earth. And yet, if our situations were reversed and we had evolved on Mars, we'd be making similar statements about Earth -- too hot, terribly dense atmosphere deficient in CO2 and methane, most of the surface buried in roiling seas of toxic Dihydrogen Oxide, and teeming with a bewildering diversity of hostile life.

The truth is that we have evolved to suit our environment, not the inverse.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like mordant's post
18-05-2017, 08:25 AM
RE: Why nothing is cosmologically fine-tuned.
(18-05-2017 06:52 AM)mordant Wrote:  It is a little dicey whether this can be applied to universes or the evolution of a universe (or of any non-living thing), because absent reproduction I'm not sure what exactly is providing the "driver" to a process that is, after all, mindless. Then you open the door to theists bellowing "therefore, god".

I understand that you're suggesting that some characteristics will "self-annihilate" but I don't see why there couldn't have been a universe with no life in it or a universe with a very different sort of life. The universe is indifferent to its contents and their status. I am not aware of any evidence that 100% of anything not suited to life would self-annihilate.

Absent reproduction, the driving force could be mere longevity. The longer any stable environment lasts, the more likely life could arise in some corner of it. As long as any number of happenstance occurrences happen -- which would likely be true in any scenario -- some variety of life could arise.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thoreauvian's post
19-05-2017, 07:30 AM
RE: Why nothing is cosmologically fine-tuned.
(18-05-2017 08:25 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(18-05-2017 06:52 AM)mordant Wrote:  It is a little dicey whether this can be applied to universes or the evolution of a universe (or of any non-living thing), because absent reproduction I'm not sure what exactly is providing the "driver" to a process that is, after all, mindless. Then you open the door to theists bellowing "therefore, god".

I understand that you're suggesting that some characteristics will "self-annihilate" but I don't see why there couldn't have been a universe with no life in it or a universe with a very different sort of life. The universe is indifferent to its contents and their status. I am not aware of any evidence that 100% of anything not suited to life would self-annihilate.

Absent reproduction, the driving force could be mere longevity. The longer any stable environment lasts, the more likely life could arise in some corner of it. As long as any number of happenstance occurrences happen -- which would likely be true in any scenario -- some variety of life could arise.
Yes, I see your point -- stability could be the driver, and life needs stable conditions in which to arise. Although it may be that for abiogenesis to occur, some degree of variety (which could come from instability) may be needed to sift through different possibilities.

If I had to guess I would say that life arises only rarely in the universe, something on the order of perhaps a half dozen other intelligent / sentient / technological species in any one galaxy. And surviving long enough to become a starfaring species would be even rarer, perhaps on the order of a half dozen such species in the observable universe. It just takes too much time and resources and the survival of the specie's own ignoble impulses for long periods.

The evolution of lower life forms would be much more common, particularly single celled life, maybe even common enough that we'd be likely to find it has evolved independently on, say, Enceladus or Ganymede, right here in our own solar system.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like mordant's post
19-05-2017, 08:07 PM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2017 09:01 PM by Cosmo.)
RE: Why nothing is cosmologically fine-tuned.
(Edited for Wrong Name in Quote)
(and to add a meme, cuz why not)

Hey y'all! Sorry! There were some responses I really wanted to get back to yesterday, but I haven't had access to TTA except for from mobile, and trying to type out a well written response on an iPhone can prove to be quite taxing.

Hokay, so...

mordant Wrote:This is basically the principles of natural selection applied to the universe itself. In the case of living things, the driver of natural selection is that the better adaptations lead, over time, to more of the organisms with those traits surviving long enough to reproduce.

It is a little dicey whether this can be applied to universes or the evolution of a universe (or of any non-living thing), because absent reproduction I'm not sure what exactly is providing the "driver" to a process that is, after all, mindless. Then you open the door to theists bellowing "therefore, god".

I haven't yet read Throreavian's response, but I actually really did like that idea he presented about all other possible Universal factors being actualized at the moment of the big bang. I thought that's what he was getting at anyway. Sounded nebulous, but plausible.

Quote:I understand that you're suggesting that some characteristics will "self-annihilate" but I don't see why there couldn't have been a universe with no life in it or a universe with a very different sort of life. The universe is indifferent to its contents and their status. I am not aware of any evidence that 100% of anything not suited to life would self-annihilate.

Now I'm curious if he was referring to anthropocentricity, or just the actualization of the Universe instead of say, a random garbled quantum soup. I only think soup could have happened if 'many-worlds' is adhered to.

Quote:To me the more powerful argument is that if the universe had somewhat different constants, any life that resulted from that would be just as justified in crowing that the universal constants are precisely fitted to THEIR existence

100%! Smile That's what I was trying to get at. Numbers are descriptors, that's it. The idea that any numbers that we come across are miraculous seems unfounded to me.

Quote:There's more. We look poised to start a colony or at least a planned permanent human presence on Mars, a planet with about 40% of earth's gravity, 1% of its atmospheric density and 0.6% of Earth's atmospheric oxygen content. This and the knock-on effects therefrom make this a huge technological challenge, particularly to make living there self-sufficiently in anything but a relentlessly hardscrabble way feasible. No one reading this post the day it's written will probably live to be a fourth-wave Martian colonist and regard it as a better quality of life than could be had on Earth. And yet, if our situations were reversed and we had evolved on Mars, we'd be making similar statements about Earth -- too hot, terribly dense atmosphere deficient in CO2 and methane, most of the surface buried in roiling seas of toxic Dihydrogen Oxide, and teeming with a bewildering diversity of hostile life.

The truth is that we have evolved to suit our environment, not the inverse.

Agreed on all counts. Smile

Thoreauvian Wrote:Absent reproduction, the driving force could be mere longevity. The longer any stable environment lasts, the more likely life could arise in some corner of it. As long as any number of happenstance occurrences happen -- which would likely be true in any scenario -- some variety of life could arise.

With a Universe the size of ours, the odds would be in favour of something happening somewhere I would think. Smile

mordant Wrote:Yes, I see your point -- stability could be the driver, and life needs stable conditions in which to arise. Although it may be that for abiogenesis to occur, some degree of variety (which could come from instability) may be needed to sift through different possibilities.

Yeah, ultimately I think it's own stability was the principle driver for why the Universe emerged in the way it did.

Quote:If I had to guess I would say that life arises only rarely in the universe, something on the order of perhaps a half dozen other intelligent / sentient / technological species in any one galaxy. And surviving long enough to become a starfaring species would be even rarer, perhaps on the order of a half dozen such species in the observable universe. It just takes too much time and resources and the survival of the specie's own ignoble impulses for long periods.

I agree that life would likely be rare but I am uncertain as to whether it is as rare as we think it is. I recently posted research into the role of rocks and clays catalyzing the reactions of lipids into vesicles, for instance. It's in the resource thread. If I may continue to speculate on origins, since that seems to be where the conversation has turned Smile, if rocks and clays can catalyze biologically meaningful reactions under certain circumstances, then life might not be as rare as we think it is.

In regards to actually getting anywhere in space, wormholes or warp-drives, that's pretty much it I would think.

[Image: what-diabolical-scheme-has-placed-us-in-...l-holy.png]

~ The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you ~
-Neil Degrasse Tyson
[Image: stairway_to_heaven_by_tomtr.png]
~ 0 ~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cosmo's post
19-05-2017, 08:36 PM
RE: Why nothing is cosmologically fine-tuned.
I have another way of phrasing this "fine tuning" argument:

If it is true that:

(1) There is no all-powerful force (which obviously includes being able to make life exist under any circumstances)

(2) The laws of physics as we know them are what dictate whether life exists or not

(3) Certain aspects of those laws were different enough

Then there wouldn't be life. Therefor,

(4) There is an all powerful force that fine-tuned physics [conclusion doesn't follow, but I'll allow it for this demonstration]

Whoops! Because clearly, without assumption (1), the argument fails instantly. But with it, the conclusion contradicts the premises. Wow, this argument is way worse than I thought. And I already thought it was bad.

It seems to be rather like the stolen concept idea. I use your world view to prove mine is actually true.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Robvalue's post
19-05-2017, 09:12 PM
RE: Why nothing is cosmologically fine-tuned.
Quote:(1) There is no all-powerful force (which obviously includes being able to make life exist under any circumstances)

(2) The laws of physics as we know them are what dictate whether life exists or not

(3) Certain aspects of those laws were different enough

Then there wouldn't be life. Therefor,

(4) There is an all powerful force that fine-tuned physics [conclusion doesn't follow, but I'll allow it for this demonstration]

Whoops! Because clearly, without assumption (1), the argument fails instantly. But with it, the conclusion contradicts the premises. Wow, this argument is way worse than I thought. And I already thought it was bad.

It seems to be rather like the stolen concept idea. I use your world view to prove mine is actually true.

That's a funny way of putting it. Laugh out load I feel like it failed instantly even with premise one, simply because it unnecessarily added premise four, which there is no need to add to an argument such as this.

It was so good until its final presupposition, and honestly, without it, it makes so much more sense.

~ The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you ~
-Neil Degrasse Tyson
[Image: stairway_to_heaven_by_tomtr.png]
~ 0 ~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cosmo's post
19-05-2017, 09:50 PM
RE: Why nothing is cosmologically fine-tuned.
Right! It kind of feels like dipping in and out of reality. Are we talking actual things, or fairy land nonsense? You can't combine both in an argument and come up with anything sensible. If it's fairy land rules, then you can forget any kind of logic for a start.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2017, 04:42 AM
RE: Why nothing is cosmologically fine-tuned.
(15-05-2017 03:25 PM)Cosmo Wrote:  I'm just tired of seeing this "fine-tuning" argument from math out there.

Since moving to Atheist Attleboro from Phucking Phoenix, I have limited my exposure to religious nonsense to essentially this site. And myself, 'cause I'm religious nonsense. For instance the cosmos of my Gwynnies is definitely fine tuned by design. Tongue

A lot of people do the same shit without conscious realization, they interpret the world while conveniently forgetting the interpreter.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
20-05-2017, 10:30 AM
RE: Why nothing is cosmologically fine-tuned.
If a finely tuned universe produces life and you see these two events connected intimately, then what does a finely tuned engine produce ?

The gasoline must have a finely tuned ratio of elements & compounds for the engine to function at it's perfect state.

The ignition is turned on.
A fine gas like mist ignites from a spark in each cylinder.
The engine comes to life and a mighty roar erupts from the sound as gases are expelled from the tail pipe.
The heat from the engine increases.
Coolant circulates to keep the engine from overheating.
A thousand more things happen and change over time from ignition to full rev to when it's turned off.

What product in all of this fine tuning can we relate to life emerging on a planet ?

Is it the sound ?
Is it the precise levels of CO2 or water vapor that exit the exhaust ?
Is it the temperature of the engine as it reaches it's hottest level ?

Or maybe it's the tiny bit of mold that has grown on the seat cushions inside the car that has nothing to do with how finely tuned the engine is ?

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: