Can theists be rational?

[RandFan]

If one is deducing the existence of God from the values he gave to the laws of physics (something I am not doing) then it doesn't make sense to limit him by the laws which he has defined.

How does god give the laws of physics? You are playing the role of science fiction writer and simply asserting that giving laws of physics means something. I don't know what that even means or how someone would go about doing that and if you are honest you will admit that you don't know either. You are in effect asserting that superman has unkown powers that allows him to seemingly violate the laws of physics.

 

[RandFan]

Uhm, not really. Everything in the observable universe was at a single point in time. God merely has to be really damned smart about it, and create everything locally around this time.

I concede this.

God's often presumed to be outside of time and space, so this should be no problem (furthermore, there's no need for God to travel through space if this is the case, so motion isn't an object).

What does it mean to be "outside of time and space". Is this like Superman has an unkown and unexplainable ability to stop planes in mid air?

But God still has to do it by using some actual power he has, that works some way--some way we're not sure is even possible in the first place.

Agreed!

 

[yy2bggggs]

There are three ways to argue against (E):
1. The constants don't need to have the precise values they do to produce a universe capable of supporting life.
2. Life is much more adaptable than we give it credit for, and would emerge in universe we currently think are inhospitable
3. There are an infinite (or nearly infinite) number of universe and we happen to be in one where the values are life-permitting. We got lucky, in other words.

4. Universes, in practice, can't vary in all of the ways we imagine them to. Or, they can, but the dimensionless constants relate to each other, such that they aren't all variables (that is, deciding two can decide the other)
5. There are constraints on how the parameters get the values in themselves, that may make the set of parameters where life is possible, even more probable (or even less... no reason why this even has to work in the proper direction for concluding no god)
6. Any of a combination of the above.

Might I add to this the relevant piece of information that we have utterly no clue how universes arrive at having these values (though a couple, such as energy of the BB, are at least feasibly variable). The debate over which parameters should even count, and heavy disagreement, betrays that picking a particular model to even base estimates off of is extremely premature.

By the way, there are forms for multiple possibilities using Bayes Theorem. If J₁...J_n are mutually exclusive, and collectively exhaustive with H, then you can simply use:
P(H)P(E|H)/{P(H)P(E|H)+P(J₁)P(E|J₁)+...+P(J_n)P(E|J_n)}

(3) is the real defeater of the argument, but (3) is speculation based so far as well. There is no evidence so far that there is more than just this universe.

4, 5, and 6 destroy the argument as well, if not taken seriously. Furthermore, why does P(H) even get to be there in the first place? Is it evidence based, or speculation? If the latter, shouldn't we add speculative based hypotheses to the fray, that are alternatives?

In the end, by the way--the point of the entire exercise is to conclude that the probability of some thing, which disproportionately creates universes with life compared to the proportion of chance universes would do so, is more likely when considering said life exists. This is, in fact, true. But it should not ever be shocking. It's the direct result of eliminating a large fraction of the universe--a big huge NOT-E chunk--that proportionately doesn't include possibilities for H.

As I said before--it's more believable that an elephant was used to build a house I know for sure exists than it is to believe that an elephant was used to build a house I'm not sure exists. It really is, genuinely, a fact that it's more believable. But it's not really insightful.

 

[fls]

I have a question.

Frequent reference has been made to the use of Bayes' theorem to help answer fairly vague and undefined questions (of which the fine-tuned argument is an example). This differs from my own experience which involves the use of Bayes' theorem in order to estimate posterior probabilities based on the results of diagnostic tests, or to estimate the strength of evidence from the results of research studies on specific hypotheses, as illustrated in this paper:

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

(Or in order to spawn endless threads about the Monty-Hall probem. )

And these uses include a consideration of how best to form a prior, including how to choose an uninformative prior. But they usually involve specific information - measurements of H and E, H and ~E, ~H and ~E, H, etc. One doesn't bother with Bayes' theorem if you have too little useful or specific information - other ways of putting together information or forming estimates are used instead. Yet the claim has been made several times that this is a valid use of Bayes' theorem.

So my question is, in what fields and in what situations is Bayes' theorem used to analyze ideas which are too vaguely specified (similar to the fine-tuning argument) to allow a well-formed conclusion? Can someone give me some examples?

Linda

 

[yy2bggggs]

What does it mean to be "outside of time and space". Is this like Superman has an unkown and unexplainable ability to stop planes in mid air?

Well, not really. It'd be more like that 2-d prison thing superman used in the movies. The plane stopping ability isn't a power of Superman--it's just some suspension of disbelief. This would be a power of God we're talking about.

But psychologically? Sure... it's probably similar to suspension of disbelief. But I'm not so sure a theist would agree.

As for what it means to be outside of time and space? That's actually the easy question. It means that there's a set of rules beyond the universe by which things operate, by which God himself would operate, and under those rules, beings of the constitution that God takes do not have to use our universe-local means of travel, energy production, etc.

Anyone with an imagination can come up with possible rules. But of course, we don't know that reality actually works this way, but for some reason that's not supposed to be a problem.

 

[Malerin]

4. Universes, in practice, can't vary in all of the ways we imagine them to. Or, they can, but the dimensionless constants relate to each other, such that they aren't all variables (that is, deciding two can decide the other)
5. There are constraints on how the parameters get the values in themselves, that may make the set of parameters where life is possible, even more probable (or even less... no reason why this even has to work in the proper direction for concluding no god)
6. Any of a combination of the above.

Two problems:

1. This is just speculation. There's no evidence that the constants are fixed in any way or that one could "compensate" for a change in the other. To attack the evidence with pure speculation is to do the very thing the theist is being criticized for- faith-based belief with no evidence to support it. There IS evidence that small changes in any of the constants results in universes that cannot support life as we know it. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/#4.1

2. This just shifts the fine-tuning up a level: if the physical constants are "set" in some way (could not be different or much different than what they are), why are they set at the values they have? Even if the constants are set, we can still imagine what a universe would have been like had the constants been different. The question then becomes, why are the values set in a way that all universes MUST be life-permitting? The impossibility of a non-life permitting universe would be a very strange result, and would be a far-stronger piece of evidence supporting a life-sympathetic creator than what drives the current FT argument.

And as for one contsant "taking up the slack" for a change in another, this is speculation without any science to back it up. Even Stenger, who is sympathetic to this idea, admits that "life as we know it" could not exist in a universe where the physical constants are different. He then goes on to posit silicon-based life and non-molecular based life.

Might I add to this the relevant piece of information that we have utterly no clue how universes arrive at having these values (though a couple, such as energy of the BB, are at least feasibly variable). The debate over which parameters should even count, and heavy disagreement, betrays that picking a particular model to even base estimates off of is extremely premature.

And yet prominent physicists like Carter, Penrose, Hoyle and Linde have given the odds of life-permitting universes with different physical constant values as infinitesimally small. The only physicist anyone's brought up to dispute this is Victory Stengel, whose conclusion is based on the tinkering of just four constants (which doesn't produce anything like a universe we're familiar with anyway).

Furthermore, why does P(H) even get to be there in the first place? Is it evidence based, or speculation? If the latter, shouldn't we add speculative based hypotheses to the fray, that are alternatives?

Speculation is in the mind of the speculator. A theist would argue that a life-permitting universe arising from a purely physical process at the moment of creation is speculation. An atheist would argue that a creator designing the universe is speculation. We don't know, one way or another, so we look at the evidence. To assume that one is speculation and the other isn't is putting the cart before the horse.

But even if you think that the idea of something created the universe isn't evidence based, why would you attack the evidence for the argument (values of the physical constants) with pure speculation? If the only way to attack (E) is to speculate wildly without any evidence, whose the irrational person? The theist for speculating about God or the atheist for speculating about non-molecular life?

In the end, by the way--the point of the entire exercise is to conclude that the probability of some thing, which disproportionately creates universes with life compared to the proportion of chance universes would do so, is more likely when considering said life exists. This is, in fact, true. But it should not ever be shocking.

Of course it's shocking. If there's only one universe, and the odds of life arising in that universe were 1 in 10 with 20 zeroes after it, we should be very shocked that we caught such a lucky break. It would be no different than being shot at by a thousand professional marksmen from ten feet away and discovering you're still alive. You would naturally think it absurd that all the marksmen just happened to miss by chance (or that the bullets hit each other before they got to you in such a way as to deflect all their courses, which is similar to your speculation that some physical constants may compensate for changes in the others). You would conclude, rationally, that you're surviving such an ordeal was not chance-based- somebody (or something) that wanted you to live intervened on your behalf.

 

[RandFan]

Well, not really.

Well, yeah really.

It'd be more like that 2-d prison thing superman used in the movies.

That was Jor-El not Superman.

The plane stopping ability isn't a power of Superman

Well that doesn't make any sense. If Superman doesn't have the power to stop planes in mid-air then how does he do it?

As for what it means to be outside of time and space? That's actually the easy question. It means that there's a set of rules beyond the universe by which things operate, by which God himself would operate, and under those rules, beings of the constitution that God takes do not have to use our universe-local means of travel, energy production, etc.

With the right set of rules I can fart gold dust. I think most of us are familiar with science fiction and fantasy. Just because we can imagine magic genies who live in bottles and grant wishes doesn't mean that it is true. Saying that the genie lives outside of time and space doesn't tell us anything. It has no explanatory power to cause us to think it is possible.

Saying god is outside of time in space is a slight of hand. It's what happens when a theist is backed into a corner.

Me: I can fly by flapping my arms.
Skeptic: Show me.
Me: It only works when you are not looking.

Skeptic: Your explanations of god violate the laws of physics.
Theist: God is outside of the laws of physics.
Skeptic: That doesn't make any sense.
yy2bggggs: A theist would disagree.
Me: ?

Anyone with an imagination can come up with possible rules. But of course, we don't know that reality actually works this way, but for some reason that's not supposed to be a problem.

See, here's the thing, you've got an idea for lots of cheap and clean energy but you need money to build a prototype to demonstrate that you can do what you claim. For most folks with the critical thinking skills you will need to demonstrate that your ideas are theoretically possible before they will give you any money. The suckers will likely give you lots of money but if they should ask you any questions just tell them that your contraption works outside of the laws of physics.

 

[westprog]

How does god give the laws of physics? You are playing the role of science fiction writer and simply asserting that giving laws of physics means something. I don't know what that even means or how someone would go about doing that and if you are honest you will admit that you don't know either. You are in effect asserting that superman has unkown powers that allows him to seemingly violate the laws of physics.

And what makes you believe that the laws of physics are fixed and immutable? That is a belief.

Though elsewhere in the thread you were arguing that the laws of physics were mutable under certain undefined circumstances.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Two problems:

1. This is just speculation.

You're joking! This is speculation?

There's no evidence that the constants are fixed in any way or that one could "compensate" for a change in the other.

There's no evidence either way. You're speculating when you pick one.

You've been picking from a smaller set from what is actually possible. That's what speculating is. All I'm showing you is what the larger set is.

To attack the evidence with pure speculation is to do the very thing the theist is being criticized for- faith-based belief with no evidence to support it. There IS evidence that small changes in any of the constants results in universes that cannot support life as we know it.

Yes. Now pay attention to what you yourself said the evidence was about, and look at 4, 5, and 6. Hardly relevant, isn't it?

2. This just shifts the fine-tuning up a level: if the physical constants are "set" in some way (could not be different or much different than what they are), why are they set at the values they have?

And the answer is that we don't know. This is truly a god of the gaps, though. You don't even know they can vary, or how. The only thing special about these constants are that they are dimensionless--as such, we can't derive one from another one. How does the universe work though? What rules determine how the parameters get to the values they get to?

You're the one putting probabilities of such things into a big equation, without any answers--without even a big outline as to the very basic mechanics behind universes coming into being.

So, tell me... who is speculating?

I'm sorry, but it's not a satisfactory response to a "you can't demonstrate it is" challenge to say "you can't prove it isn't", and it's the "you can't prove it isn't" side that's speculating.

And as for one contsant "taking up the slack" for a change in another, this is speculation without any science to back it up.

There's no science to back up the possibility that the universe could have spawned with the parameters set any other way than how it actually was set.

Even Stenger, ...

Doesn't sound relevant.

And yet prominent physicists like Carter, Penrose, Hoyle and Linde have given the odds of life-permitting universes with different physical constant values as infinitesimally small.

Huh? Physicists? I suggest you review your list more carefully. Figure out who these people actually are.

Speculation is in the mind of the speculator. A theist would argue that a life-permitting universe arising from a purely physical process at the moment of creation is speculation. An atheist would argue that a creator designing the universe is speculation.

Ignore atheism and theism. I honestly don't care about either (yes, I said it--I don't care about atheism). What would a person who is sick and tired of all of the speculative self flattery, who just wants to look at the world for what the hell it is, say?

We don't know, one way or another, so we look at the evidence.

Yes. But don't forget to interpret your evidence for what it is actually about. Figuring out that if you change the constants, the universe would be drastically different has nothing to do with whether or not the constants could actually vary at all.

 

[RandFan]

And what makes you believe that the laws of physics are fixed and immutable?

No. I'm just saying that before I believe that you can fly by flapping your arms you need to A.) show me or B.) at least show me how this is theoretically possible.

That something could hypothetically be true given the right set of premises is no reason to suppose that it is.

In any event, you have grossly misrepresented my position. The laws of this universe, so far, look to be fixed. This says nothing of other universes. I have no idea if there are other universes but if you are going to posit that fine-tuning necesitates a fine-tuner, then if you are intellectually honest, you must be willing to accept the consequences of that logic. In otherwords the universe could have been not fine tuned and therefore there could be other universes that are not fine tuned. IOW, you are the one that introduces the possibility of universes that are not fine tuned.

 

[yy2bggggs]

That was Jor-El not Superman.

Alright...

Well that doesn't make any sense. If Superman doesn't have the power to stop planes in mid-air then how does he do it?

You ignore that and just accept it, but it's limited to the scope of a fictitious work. Superman stops a plane in mid-air--and all of the passengers violate Newtonian mechanics by not leering fatally forward. But that's just a story--ignore it... it happened that way... now watch the movie.

Saying that the genie lives outside of time and space doesn't tell us anything. It has no explanatory power to cause us to think it is possible.

It works for Star Trek, string theory, and even multiverse theory. I agree that it's an unexplained mechanism, but it doesn't necessarily violate the laws of physics. It just uses a different set of laws.

It doesn't necessarily violate the laws of physics. Laws of physics, as we know them, derive from our observations of the universe. We approach them, figure out what they are, and on occasion modify our list. God fits into this gap--all you need is some sort of account that allows for all of these observations, and it only takes a bit of imagination to do this is all.

Saying god is outside of time in space is a slight of hand. It's what happens when a theist is backed into a corner.

Correct. But it's wrong primarily because it's speculative, not inconsistent. It's extrapolating and wish fulfilling, but it's possible.

Skeptic: Your explanations of god violate the laws of physics.
Theist: God is outside of the laws of physics.
Skeptic: That doesn't make any sense.
[caricature yy2bggggs]: A theist would disagree.

"A theist would disagree" wasn't in any way intended for that part of the conversation. That applied to my assessment that from a psychology point of view, ignoring the mechanics would be similar to how suspension of disbelief works in fiction.

My objection's probably the same one the theists would give you, and it's because it's legitimate. The issue isn't that they are violating the laws of physics--they have (or could come up with) laws in mind that are perfectly consistent with everything we know. The issue is that they are begging the question in saying that their laws actually describe reality.

Edit: But I think the problem here is just wording. By "laws of physics", you mean "known laws of physics", correct? That still contains what I think the problem theists have is.

 

[RandFan]

You ignore that and just accept it, but it's limited to the scope of a fictitious work. Superman stops a plane in mid-air--and all of the passengers violate Newtonian mechanics by not leering fatally forward. But that's just a story--ignore it... it happened that way... now watch the movie.

I suppose we could debate for days. I can't enjoy the movie if I don't have a basis to believe. So I hang my hat on the yellow sun theory. It's BS but it works.

My objection's probably the same one the theists would give you, and it's because it's legitimate. The issue isn't that they are violating the laws of physics--they have (or could come up with) laws in mind that are perfectly consistent with everything we know. The issue is that they are begging the question in saying that their laws actually describe reality.

I'll wait for the theist to make the argument. Until then let's agree to disagree. Not that you don't have any point. I think you do but I think it would be tortured to tease it out.

 

[Malerin]

"Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by one part in 1040, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/#4.1

Brandon Carter (born 1942) is an Australian theoretical physicist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Carter

With respect to key enzymes occurring by chance, astrophysicist Fred Hoyle throws around numbers like 10-40000 (Hoyle 1982, 4-5).
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/#4.1

"by Roger Penrose's calculation, the probability of chance alone producing cosmoi capable of producing planets is 1 in 10 raised in turn to the 10123"

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/#4.1

"Sir Roger Penrose, OM, FRS (born 8 August 1931) is an English mathematical physicist" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_penrose

"We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible,” Linde says.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator

"Andrei Dmitriyevich Linde (b. March 2, 1948 in Moscow, USSR) is a Russian-American theoretical physicist and professor of Physics at Stanford University."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Linde

Huh? Physicists? I suggest you review your list more carefully. Figure out who these people actually are.

Theoretical phsyicist, astrophysicist, mathematical physicist, theoretical physicist. Who did you think these people were?


Add to that theoretical physicist Paul Davies: "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job'"
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/tuning.html

And theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking: "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty"
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/tuning.html

And physicist David Deutsch: If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.

http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/The_Fine_Tuning_of_the_Universe.asp

So that's Deutsch, Hawking, Davies, Linde, Hoyle, Penrose, and Carter who all support my position WRT evidence of the precise value of the constants needed for a life-permitting universe. If I'm engaging solely in speculation, I'm in good company. Did you think I was just making up names?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

So my question is, in what fields and in what situations is Bayes' theorem used to analyze ideas which are too vaguely specified (similar to the fine-tuning argument) to allow a well-formed conclusion? Can someone give me some examples?

Linda

I doubt it.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Did you think I was just making up names?

No, you're not making them up. Penrose and Hoyle I know to be mathematician and astronomer, but I'll concede, since your sources tag "physicist" to their respective titles.

Regardless, you're still talking about the parameters being what they are, not whether or not they can vary. To plug something into a Bayesian inference, you need a probability. The probability can't be based on the fact that parameters, if different, won't arise to life--it has to be based on how likely those parameters are set such that they lead to life.

As long as you're using plato.standord.edu:

There is some disagreement over just how many such independent factors there are, but by some counts there are over 100, although not all requiring the above degree of precision

...so it appears there are multiple models to consider. Furthermore, there doesn't appear to be a consensus. Which do you pick? You can include all of them, by the way, but nobody seems to have done so. Don't forget--we have no reason to rule out the model where none of the parameters can vary, so it should be considered as well.

Picking a few...

"Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by one part in 1040, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist."

So how does gravity get its strength? What are the odds? That's what you're plugging into Bayes Theorem, by the way--not the variation, but odds.

With respect to key enzymes occurring by chance, astrophysicist Fred Hoyle throws around numbers like 10-40000 (Hoyle 1982, 4-5).

Hoyle is in no way familiar with biochemistry. He should be ignored. If you want to include this as a parameter, that's fine--but his number is suspect. Find a recognized biochemist.

"by Roger Penrose's calculation, the probability of chance alone producing cosmoi capable of producing planets is 1 in 10 raised in turn to the 10123"

Which model does Penrose use to come up with this?

"We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible,” Linde says.

...and what does this say about the odds that a universe would have those coincidental parameters?

Add to that theoretical physicist Paul Davies: "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job'"

Again, this is about the significance of the variation, but the question is about the odds. How do universes wind up with the values they have? That's what you need for BT.

And theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking: ... It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life...

And what about the odds that the universe would be in such ranges?

And physicist David Deutsch: If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction,

Can they nudge in one direction?

So that's Deutsch, Hawking, Davies, Linde, Hoyle, Penrose, and Carter who all support my position WRT evidence of the precise value of the constants needed for a life-permitting universe. If I'm engaging solely in speculation, I'm in good company.

The speculation occurs when you work from a particular model, and suppose that your model, union H, covers U.

You seem to be mistaking my point. My point is not that you should consider some other particular model instead, but that you should add consideration for all such models. Use the form of Bayes that allows you to incorporate N models... not just the false dichotomy of 2... and put them all in.

Here, again:
P(H|E)=P(H)P(E|H)/{P(H)P(E|H)+P(J₁)P(E|J₁)+...+P(J_n)P(E|J_n)}}

 

[Beth]

Wow, I can't keep up with this thread even lurking.

So that's Deutsch, Hawking, Davies, Linde, Hoyle, Penrose, and Carter who all support my position WRT evidence of the precise value of the constants needed for a life-permitting universe. If I'm engaging solely in speculation, I'm in good company. Did you think I was just making up names?

In addition, I believe that the latest highly crediantialed physicist's odd-yet-supported-by-evidence speculation is that our universe is a hologram. Sorry I don't have time to look for a link, but perhaps someone else has heard about it. Interesting, isn't it?

 

[yy2bggggs]

In addition, I believe that the latest highly crediantialed physicist's odd-yet-supported-by-evidence speculation is that our universe is a hologram. Sorry I don't have time to look for a link, but perhaps someone else has heard about it. Interesting, isn't it?

Try this for a media account, and yes, this is interesting.

Along those lines, though, we've been having very strong confirmation of dark matter over the past few years (depending on when you date "very strong"). Dark matter comprises about 4 times as much of the universe as ordinary matter, and is strong evidence that our Standard Model of physics is incomplete. Pile dark energy on top of this, and you get about 4 times as much energy as in dark matter plus ordinary matter in the universe. The physics behind this is currently unknown.

I believe the teleological argument discussion page at plato.stanford.edu had a huge section discussing objections to the use of Bayes, which partially discussed subjective analysis (a problem I'm not even focused on at the moment), and in other part the problems involved in even trying to enumerate the possible models in the first place. These sorts of things should be considered as well. If you know how to "cheat", you could at least add a term for this in your Bayesian inference... it goes with the J's--call it X.

X represents the sum of all possibilities in E that you haven't even anticipated. So if you think we know damned near everything in the universe, it should be small. If you think we're merely scratching the surface, it should be large. We already know it shouldn't be negligible.

Edit: Note that this was where I was initially heading, long ago, in Malerin's other thread.

 

[RandFan]

In addition, I believe that the latest highly crediantialed physicist's odd-yet-supported-by-evidence speculation is that our universe is a hologram. Sorry I don't have time to look for a link, but perhaps someone else has heard about it. Interesting, isn't it?

Sure, so long as you don't write in "here be dragons" in your map of the universe.

 

[Paulhoff]

Brandon Carter

Well, it seems that outside of religious sites, I do not hear much and/or anything about that 1 in 1040 parts stuff.

Paul

 

[Malerin]

No, you're not making them up. Penrose and Hoyle I know to be mathematician and astronomer, but I'll concede, since your sources tag "physicist" to their respective titles.

Regardless, you're still talking about the parameters being what they are, not whether or not they can vary. To plug something into a Bayesian inference, you need a probability. The probability can't be based on the fact that parameters, if different, won't arise to life--it has to be based on how likely those parameters are set such that they lead to life.

Again, this just shifts the Fine Tuning up a level. If the constants are somehow set-in-stone, why are they set at the particular values that allow for a life-permitting universe? That would just be a stronger version of E:
E1: The constants are balanced in a precise manner to support life
E2: The constants are set such that their values are all life-permitting, and all possible universes are life-premitting

Pr(E1/H) >> Pr(E1/~H)
Pr(E2/H) >> Pr(E2/~H)

As long as you're using plato.standord.edu:

...so it appears there are multiple models to consider. Furthermore, there doesn't appear to be a consensus. Which do you pick? You can include all of them, by the way, but nobody seems to have done so. Don't forget--we have no reason to rule out the model where none of the parameters can vary, so it should be considered as well.

There may not be a consensus about the number of constants that have to have precise values, but it doesn't follow that the number could be 0. It could be there's a baseline of 20 or so constants that have to have precise values to allow for life and speculation about another couple dozen. The source I cite states:

"But the apparent probability of all the necessary conditions sufficient to allow just the formation of planets (let alone life) coming together just by chance is utterly outrageously tiny"

So I don't know if you really want to go by it or not. And if none of the parameters vary, as I said before, the question becomes: Of all the values the constants could have been set at (the vast vast majority of which result in life-less universes) why are they set at the precise values necessary for life to exist?

Picking a few...
So how does gravity get its strength? What are the odds? That's what you're plugging into Bayes Theorem, by the way--not the variation, but odds.

Of course it's the odds. There are two plausible explanations for the long odds: someone rigged the game or we're one universe in a vast multiverse.

Hoyle is in no way familiar with biochemistry. He should be ignored. If you want to include this as a parameter, that's fine--but his number is suspect. Find a recognized biochemist.

Then ignore him and focus on the other six or seven. Linde and Hawking are hardly Christian apologists.

Which model does Penrose use to come up with this?

None of us are professional phyiscists, so a lot of this is going to be an appeal to authority. I don't know what model Penrose used and I probably wouldn't understand it. With all the awards won and discoveries made, attacking Penrose's credibility on this is probably not going to work.

...and what does this say about the odds that a universe would have those coincidental parameters?

It says what it says. The odds of a universe "capable of producing planets is 1 in 10 raised in turn to the 10123". I suppose you could argue that non-planetary life is possible, but you would have no evidence to base that on, and it would go against everything we know about life.

Again, this is about the significance of the variation, but the question is about the odds. How do universes wind up with the values they have? That's what you need for BT.

Again, it doens't matter if the values of the constants are set or come about by chance, because the evidence is they have to have precise values either way for life to even have a chance. E1 or E2 both confirm H (E2 much better).

And what about the odds that the universe would be in such ranges?

If the values come about by chance, Hawking states it pretty clearly: "It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life." Going by Penrose, the odds are 1 10123 for planet formation alone.

If the values are set, then you have the interesting fact that they are set at just the right value to permit life, and that all possible universes are life-permitting universes. Imagine a macroverse of trillions of universes and every single one teeming with life. It would be extremely rational to believe something that favors life set the constants at the precise values needed for life, and that is the point of this whole thread.

Can they nudge in one direction?

Are you referring to the quote by Deustch? "If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all."

The speculation occurs when you work from a particular model, and suppose that your model, union H, covers U.

You have not presented a model that would make Pr(E/~H) > Pr(E/H). The tactic most often taken is to assume we're part of a vast multiverse and just got lucky. There is no evidence for that, so the theist is rational in not believing in that and therefore believing in a universe creator.

You seem to be mistaking my point. My point is not that you should consider some other particular model instead, but that you should add consideration for all such models. Use the form of Bayes that allows you to incorporate N models... not just the false dichotomy of 2... and put them all in.

What false dichotomy? Either the universe was created by something or it wasn't. I've supported the evidence of the precise values needed of the physical constants for life to exist with quotes from reputable physicists. Believing in non-planetary or non-molecular life is a fairy tale at best, so the only rational naturalistic explanation that has the same explanatory power as "Something created the universe" is some version of an oscillating universe or macroverse.