The fine tuning argument

[westprog]

But even without a multiverse, you still have the burden of proving that the constants even could be different. The universe may be the way it is because it could not possibly exist any other way. Many of these constants as mentioned are dependent on each other and cannot simply be tweaked individually. And there is no evidence to suggest they could be tweaked period.

And of course this only covers life as we know it in our tiny view of the universe. So even if we were to overlook this problem of not being able to show that the universe could even exist with different parameters, we then would have to show that life of any kind, not just what we know could not exist.

So if the universe could not possibly exist any other way - why couldn't it exist any other way? It seems like a rephrasing of the problem, not a resolution.

 

[westprog]

Now that is what I call precise, first off you compare two different forces that have different strengths at different scales (why does gravity the weaker force dominate large scale interactions ?) and then you throw out the word few, that is not 'precise'.
10^36 is a big number and a few zeros could mean a factor of ten to 10,000.





Funny they don't state what that number is, i will have to look it up, is it the ratio of the weak and the strong force?

The we have omega and lamda, two cosmological factots, um what ios the variance of the universe and how do you define precision in the universe. Still not 'fine tuning'.



A factor of what equals what percetage change in this factor, it is not given.

They are wrong about the dimensions for sure. There are four dimensions.

That's a one page extract from the entire book. Since Rees is a cosmologist, I'd trust him on matters of fact. He might well explain how space-time fits as a dimension.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So if the universe could not possibly exist any other way - why couldn't it exist any other way? It seems like a rephrasing of the problem, not a resolution.

I'm not claiming it cannot, you are claiming it can. Until you can demonstrate that, you don't have an argument.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

That's a one page extract from the entire book. Since Rees is a cosmologist, I'd trust him on matters of fact. He might well explain how space-time fits as a dimension.

Someone simply being a cosmologist does not make them right. You can't hide behind someone's credentials, you need to present their work that makes the explanation.

Saying all 4 dimensions is one dimension is nonsensical no matter who says it. Show is work where he exaplins himself.

 

[rocketdodger]

So if the universe could not possibly exist any other way - why couldn't it exist any other way? It seems like a rephrasing of the problem, not a resolution.

Why could mathematics not possibly exist any other way?

Why can't 1 + 1 == 3, instead of 2?

Same answer.

You seem to be suffering from a case of the inverse of special pleading, to demand an explanation for things like why the universe is the way it is when you accept many other things as axioms without question.

Furthermore, how on Earth is interjecting a fine tuner not the same thing? How is goddidit a resolution? Because God is axiomatic, maybe? hmmmm

 

[Malerin]

Boy, you're whining a lot!

Really? Would you say I'm "vomiting" arguments? I like that imagery, RD.

Here's an off the wall question. How did you generate that first sequence?

http://www.psychicscience.org/random.aspx

Got in on the 12th sequence. Different sequence than the original I posted, but a max of three sets of three.



You will notice the sequence failed the intertrial independence check, but then so do the sequences at the end, which have larger runs.

That's correct. But coins, weighted or no, still do not produce GF patterns any higher than chance, and the chances get smaller with more flips.

I'm familiar with the Gambler's Fallacy (the erroneous belief that an outcome is "due" based on a prior sequence (e.g., some gamblers believe that "black" is due on a roulette wheel after seeing four "reds")), but "GF patterns" sounds like something you made up. In any case, it isn't widely discussed: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...'s+fallacy+pattern"&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Ironically, when searching for "GF pattern", the only thing that looked like it had anything to do with statistics is page 8 of this very discussion: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...S:official&hs=zPN&q="GF+pattern"&start=0&sa=N

As Reverend Lovejoy would say, Maybe it's somewhere in the back...

There would otherwise be no need to go over your points demonstrating this, except for this old-hat you drag out, which by now should definitely be considered ultimate fail:

[Okay, but first off, this is a smaller set. 55 was already right on the border of getting significant results with GF patterns, but you felt the need to go down to 30 flips?]

Random.Org wouldn't display a single column of 55 to fit the screen. PsychicScience does.

[It looks okay to me. How about this sequence... is it random or not?:

HHH​

]

Sample size is too small to avoid a type I/II error.

Okay... so here comes the fail... I'm just going to label these...

...and here it is...

I guess I missed the label. Where's the fail?

So, Malerin... what on "Bob"'s soiled planet do you think you're calculating by multiplying the probability of events [1] through [4] listed above?

Um, the improbability of all four patterns occuring in the same set?

What would such a product mean?

Nothing, which was my point. You can cherrypick numerous improbabilities in nearly any set, as you ended up doing. Unless they're significant they mean nothing.


Several large runs:




This one failed and has several runs of 4:




It is not hard at all to generate a sequence that fails such a check.

But this is all a needless derail. The original question was, which coin is biased, based on the two sequences I originally gave. Let's stick to that, shall we?

 

[Malerin]

I'm not claiming it cannot, you are claiming it can. Until you can demonstrate that, you don't have an argument.

The same problem arises if the physical constants are "set" in some way. We can still generate models of what the universe would be like if the constants had different values, and nearly all those models fail to produce life-permitting universes, which begs two questions:

1. Is it just chance that the physical constants happen to be set at just the right values for life to appear?

2. If the constants are set at life-permitting values, that means it was impossible for the universe to be anything other than life-permitting. The impossibility of a life-less universe, to me at least, would be much more suggestive of a universe creator.

 

[porch]

The same problem arises if the physical constants are "set" in some way. We can still generate models of what the universe would be like if the constants had different values, and nearly all those models fail to produce life-permitting universes, which begs two questions:

1. Is it just chance that the physical constants happen to be set at just the right values for life to appear?

2. If the constants are set at life-permitting values, that means it was impossible for the universe to be anything other than life-permitting. The impossibility of a life-less universe, to me at least, would be much more suggestive of a universe creator.

I'm pretty fascinated by life, and in particular, humans. I think I might have a bit of a bias, though. Tell me, of all the things that would be different if the universe were different, why do you single out life as your barometer for whether or not there is a "universe creator"?

 

[rocketdodger]

2. If the constants are set at life-permitting values, that means it was impossible for the universe to be anything other than life-permitting. The impossibility of a life-less universe, to me at least, would be much more suggestive of a universe creator.

What about the impossibility of a mathematics system where 1 + 1 != 2 ?

Why isn't that suggestive of a mathematics creator?

 

[yy2bggggs]

Here's an off the wall question. How did you generate that first sequence?

http://www.psychicscience.org/random.aspxGot in on the 12th sequence. Different sequence than the original I posted, but a max of three sets of three.

That doesn't answer the question.

I'm familiar with the Gambler's Fallacy (the erroneous belief that an outcome is "due" based on a prior sequence (e.g., some gamblers believe that "black" is due on a roulette wheel after seeing four "reds")), but "GF patterns" sounds like something you made up.
...
In any case, it isn't widely discussed:

You literally searched for the exact phrase "gambler's fallacy patterns"?

Try "clustering illusion". The term "gambler's fallacy pattern" isn't technical--I'm using it simply because I was talking about the gambler's fallacy earlier, so to refer to the pattern left by this, I say gambler's fallacy pattern.

And if you want to see the test I'm using somewhere else, try this (random.org links to this site too... by the way).

Random.Org wouldn't display a single column of 55 to fit the screen. PsychicScience does.

It would if you read my instructions.

But that's okay... I can make this so easy to follow, even you can do it!

Spoilered to prevent accidental usage (you only get 1,000,000 bits per day--this uses 110,000 of them).
2000 sets of 55 flips courtesey of random.org
One per row, as a set of 5 eleven-digit binary numbers; 2,000 such rows.

I guess I missed the label. Where's the fail?

The fail isn't merely in your error--it's in the fact that we've been through this before talking about this very thing.

Given P(A) and P(B), here's how you get [LATEX]$$P\left(A \cap B \right)$$[/LATEX]:

[LATEX]$P\left(A \cap B\right)=P\left(A \right)P\left(B \middle| A \right)$[/LATEX]​

This equation is always true. The product of P(A)P(B) means absolutely nothing useful, unless A and B are mutually independent, in which case [LATEX]$$P\left(B \right)=P\left(B \middle| A \right)$$[/LATEX].

So let's see if these events are mutually independent...

• [2] is impossible if there are 6 or more 1's in the first 15. [1], coincidentally, can only possibly happen if that's the case. So [1] and [2] are dependent.
• [1] and [2] together are a special case of [4], so they are dependent.

And as for [3], that deserves an entire new paragraph. The only way to get those successive "runs of 2" is to put a 1 in between. That would leave ambiguity of where to add the final 1, except for the fact that the last run has to be two 1's, so if you put it at that end, it would not match (that makes the last a run of 3). If you pair it with any other 1, it wouldn't be "the runs, in order" either (whichever 1 you pair it with suddenly creates a run of 2). You can't stick it inside one of the runs of 2 either, because you said exactly how long those were. The only place left is to stick that 1 on the left...

Meaning... that your description of [3] is simply another way to state the exact sequence in the first place. So [3] is a special case of [1], [2], and [4], and is identical with what you gave anyway. Its probability is exactly 2^-30.

Your meaningless product is going to be smaller than the probability that you get the exact sequence by chance.

Um, the improbability of all four patterns occuring in the same set?

Not even in the same ball park.

Several large runs:...

...and what are you trying to show exactly? Step back a moment.

I analyzed 2,000 samples of 55 head flips using random.org, showing you the results. I didn't go and click over and over again trying to figure out just the right one to show you, I just did one run. You, on the other hand, are running individual runs, trying to look for interesting patterns, and showing them to me one at a time.

Do you somehow think that by providing me anecdotal single samples that you personally ran through your confirmation bias filters, you somehow will nullify the results of my 2,000 samples?

But this is all a needless derail. The original question was, which coin is biased, based on the two sequences I originally gave. Let's stick to that, shall we?

This thread was started by Robin, and the topic of this thread is "The Fine Tuning argument". Therefore, I propose an alternative... let's just stick to things applicable to that topic as opposed to whatever points you were making, shall we?

 

[Dancing David]

The same problem arises if the physical constants are "set" in some way. We can still generate models of what the universe would be like if the constants had different values, and nearly all those models fail to produce life-permitting universes, which begs two questions:

Um sure if you set gravity to a billion time it's current set, then it doesn't work, and considering that there is an infinite set of numbers larger than a billion, you have an infinite set of number where adjusting the strength of graivity causes the universe to collapse.

But there is also an infinite set of numbers between 2 and three.

So which set of infinity is larger Malerin?

We can generate an equal number of models where the conditions are favorable to life as well. Infinity is infinity.

So what was you point?

1. Is it just chance that the physical constants happen to be set at just the right values for life to appear?

Are there bacteria in boiling hot water?

2. If the constants are set at life-permitting values, that means it was impossible for the universe to be anything other than life-permitting. The impossibility of a life-less universe, to me at least, would be much more suggestive of a universe creator.

So every time you don't roll a six on a four sided die it indicates that god messed with the dice?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The same problem arises if the physical constants are "set" in some way. We can still generate models of what the universe would be like if the constants had different values, and nearly all those models fail to produce life-permitting universes, which begs two questions:

1. Is it just chance that the physical constants happen to be set at just the right values for life to appear?

2. If the constants are set at life-permitting values, that means it was impossible for the universe to be anything other than life-permitting. The impossibility of a life-less universe, to me at least, would be much more suggestive of a universe creator.

And you still run into the same problem. You have to first demonstrate that they even COULD be different. You just want to skip this step, make a huge baseless assumption that the constants we see in the universe cna be made to anything and a universe will be created regardless.

When you stop skipping this first step for which the rest of your argument is based on, then come talk to me.

And then you will need to define what you mean by life permitting. Because right now you define that is life as we know it. So your next step after filling in the first step you keep skipping will be to prove that the life we know is the ONLY kind of life that can possibly exist.

Good luck to you and we look forward to your research.

 

[Malerin]

And you still run into the same problem. You have to first demonstrate that they even COULD be different.

That is where cosmology is right now. Nobody has discovered a principle for why the FS constant has the value it has. The value can't be derived from other values- it must be measured. If you want to defeat the FT argument by arguing that the values are "set" in some way, you need to provide evidence for that. But even this is besides the point.

All I have to demonstrate is that we can produce models of universes with different physical constant values. We can do this. Even small changes in constant values result in universes that have no stars, no atom formation, etc. Once you establish a narrow range of life-permitting universes, it doesn't matter if the constants are set or not, because the same question arises: A) if they're "fixed", why are they set at the precise values necessary for life? B) if they're not "fixed" why do they have life-permitting values they do?

Ironically, discovering that the values are set would knock out a competing explanation for God Did It (the multiverse or oscillating universe). If the values can't be anything other than what they are, a multiverse simply means innumerable life-perimitting universes. It would be like a lottery where the winning numbers always appear.

You just want to skip this step, make a huge baseless assumption that the constants we see in the universe cna be made to anything and a universe will be created regardless.

It's not a baseless assumption: there is no current model that shows the constants are set in any way. Maybe there will be 20 years from now, but it doesn't matter, as I just explained.

When you stop skipping this first step for which the rest of your argument is based on, then come talk to me.

Um, Ok.

And then you will need to define what you mean by life permitting. Because right now you define that is life as we know it.

What else would I define it as? Life as we don't know it?

So your next step after filling in the first step you keep skipping will be to prove that the life we know is the ONLY kind of life that can possibly exist.

You can attack the FT this way, but you're going to be arguing against all the biological evidence that's been accumulated so far. For example (as Victor Stenger argues), you can claim that non-carbon based life is possible. But you have no evidence for that, and I have plenty of evidence that carbon is a necessary condition for life: every living thing so far examined is carbon-based. So if you attack the FT argument that way, all the biological evidence is against you and you're just throwing out fairy tales of non-molecular life, non-planetary life, etc.

Good luck to you and we look forward to your research.

Is that like the royal we?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

That is where cosmology is right now. Nobody has discovered a principle for why the FS constant has the value it has. The value can't be derived from other values- it must be measured. If you want to defeat the FT argument by arguing that the values are "set" in some way, you need to provide evidence for that. But even this is besides the point.

Again, this is still incorrect for the reasons I explained the first time you said this. I am not arguing that the constants are fixed. YOU argued that they can be chance and therefore can be different. I am not the one who is making the assumption, you did. I simply cannot assume that the universe can exist in any combination. Thus my argument that you or anyone making the FS argument must first prove this assertion before they can continue. You cannot sit there and pretend I am making the assumption when I certainly am not.

All I have to demonstrate is that we can produce models of universes with different physical constant values. We can do this. Even small changes in constant values result in universes that have no stars, no atom formation, etc. Once you establish a narrow range of life-permitting universes, it doesn't matter if the constants are set or not, because the same question arises: A) if they're "fixed", why are they set at the precise values necessary for life? B) if they're not "fixed" why do they have life-permitting values they do?

And the ability to make models of different universes is not the issue. No one questions the ability to make models of them. And using terms like 'small changes" is subjective. Define small. Who's to say what small is. And as I pointed out earlier, you still have skipped the first step in this argument by making the assumption that it's even possible for a universe to exist under those models.

It's not a baseless assumption: there is no current model that shows the constants are set in any way. Maybe there will be 20 years from now, but it doesn't matter, as I just explained.

It is. You do not have any evidence to show that it is either fixed or that it can be variable. So without providing any evidence of that, you cannot assert that there was any chance at all. As I explained previously.

What else would I define it as? Life as we don't know it?

Well then you should be able to see your error then. So all other combinations could support life. What does it matter if only one could support life as we know it. You could change your constants and you could result in a different form of life with the same intelligence potentials as we have.

You can attack the FT this way, but you're going to be arguing against all the biological evidence that's been accumulated so far. For example (as Victor Stenger argues), you can claim that non-carbon based life is possible. But you have no evidence for that, and I have plenty of evidence that carbon is a necessary condition for life: every living thing so far examined is carbon-based. So if you attack the FT argument that way, all the biological evidence is against you and you're just throwing out fairy tales of non-molecular life, non-planetary life, etc.

No I am not. I am not going against any evidence accumulated what so ever. I don't need evidence for non-carbon based life. I am not claiming it exists. YOU are claiming it does not and assuming that carbon based life is the only possibility. So again, not only am I not attacking biological evidence, you are making a completely false claim about my position.

Is that like the royal we?

No, 'we' as in 'we'.

 

[Dancing David]

That is where cosmology is right now. Nobody has discovered a principle for why the FS constant has the value it has. The value can't be derived from other values- it must be measured.

It is derived from other values and measured, I could be wrong.
(from the wiki page)
e is the elementary charge;
ħ = h/2π is the reduced Planck constant;
c is the speed of light in a vacuum;
ε0 is the electric constant;
μ0 is the magnetic constant or vacuum permeability, a defined conversion factor;
ke is the constant of Coulomb's law.

In electrostatic cgs units, the unit of electric charge, the statcoulomb, is defined so that the permittivity factor, 4πε0, is 1 and dimensionless. The fine-structure constant then becomes

 

[rocketdodger]

It would be like a lottery where the winning numbers always appear.

Not quite.

It would be like what you thought was a lottery, where the winning numbers always appear, but it turns out there is only one number to begin with.

 

[rocketdodger]

All I have to demonstrate is that we can produce models of universes with different physical constant values. We can do this. Even small changes in constant values result in universes that have no stars, no atom formation, etc. Once you establish a narrow range of life-permitting universes, it doesn't matter if the constants are set or not, because the same question arises: A) if they're "fixed", why are they set at the precise values necessary for life? B) if they're not "fixed" why do they have life-permitting values they do?

All I have to demonstrate is that we can produce models of universes where 1 + 1 != 2. We can do this. Even small changes in the value of the successor to 1 result in universes that are completely whacky. Once you establish a narrow range of non-whacky universes, it doesn't matter if the successor to 1 is set or not, because the same question arises: A) if it is "fixed," why is it set at the precise value necessary for mathematics to make sense? B) if it is not "fixed," why does it have the coherent formal system permitting value it does?

 

[porch]

All I have to demonstrate is that we can produce models of universes with different physical constant values. We can do this. Even small changes in constant values result in universes that have no stars, no atom formation, etc. Once you establish a narrow range of life-permitting universes, it doesn't matter if the constants are set or not, because the same question arises: A) if they're "fixed", why are they set at the precise values necessary for life? B) if they're not "fixed" why do they have life-permitting values they do?

Again I'll ask, why is it that you focus on life in particular for the fine tuning argument? For the existence of life to be suggestive of a creator with intent, you have to presume that if this creator exists, you know what it's intent would be. Do you know the mind of God? As far as we know, the constants are set the way they are because God really digs stars, and life is a byproduct that he doesn't give a rat sass about. Then again, as far as we know, God doesn't exist.

 

[Malerin]

Again I'll ask, why is it that you focus on life in particular for the fine tuning argument? For the existence of life to be suggestive of a creator with intent, you have to presume that if this creator exists, you know what it's intent would be. Do you know the mind of God? As far as we know, the constants are set the way they are because God really digs stars, and life is a byproduct that he doesn't give a rat sass about. Then again, as far as we know, God doesn't exist.

It's not knowing the mind of God. It's what is the probability of the existence of some supernatural life-preferring being capable of creating the universe? This would cover most definitions of God: that God is powerful enough to create the universe, and generally likes to have living things around, for whatever reason. As long as I don't think the odds of this type of being existing are very very small, then the FT argument will have the result that the existence of life is grounds to believe either in such a being, or a suffiently large multiverse, because Pr(E/H1) is much greater than Pr(E/~H1).
(E = life, H1 = a supernatural life-preferring being exists).

Also note that Pr(E/H2) is much greater than Pr(E/~H2) where
H2 = a suffieciently large multiverse exists.
This doesn't mean we know any properties of a multiverse (other than that it contains a large number of universes). Just that the existence of life is more probable given a multiverse than given chance alone. This is the view of some atheist phyicists. An oscillating universe works too, but that's not a very popular view these days, I think.

Think of it this way. Suppose the first astronaught on Mars finds a rock like the picture on the bottom, but with straighter sides and more of a pyramid shape. Each side has similar indentations. The first indentation is by itself. The second is a group of 2, then a group of 3, 5, 7, etc. All the primes up to 101 on every side. There are two ways to explain the existence of such a stone:
1. Chance (weathering or some natural process)
2. Design

The chance hypothesis, while logically possible, is so remote as to not be worth consideration. That leaves design. Specifially, that means design by an extra terrestial being with some knowledge of mathematical concepts. That does not mean we "know the mind" of such a being because we're assuming it knows about math. That's just the only way the design hypothesis can work. There's nothing ad hoc about it.

This is the same reasoning the FT proponent is using: if chance seems unlikely, what kind of being could possibly adjust the physical constants to have life-permitting values? A life-hating being? A being not powerful to alter the physical constants? That would be just as absurd as assuming the being that made the indentations on the Martion rock was mathematically ignorant.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Why are you limiting yourself to only 2 possibilities? Why just chance and design. It could be neither. A long time ago we assumed fairy rings were made by fairies because they were perfectly round and came up over night. But they weren't designed. And they didn't happen by chance. They happened by a natural phenomenon that was guided by a natural process. And there's always "I don't know".

ID tries so hard to set up a scenario where they can say it's either chance, or they can insert whatever they want. And this is why they can't get a peer reviewed paper. Because you can only -pull off such arguments on an internet forum. Just ask Dembski.