13 Apr 05
Originally posted by chinking58Good. I see no reason to deny your first premise. How could I, given that it is a tautology? So, premise 1 is as follows:
Simply: Unlikely things are unlikely.
More unlikely things are unlikelyer, or do you say unlikelier?
Unlikely does not mean impossible (as Dr. S. so well demonstrates), but they remain more unlikely to occur than the likely.
One may survive a jump from a 100 foot cliff, but one gives the likely result of being killed more consideration than the ...[text shortened]... likes of National Geographic documentaries and other myriads of one-sided outlets.
1) Unlikely things are unlikely.
Now, what is premise 2?
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbarrIs there any reason to believe that the strength of the force of gravity or the electromagnetic force HAVE to be what they are in the universe? Isn't it conceivable to have a universe with a stronger gravitional force? I know of no scientific reason why gravity must be of x strength for a universe to exist, do you?
This argument is known in the literature as the 'fine tuning argument', it is the most recent version of the well known design argument. The first question I would like to ask this scientist is why he thinks that the physical constants of the universe could have been different. It the physical constants of the world are necessary constants, then counterfac ...[text shortened]... n't it perfectly reasonable to argue analogously when talking about the physical constants?
If there is only one universe, then the lottery analogy isn't a good one. Only one ticket was brought and that wound up to be the winner even though the odds were astronomically small that the universe would have the proper levels of the basic forces for life to exist. Of course, it is possible that that was just dumb luck; but as the argument is an inductive one it doesn't seem to be the best explanation, does it? I think that's why some scientists are talking about multiverses; to get more participants in the "lottery".
The argument assumes A) that the forces in the universe could have been at different levels and B) that this is the only universe. Do either seem scientifically invalid to you?
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderIs gravity a force? I thought that according to general relativity it was just the curvature of space-time as a result of mass. Since I don't know what the constraints are on physical law formation, I can't tell you whether it is possible that the laws could be different. Of course it is conceivable that the laws be different, so it is logically possible that they could be different. But that is not the necessity at issue here. If there are meta-laws that constrain physical law formation, then it may not be nomologically possible for the laws to have been different. Further, if there are such meta-laws, then it may be that the scientist is assumely unjustifiedly that the physical constants are independent of each other for purposes of probabilistic calculation. Anyway, this isn't a line of argument I'm committed to, which is why I pointed out that this is a question I would ask the scientist, rather than an objection I would present.
Is there any reason to believe that the strength of the force of gravity or the electromagnetic force HAVE to be what they are in the universe? Isn't it conceivable to have a universe with a stronger gravitional force? I know of no scientific reason why gravity must be of x strength for a universe to exist, do you?
If there is only ...[text shortened]... d B) that this is the only universe. Do either seem scientifically invalid to you?
No, the analogy is perfect, you are just mistaking the corresponding elements in the analogy. There is only one universe just as there is only one winner of the lottery. The universe could have been different (so the scientist assumes), just as there could have been a different winner.
Further, I doubtthe argument is inductive. What could the inductive evidence possibly be, given that we have no experience with other universes and their laws? The argument is probably abductive (inference to the best explanation), and I bet it relies on some sort of a priori principle. I would need to see the premises.
Actually, check out the following link for a full-dress version of the fine-tuning argument:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/tuning-revisited.html
This is an abductive argument.
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbarrAccording to general relativity as I understand it, mass itself is only a pronounced curvature in space time. At any rate, whether it is looked at in the Newtonian sense or the Einsteinian sense gravity still must have some physical characteristics which can, and have been, computed. A small difference in the "strength of the force" or "amount of curvature caused by mass" would cause a lifeless universe. I'm not familiar with any scientific theory which says that the characteristics of the various forces could only have been what they are; I find that improbable but will look into it.
Is gravity a force? I thought that according to general relativity it was just the curvature of space-time as a result of mass. Since I don't know what the constraints are on physical law formation, I can't tell you whether it is possible that the laws could be different. Of course it is conceivable that the laws be different, so it is logically possible t ...[text shortened]... org/library/modern/theodore_drange/tuning-revisited.html
This is an abductive argument.
Your second paragraph makes no sense to me and I quite frankly don't understand the point of the lottery argument if there is only one universe. A conclusion that the universe was "lucky" seems a trifle odd to me. I cannot say it can't be true, but it offends my sense of rationality to believe that, if the chances of something occurring are exceedingly small and we are given one chance, it happened.
My formal logic is rusty and I don't understand the difference between inductive and abductive. Does it matter as I prefer not to debate semantics? I meant to say that such an argument cannot be "proven" but I would assume if the premises were true it would increase the possibility that the universe was designed in some way. I though I gave some of the basic premises above; although the site you gave probably gave a better statement of the premises. I quickly read through it and may respond to it, but much of it assumes that there is a burden of proof to "prove" things that the author knows are unprovable. I'm merely speculating that if the scientist I heard is correct in stating that small changes in the universe's physical characteristics would have made life impossible, that it is possible to have a universe with different characteristics and if there is only one universe then the case for a designer of some sort becomes more plausible. Actual scientific proof of such a thing is obviously impossible, but in realms such as this some speculation based on the available evidence seems at least reasonable in my view.
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by frogstompThat, of course, assumes that it was random chance, which is what the whole discussion is about. Tell me is there any reason to believe that the strength of the 4 basic forces is mandated in the universe by some "meta-law"?
the lottery winner and the universe , both chosen by random chance are no longer governed by probability since they are certainties.
same as flipping a coin 50% probability for heads before its flipped but after it turns up heads it's a certainty that that flip came out heads.
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThere are three ways to answer the apparently 'finely tuned' nature of the universe.
While it's not a strictly "probability" argument, I was listening to a talk given by a scientist regarding the Big Bang (I forget his name, but he was a "traditional" scientist not a Christian fundie). He did mention that if the strength of several of the basic forces, like gravity, was even slightly different the universe would have been ...[text shortened]... it is for life to exist in this universe, that that is (indirect) proof of design of some sort?
One of them is that the universe may not be fine tuned at all. If the constants were different, maybe different forms of intelligent life could exist. How do we know how many of the possibilities would lead to intelligent life?
The Intelligent Designer explanation is another possibility.
The Multiverse argument is a third.
This explanation has been of particular interest to particle physicists because theories of everything do apparently generate large numbers of universes in which the physical constants are random.
Mathematician Michael Ikeda and astronomer Bill Jefferys actually turn this argument around, and claim that the apparent fine tuned characteristic of the universe is evidence against an ID. They make the point that if there were an ID, he could put life in any universe, "life-friendly" or not. Since we are in a universe in which all the constants are friendly to life, it suggests no supernatural intervention occurred.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou gave a good answer but with some assumptions.
LOL, clever.
[b]
Here's the question:
What is the probability of the getting exactly 8 heads in a coin flipping experiment?
After giving your response, please explain how it relates to the fundies claims.
If the experiment is to flip a coin exactly 8 times and observe the 8 sides that land, those 8 sides will all be heads with pro ...[text shortened]... f it is never observed, then is the time for suspicion of some unnatural interference.)
Dr. S[/b]
The answer I was looking for was something like the following:
That's a trick question!
You never said how many times the coin was flipped or whether the coin is even fair. What if both sides have heads or both sides have tails?
Thus the probability, if the question were well posed, could be anything on the interval [0,1]. As is it is not well posed, so we cannot construct probabilities.
As for the fundies, they have exactly the same problem when trying to give probabilities of evolution occuring or the world coming into being or a prophecy from the bible coming true.
Ok, back to the thread. I'm pretty busy, and I'll respond later.
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderyour underlying question ( the "watch" one in a different guise) is not a question science can answer.
That, of course, assumes that it was random chance, which is what the whole discussion is about. Tell me is there any reason to believe that the strength of the 4 basic forces is mandated in the universe by some "meta-law"?
The number of theoretical alternate universes is probably infinite.
My conception of those 4 forces is that they are instantiated together in complex series of particle exchanges, which would
imply that there is a meta-law,
The universe exists is a certainty, much of the problem in this debate is caused by a fallacy of four terms. Scientists speak of a universe that consists only of the bigbang expansion. The rest of us think of a universe that consists of an endless void which the bigbang is only a part of.
Maybe by using Lie groups (don't ask) the properties of that void can be postulated. Even the gauge fields that a creator would need ought to be postulatable.Of course that would mean the creator is contained in a Lie group and subject to the rules of an even larger Lie group.
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by frogstompOf course, the argument is never really resolvable; there's always the "who designed the designer" dilemma. But I see no reason to reject out of hand the possibility of an Intelligent Design of the universe if the evidence points that way and I don't think it can be resolved simply by placing a burden of proof on someone that is known to be impossible to meet.
your underlying question ( the "watch" one in a different guise) is not a question science can answer.
The number of theoretical alternate universes is probably infinite.
My conception of those 4 forces is that they are instantiated together in complex series of particle exchanges, which would
imply that there is a meta-law,
The univ ...[text shortened]... the creator is contained in a Lie group and subject to the rules of an even larger Lie group.
13 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarr
You claimed the following:
So come on, chinking58, let's do this thing! I really want to get to the bottom of this, 'cause I like having true beliefs rather than false beliefs. If you are right that the "science of probability" shows that the T.o.E. is very likely false, then I will have to change me worldview. Help me, chinking58. Please present the first premise in your argument.
Thanks in advance.
Try do this in the debates forum. It's the forum called 'debates'.
13 Apr 05
Well, I'm feeling rather deflated now that we've all agreed to move away from probability theory. (Imagine that picture of "Blowhard" at Flame Warriors after his engorged head meets with a needle.)
Thousand already took care of my intended contribution: Certain different cosmological constants may give rise to different kinds of life.
I think this problem is intractable. It goes back to what I keep saying about the sample space. As far as I know, we have absolutely no information about what is possible "outside" of the universe. If so, then we have no reason to believe that any statements we make about the "nature" of "what is outside" the universe is correct. Until I come upon evidence that we can verify information about "what is outside" the universe, I will proceed under the hypothesis that any question as to the "nature" of "what lies outside" the universe is misspecified.