The design argument

The Lottery fallacy fallacy fallacy
The problem with fine tuning arguments is that the conclusion is on its head. If a theory predicts that the world we see around us is ludicrously improbable then the correct conclusion is that there is something wrong with the theory. Arguments about lotteries are a total irrelevance. The standard in physics is to look for natural theories where the probability of getting a universe like ours is not ridiculously small.

The problem with the lottery fallacy is that physicists doesn't believe the universe should be that unlikely, so there's no reason for the theists to be berated for pointing it out, unless they are basing a strong claim on a fine tuning argument. The lottery fallacy is a claim such as to avoid a cosmological lottery God must exist. The problem with the lottery fallacy fallacy is that just because it is unlikely does not mean that it couldn't happen, it can be invoked when atheists are making a strong claim.

But the underlying problem is looking for explanations as to how we could come about when its so unlikely given our theories, the right thing to do is to criticise the theories. Fine tuning arguments concern the likelihood of theories being correct not the likelihood of the universe existing.

Probability, randomness and likelihood
I think there's been a failure to properly distinguish between a priori and a posteriori probability. Suppose you are in a pub watching a game of backgammon. You go to the bar to get a beer and when you have returned it is the same player to go, but the game has moved on. One player has moved his pieces a lot and the other very little. They had time for about two goes each. A priori the chances that the player who hasn't made much progress would roll a 2 and a 1 twice in a row is low, a posteriori it's 100%. Again the probability of getting doubles on successive rolls is pretty low but if it's the only way to explain the game state then the a posteriori probability is high. While it's not critical to the argument (which is about a priori probabilities) I think it's been adding to the confusion as they get confounded.

Likelihood is the probability of an outcome in a statistical system based on the parameter space. It is the likelihood of the universe being as it is that we are discussing. On naturalness grounds there is a problem with a theory if it predicts that the likelihood of the world as we know it is ten to the power of an astronomically big number to one against.

The current knowledge of string theory (AFAIK) gives the number of possible string vacua as 10^500. Assuming that as many as a google (10^100) of them give more or less our universe that means that the likelihood of the universe being habitable by beings like us is 10^400 to 1 against. This is a problem for String Theory and not for the universe.

Quantum Mechanics and Randomness
According to Wikipedia the Copenhagen Interpretation (C.I.) in its various forms consists of the following 'axioms', the axioms they give seem to me to overlap, so I've condensed them to non-overlapping ones, my comments are in italics:

1) The wavefunction determines the state of a system exactly before a measurement.
This is hardly controversial, but de-Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory has a physical particle guided by the wave function, so this is interpretation dependent. In C.I. this is treated as a purely theoretical construct and has purely mathematical existence. Most physicists don't believe that last bit.

2) Correspondence Principle - quantum operators corresponding to measurable quantities correspond to their classical counterparts. The operators are related to each other by the classical formulae. Because of their mathematical structure the operators corresponding to classically conjugate quantities such as position and momentum interfere with one another to give Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
This is supported by the success of the theory but is a piece of logical positivism. The expression is all in terms of idealised measurements rather than actual quantities.

3) Measuring devices are described by classical physics.
This can only be an approximation at best and with modern solid state detectors it isn't even true.

4) During a measurement the wavefunction of the measured particle "collapses" to an exact pure state corresponding to the type of measurement. They are only able to measure one quantity at a time.
I don't believe this, the "pure states" are things like plain waves, there must be some smearing for the particle to be physical.

5)The wavefunction can be constructed from "pure states"
This just encodes fourier transforms

6) Wavefunctions can be combined by taking a tensor product.
Pauli's exclusion principle follows from this, no one has a problem with it.

7) The final state during measurement is randomly selected from the eigenstates corresponding to a pure state.
This is an attempt to codify the stochastic nature of quantum theory, but they've insisted on eigenstates ("Pure states".) which I don't like (see my earlier post on this page).

8) Wave-particle duality - the nature of the result of an experiment depends on the experiment.
If you make a measurement which tries to localise the particle then it is going to appear localised. I don't think that this really adds anything to 1 and 4.

9) The domain of quantum theory is the configuration space not space-time.
I'm not sure what the writer means by this. The wave-function's domain is definitely space-time. I think that this is to reinforce that it is the wavefunction that does everything

10) Classical limit - in the limit of systems with large numbers of particles the probabilites must average to give the classical prediction.
Not controversial, but more of a check than an axiom. Also it's not always true, superconductors can exhibit macroscopic quantum states.

11. The modulus wavefunction squared is the probability density of finding the particle at x.
This gives us the rule that the probability of the particle being in the universe is 1. It provides the normalization rule for the wavefunction and isn't controversial.

According to the Copenhagen interpretation quantum theory involves random transitions between states. So the probability of an isolated Neutron undergoing beta decay in 17 minutes (or so) is one half. In C.I. the neutron is in a linear superposition of states right up until the time that the beta particle is detected. This is a "no cats" version of the Schrodinger's cat argument. According to von Neumann the point of wavefunction collapse can be any time between the decay, the measurement by the Geiger counter and the registering of the event by the consciousness of the observer. It can't be right, there are stars which have undergone stellar evolution potentially to black holes whose light we are only seeing now. The electrons involved in the transition that emitted the light cannot be in a linear superposition of states, so the collapse must happen earlyish.

There are other interpretations of Quantum Theory, but none of them have displaced C.I. yet. In practice the working interpretation is "Shut up and calculate."

A Predictable Feature of Any Universe
bbarr and LemonJello will argue that no matter what the nomological laws in a parallel universe things like logic apply there. Taking that as a given I think it is reasonable to assert that information exists in other universes. After all one can hardly assert a proposition if it doesn't. Information is Entropy. So parallel universes will have Entropy as a physical quantity even if they don't have anything like the laws of physics we know. The law of increase of entropy depends on Fermi's Golden Rule (due to Dirac) and the existence of time so it's contingent but Entropy itself will exist.

Entropy is defined as:

Σ p_i log(p_i)
i
where the sum is over all states i, and p_i is the probability of occupation of a given state and the log is log to base 2. In physics there's a constant (Bolzmann's constant) which scales this and the log is the natural log, but that just gives a scale factor. Any universe with quantum mechanics as the laws of motion and time, whatever the particle content or symmetries are, will have a law of increase of entropy.

Edits: Completed the sentence at the end of the first paragraph in the probability section and added some white space to the Copenhagen Interpretation bit to make it more readable.

Originally posted by DeepThought
[b]The Lottery fallacy fallacy fallacy
The problem with fine tuning arguments is that the conclusion is on its head. If a theory predicts that the world we see around us is ludicrously improbable then the correct conclusion is that there is something wrong with the theory. Arguments about lotteries are a total irrelevance. The standard in physics ...[text shortened]... d time, whatever the particle content or symmetries are, will have a law of increase of entropy.[/b]

Originally posted by Soothfast
In the case of reincarnation of an individual the invariant property is the soul, I think. Conscious thought without body. I think it's typically believed that all experiences and memories collected by a soul during a corporeal lifetime are stored in the soul and never lost, though memories of previous lifetimes are forgotten (rendered inaccessible) duri ...[text shortened]... to that effect: the entropy score is reset to zero, but the rules of the game remain the same.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well, in your faith a primary requirement is believing in God. Atheists all agree that they have no evidence that God exists, it's not like there is a continuous stream of thunderbolts striking down the unrighteous. Part of the point of faith is that you believe and trust despite the prima facie absence of evidence. So those who desire entry in ...[text shortened]... languages of the world in order to confound the project and therefore maintain his invisibility.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Well, in your faith a primary requirement is believing in God."

Actually, no. The primary requirement is to believe God. You see, that God exists isn't the question. Real faith is acquired by hearing the Word of God and believing it.

Please allow me to explain. There was a time when I did not know God. What I knew of the scriptures was only hea ...[text shortened]... author. When the mind opens the door to God's Word the evidence for creation becomes axiomatic.[/b]

I think you should look at two things you said above. One, that you hold to the idea of "prima facie absence of evidence", yet you follow that with the idea that the builders of the tower weren't hiding from heaven, and that God confounded their languages to keep Himself hidden.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Originally posted by DeepThought

If a theory predicts that the world we see around us is ludicrously improbable then the correct conclusion is that there is something wrong with the theory.

The standard in physics is to look for natural theories where the probability of getting a universe like ours is not ridiculously small.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

The post that was quoted here has been removed