15 Dec 14
as soon as God's invoked to explain any phenomenon then all phenomena can be explained that way and theory stops.
I'll try again--
That seems to depend on what you mean by "God". Here you seem to have cycled back around to a more or less conventional Western god-concept that is categorically different from the Stoic usage, in which theos is phusis. Once the whole supernatural category (or exogenous agent) is removed, I don’t see how “theory stops”. (Although, once again, the “strong version” that I have outlined here may need to be modified.) After all, the physical scientist is not being asked to investigate anything other than the physical universe.
None of that is to disagree with what may, or may not, be the most fruitful line of inquiry for science, from your perspective as a scientist.
Got to go; fun talking to you again.
15 Dec 14
Originally posted by vistesdMy understanding of theos is that it meant anything which endured longer than humans, so the universe is automatically theos. It still feels like metaphysics. What drew me into the discussion is that both sides seemed to ignore the possibility of there being a problem with the theory.
[b] as soon as God's invoked to explain any phenomenon then all phenomena can be explained that way and theory stops.
I'll try again--
That seems to depend on what you mean by "God". Here you seem to have cycled back around to a more or less conventional Western god-concept that is categorically different from the Stoic usage, in which [i]theos[/i ...[text shortened]... uiry for science, from your perspective as a scientist.
Got to go; fun talking to you again.[/b]
It's good to talk to you again too.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
15 Dec 14
Originally posted by vistesdTheory still stops upon encountering design, even if the Western God is removed leaving only design somehow being developed and executed.
[b] as soon as God's invoked to explain any phenomenon then all phenomena can be explained that way and theory stops.
I'll try again--
That seems to depend on what you mean by "God". Here you seem to have cycled back around to a more or less conventional Western god-concept that is categorically different from the Stoic usage, in which [i]theos[/i ...[text shortened]... uiry for science, from your perspective as a scientist.
Got to go; fun talking to you again.[/b]
Anything -- even No1's random forces -- can be responded to by "that's part of the design." It defeats the one alternative under discussion.
If it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, it is outside science. This doesn't disprove it, it only takes it beyond the scope of evidence-based inquiry.
15 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder
The argument is rather clear and you know what it is (see the title of the thread). Your claim that there isn't one is disingenuous.
Small variations in virtually any of the most basic properties of the universe lead to a universe where life is impossible. An explanation of why this is so seems to be in order. So far the two competing ones seem to be ...[text shortened]... bowl with a billion white marbles isn't more "dubious" than someone left one black marble there.
The argument is rather clear and you know what it is (see the title of the thread). Your claim that there isn't one is disingenuous.
No. Just like I said, there is no actual argument in the first post you made in this thread, just some various counterfactual claims. Since "fine tuning" arguments typically take as their premises probability claims, I leave it up to you, or otherwise to fine tuning argument proponents, to explain how we are supposed to get from those types of counterfactual claims (even assuming they are true) to the probability claims at issue. Again, the concern is that coherency of probability claims carries specific requirements, relating to sample space and normalizability, etc. This is a valid concern, despite the fact that many just seem to run roughshod over it. I see no reasons to think these requirements are met in this area of discourse, and you have provided none in your unenlightening response to my concern.
Apart from that, the "lottery argument" I am aware of is one by analogy, and it seems just fine. What the lottery argument shows is that some typical formulations of the fine tuning argument rest on a faulty inference. This is a separate problem for the fine tuning argument, apart from the problem I've already pointed out above. For the purposes of clarity, the lottery argument by way of analogy runs roughly like this. In the fine tuning argument, the universe has the particular supposedly finely tuned physical constants that it has; the lottery analog is that some particular subject S has won. In the fine tuning argument, the proponent is committed to the claim that the physical constants could be different than what they are; the lottery analog is that the lottery could have had different outcomes than S winning. In the fine tuning argument, the proponent claims that in light of the range of possible physical constant values, it is exceedingly unlikely that the universe would end up with the particular set of constants it has; the lottery analog is that in light of the range of possible outcomes it is exceedingly unlikely that S would win. The proponent of the fine tuning argument makes an abductive inference that the best explanation is that it is by design that the universe has the particular set of physical constants it has; the lottery analog would be the abductive inference that the best explanation is that it is by design that S won. Of course, this inference is not warranted for the lottery for obvious reasons. Since the reasoning structure is the same for the proponent of the fine tuning argument, the same goes for their inference.
15 Dec 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtHowever, the theories we are discussing like String theory or those relating to entropy or other physical aspects of the universe were and are attempts to describe physical reality. They really had nothing to do with the question of the random or non-random nature of physical forces i.e. inquiry into these areas was not meant to "prove" A or B. It is only because the results so clearly indicate that a random, one shot universe would have virtually no chance of having such properties that the fine tuning "problem" arises.
My understanding of theos is that it meant anything which endured longer than humans, so the universe is automatically theos. It still feels like metaphysics. What drew me into the discussion is that both sides seemed to ignore the possibility of there being a problem with the theory.
It's good to talk to you again too.
So the "problem" might be with reality and not with our theories.
15 Dec 14
1 edit
Its unbelievable..................
25 pages of (academical show offing)
When all we need is too bring a child into the discussion / and they will tell you that design is everywhere.
The tongue that speaks against design (is designed)
The fingers that type the key-board to reject deign (is designed)
The brain that conjures up the idea that there is no design (is designed)
When all you egotistic academics get off your high horses (then you too shall see design)
"ITS EVERYWHERE"
15 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloPlease check the last 25 pages; I'm not going through the Lottery Fallacy Fallacy again.The argument is rather clear and you know what it is (see the title of the thread). Your claim that there isn't one is disingenuous.
No. Just like I said, there is no actual argument in the first post you made in this thread, just some various counterfactual claims. Since "fine tuning" arguments typically take as their premises probab ...[text shortened]... re is the same for the proponent of the fine tuning argument, the same goes for their inference.
EDIT: My first post on p. 5 was a sufficient response though the "debate" has droned on.
16 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNear as I can tell you're invoking a god, but you do not call it a god because you view a god as being "supernatural" whereas your designer of the universe you deem wholly natural -- for it is the universe itself that is the designer. Is that more or less it?
If there are only two possibilities and the probability of one is vanishingly small then the other must be extremely probable. I don't see any way of getting around that logically.
Traditionally a "God of the Gaps" argument only applies where there is a absence of some understanding of the natural world and a supernatural explantion is then inserted ...[text shortened]... ne tuning argument I have advanced requires neither a God nor any explanation outside of nature.
16 Dec 14
Originally posted by SoothfastI don't think it is a god nor do I think that is a mere semantic difference.
Near as I can tell you're invoking a god, but you do not call it a god because you view a god as being "supernatural" whereas your designer of the universe you deem wholly natural -- for it is the universe itself that is the designer. Is that more or less it?
With that (rather large) caveat, yes.
16 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderThat statement is fine for theories that have experimental justification. Theories beyond the standard model aren't verified experimentally yet. When they have been then you've got some justification for your claim, but until then the theory is too uncertain to extrapolate from. The entropic argument seems to be resolved by an appeal to cosmic inflation. As a piece of Metaphysics I don't have any particular objection to the idea of universe as theos I just think it's difficult to justify from within Physics.
However, the theories we are discussing like String theory or those relating to entropy or other physical aspects of the universe were and are attempts to describe physical reality. They really had nothing to do with the question of the random or non-random nature of physical forces i.e. inquiry into these areas was not meant to "prove" A or B. It is onl ...[text shortened]... e tuning "problem" arises.
So the "problem" might be with reality and not with our theories.
16 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdYes, I have noticed that you and (especially) No. 1 are careful to avoid the "g" word generally. I apply the word "god" to any (self-aware!) superbeing, consciousness, entity -- whatever you wish to call it -- that has or had some part in shaping the universe we observe today. The Big Bang could have happened by chance, whereupon an intelligent external agent stepped in and micromanaged it to obtain some desired outcome, or the external agent could have sparked the Big Bang as well, or the universe could have come into being with "consciousness" somehow preinstalled, and that consciousness was able to shape the destiny of the realm of space, time, matter and energy it found itself bound up in. I say all of these are examples of a god. You could say they're "natural" rather than "supernatural," but I take that to mean we're discussing gods with limitations, and who are subordinate to certain physical laws. They have the ability to "fine-tune" physical parameters, but not throw physics entirely out the window.
Understood, with the following caveats:
(1) What one understands by that word “god”. That is why I tried to be careful in saying that the Stoics thought that their understanding of the cosmos ”merited” being called theos—though it was a vastly different conception from the conventional polytheism of the day.
(2) I also was careful ...[text shortened]... ngs (again, how “strong” the posited version is can depend on the interpretation of such words).
16 Dec 14
Originally posted by Soothfastp. 13 first post:
Yes, I have noticed that you and (especially) No. 1 are careful to avoid the "g" word generally. I apply the word "god" to any (self-aware!) superbeing, consciousness, entity -- whatever you wish to call it -- that has or had some part in shaping the universe we observe today. The Big Bang could have happened by chance, whereupon an intelligent external ...[text shortened]... e the ability to "fine-tune" physical parameters, but not throw physics entirely out the window.
I'm imagining a universe that lacks omnipotence and omniscience. And perhaps even a central consciousness while the universe is in a non-singular state. It can set the value of gravity or the strong force, for example, but it can neither do without them entirely nor alter them while the "experiment" is running (the "experiment" being the period between the Big Bang and Big Crunch/Big Rip).
16 Dec 14
Originally posted by DasaWhen you see a cloud shaped like an elephant do you see design or do you see a random pattern which your brain has an evolved predisposition to see a designed pattern in?
Its unbelievable..................
25 pages of (academical show offing)
When all we need is too bring a child into the discussion / and they will tell you that design is everywhere.
The tongue that speaks against design (is designed)
The fingers that type the key-board to reject deign (is designed)
The brain that conjures up the idea that there ...[text shortened]... egotistic academics get off your high horses (then you too shall see design)
"ITS EVERYWHERE"