The design argument

Originally posted by vistesd
I think that can be said about any claim that would have the effect of precluding further (falsifiable) evidentiary inquiry. Or are you saying that that particular possibility is per se unfalsifiable? It seems to me that it is no more or less unfalsifiable than randomness or that we just have to accept that the universe is the way it is as a brute ...[text shortened]... sking (even in the sentences without the question mark)--I just might not understand your point.

I think you are right about the random forces approach being unfalsifiable, at least in the fuzzy way it has been described. Of course No1 seems to think that the probability argument falsifies randomness, but that tends to take us into a multiverse at least in theory, which is itself unfalsifiable. In any case, both take us out of the scope of science.

I don't understand how having to accept the brute fact of our existence is falsifiable or is not falsifiable, since"accept as brute fact" is a directive to stop theorizing, it is not a theory.

BTW I think No1 is wrong to juxtapose "designed" versus "random" but he keeps at it. It should be designed versus not designed. A basic step in scientific inquiry is to properly frame the null hypothesis so that the two options are exhaustive. Framing it the way he has done leaves out one option; that being that our physical parameters are the only possible ones. Of course, that too, is unfalsifiable. But now we have three options, each negating the other two.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The issue I have with ignoring the fine tune argument is that is just
assumed that a correct or proper means to have life would always appear!
I believe it was the Blind Watchmaker that said life was like a combination
lock, turn it enough times it would occur or open, and my stance on that is
why believe that?

Why must there be a correct combination ...[text shortened]... come about by happenstance is to already
have a view or opinion and that is a matter of faith.

The issue I have with ignoring the fine tune argument is that is just
assumed that a correct or proper means to have life would always appear!

Not sure what you mean. I am not ignoring the fine tuning argument. I just do not think it is a compelling argument, given that it is not clear what justifies the probability claims involved and given that it is not clear what would justify the subsequent inference to design, regardless. I do not understand what you are trying to argue with the combination lock reference.

If you cannot see design, what makes this discussion matter? To start with
the basic view that life could come about by happenstance is to already
have a view or opinion and that is a matter of faith.

I can see design just fine. There are plenty of instances where abductive inference to design is justified. I am just not very convinced that the fine tuning argument represents one of those.

And I thought even the proponent of the fine tuning argument is typically committed to "the basic view that life could come about by happenstance". After all, they typically seem to assign it some non-zero probability.

Originally posted by LemonJello

The issue I have with ignoring the fine tune argument is that is just
assumed that a correct or proper means to have life would always appear!

Not sure what you mean. I am not ignoring the fine tuning argument. I just do not think it is a compelling argument, given that it is not clear what justifies the probability claims involved an ...[text shortened]... about by happenstance". After all, they typically seem to assign it some non-zero probability.

One can understand abductive reasoning as "inference to the best explanation." (wikipedia)

An interesting angle on this discussion might be: What are the criteria for "best" in "best explanation."

Originally posted by JS357
I think you are right about the random forces approach being unfalsifiable, at least in the fuzzy way it has been described. Of course No1 seems to think that the probability argument falsifies randomness, but that tends to take us into a multiverse at least in theory, which is itself unfalsifiable. In any case, both take us out of the scope of science.

I ...[text shortened]... course, that too, is unfalsifiable. But now we have three options, each negating the other two.

Framing it the way he has done leaves out one option; that being that our physical parameters are the only possible ones. Of course, that too, is unfalsifiable.

If our physical parameters are the only possible ones, or at least not requiring ultra-fine tuning, then that should be expressible within a Theory of Everything which brings the possibility within testable science. So I think that that possibility is falsifiable.

Originally posted by LemonJello

The issue I have with ignoring the fine tune argument is that is just
assumed that a correct or proper means to have life would always appear!

Not sure what you mean. I am not ignoring the fine tuning argument. I just do not think it is a compelling argument, given that it is not clear what justifies the probability claims involved an ...[text shortened]... about by happenstance". After all, they typically seem to assign it some non-zero probability.

The discussion about the combination lock assumes there is a number by
which it will open, we only need to keep trying we will with enough time
and rolls will some day hit it. So if there isn't a number that would open the
lock, than all discussion about over coming odds are moot.

The multi universe, the steady state, the this or that all fly out the window
if that is true. So how would you know, by what test can we come up with?

I asked earlier, what does a designed universe look like? Do all the pieces
do something that randomness would not do? Are we looking at a watch
with all the gears making something happen, or a land slide where the dirt
and rocks just fall where gravity and the elements take them?

If life really is a non-zero probability, do you think those that believe in it
are doing so in error and could you ever show them that? Personally, I think
they believe it so they will always come up with some excuse to continue
in that belief.

Originally posted by DeepThought

Framing it the way he has done leaves out one option; that being that our physical parameters are the only possible ones. Of course, that too, is unfalsifiable.

If our physical parameters are the only possible ones, or at least not requiring ultra-fine tuning, then that should be expressible within a Theory of Everything which brings the possibility within testable science. So I think that that possibility is falsifiable.

I suppose it would falsify the "only possible universe" hypothesis if the values of the physical constants in the TOE were alterable without predicting nonexistence of the universe so defined. Is that it?

Or perhaps equivalently if it were found that there was more than one location in parameter-space that predicted a BB and subsequent non-zero lifetime of the universe.

I'm not sure if my terminology makes sense but I hope you get the idea.

Originally posted by JS357
I suppose it would falsify the "only possible universe" hypothesis if the values of the physical constants in the TOE were alterable without predicting nonexistence of the universe so defined. Is that it?

Or perhaps equivalently if it were found that there was more than one location in parameter-space that predicted a BB and subsequent non-zero lifetime of the universe.

I'm not sure if my terminology makes sense but I hope you get the idea.

As an example cosmic inflation predicts a more or less flat universe, which is needed for life, or at least life as we know it. So that's an example of a theory which is completely insensitive to its initial conditions - whatever the progenitor universe is like, after inflation it's flat. Inflation is testable in the sense that we can look at the Cosmic Microwave Background and test that the CMB has the properties we'd expect if inflation occurred in the early universe.

With the parameter space of a Theory of Everything, if the parameters can be moved a little without producing large changes in the predicted universe then the theory is not hypersensitive to parameter choice and the fine-tuning argument loses its force. This is testable in the sense that once we have a candidate TOE we can look and see if its predictions are realized in nature.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The discussion about the combination lock assumes there is a number by
which it will open, we only need to keep trying we will with enough time
and rolls will some day hit it. So if there isn't a number that would open the
lock, than all discussion about over coming odds are moot.

The multi universe, the steady state, the this or that all fly out the ...[text shortened]... think
they believe it so they will always come up with some excuse to continue
in that belief.

Bear in mind that the probability we are looking at is not the probability of life actually coming about in a given universe, but the probability of a universe in which life is remotely possible. If a range of the parameter space predicts a universe where stars can't burn hydrogen then planetary systems aren't possible and life can't exist at all. So it's not life, but the necessary conditions for life which are at issue. In universes where hydrogen won't fuse there isn't any iron to build the combination lock from.

Originally posted by DeepThought
If a range of the parameter space predicts a universe where stars can't burn hydrogen then planetary systems aren't possible and life can't exist at all….

You've said it before but I'll say it again: "Life as we know it."

Originally posted by DeepThought
As an example cosmic inflation predicts a more or less flat universe, which is needed for life, or at least life as we know it. So that's an example of a theory which is completely insensitive to its initial conditions - whatever the progenitor universe is like, after inflation it's flat. Inflation is testable in the sense that we can look at the Cosmi ...[text shortened]... that once we have a candidate TOE we can look and see if its predictions are realized in nature.

I have a feeling that the fine-tuning => design folks are in general thinking of a lot more humanoid life form (actually they are thinking of homo sapiens) as the beneficiary of fine tuning, than are those who acknowledge that life forms that we don't recognize as such may develop.

If so, this means the life-friendly parameter space that the design folks envision might be tighter (and more awesome) in their minds than it is in the minds of these life-as-we-know-it folks.

But should it be? Once something like blue-green algae has developed, then barring asteroid strikes, isn't Albert Einstein inevitable? Hasn't proof of concept been achieved?

Originally posted by JS357
I have a feeling that the fine-tuning => design folks are in general thinking of a lot more humanoid life form (actually they are thinking of homo sapiens) as the beneficiary of fine tuning, than are those who acknowledge that life forms that we don't recognize as such may develop.

If so, this means the life-friendly parameter space that the design folks en ...[text shortened]... rring asteroid strikes, isn't Albert Einstein inevitable? Hasn't proof of concept been achieved?

Well let's see, according to No1 you can have "life" right at the beginning of the universe, for he conceives of the universe as being in some sense self-aware and self-designing. This is a tacit acceptance of the idea of non-corporeal life, I think. To think that such life is possible at the moment of the Big Bang or soon after it undermines to a vast extent the very fine-tuning argument being advanced. To wit: the admission of non-corporeal life should allow for a tremendous expansion of the space of physical parameters a universe may possess in order to have some chance of giving rise to beings who will someday come to ask: "Hey, why is this universe so wonderfully tuned?"

Originally posted by Soothfast
Well let's see, according to No1 you can have "life" right at the beginning of the universe, for he conceives of the universe as being in some sense self-aware and self-designing. This is a tacit acceptance of the idea of non-corporeal life, I think. To think that such life is possible at the moment of the Big Bang or soon after it undermines to a vast e ...[text shortened]... g rise to beings who will someday come to ask: "Hey, why is this universe so wonderfully tuned?"

A conscious universe isn't non-corporeal.

Do you suppose that a conscious universe would say to itself "Hey, why is this universe so wonderfully tuned?""

Originally posted by JS357
I think you are right about the random forces approach being unfalsifiable, at least in the fuzzy way it has been described. Of course No1 seems to think that the probability argument falsifies randomness, but that tends to take us into a multiverse at least in theory, which is itself unfalsifiable. In any case, both take us out of the scope of science.

I ...[text shortened]... course, that too, is unfalsifiable. But now we have three options, each negating the other two.

I never left out that option and explicitly mentioned it. It seems posters here cannot resist the temptation to consistently misstate what I have written in this thread.

I guess you ignored my post where i postulated that the type of pantheistic, conscious universe I am discussing might be provable and suggested a process for falsifying it. This is all too typical in this thread.

EDIT: To be fair perhaps you missed it as it was the last post on p. 23 (sometimes I miss a page's last post when the discussion is going quickly. To repeat the salient part:

I'm not sure a self-designed universe lacking omnipotence is non-falsifiable. You'd have to come to some ideas about what attributes it would possess and then use experiments and observations to see whether the universe we have has such characteristics. And then plug in Bayes Theorem or something to that effect.

All of that is certainly difficult but I don't think it is theoretically impossible (which it would have to be to be technically non-falsifiable).

Originally posted by no1marauder
A conscious universe isn't non-corporeal.

Do you suppose that a conscious universe would say to itself "Hey, why is this universe so wonderfully tuned?""

Oh good you said what I needed to justify citing the Aunt Hillary passage in Godel, Escher and Bach by Douglas R. Hofstadter.

http://themindi.blogspot.com/2007/02/chapter-11-prelude-ant-fugue.html

Partial:


ANTEATER: You could put it that way if you want to insist on seeing the trees but missing the forest, Achilles. In fact, ant colonies, seen as wholes, are quite well-defined units, with their own qualities, at times including the mastery of language.

ACHILLES: I find it hard to imagine myself shouting something out loud in the middle of the forest, and hearing an ant colony answer back.

ANTEATER: Silly fellow! That's not the way it happens. Ant colonies don't converse out loud, but in writing. You know how ants form trails leading them hither and thither?

ACHILLES: Oh, yes-usually straight through the kitchen sink and into my peach jam.

ANTEATER: Actually, some trails contain information in coded form. If you know the system, you can read what they're saying just like a book.

ACHILLES: Remarkable. And can you communicate back to them?

ANTEATER: Without any trouble at all. That's how Aunt Hillary and I have conversations for hours. I take a stick and draw trails in the moist ground, and watch the ants follow my trails. Presently, a new trail starts getting formed somewhere. I greatly enjoy watching trails develop. As they are, forming, I anticipate how they will continue (and more often I am wrong than right). When the trail is -completed, I know what Aunt Hillary is thinking, and I in turn make my reply.

ACHILLES: There must be some amazingly smart ants in that colony, I'll say that.

ANTEATER: I think you are still having some difficulty realizing the difference in levels here. Just as you would never confuse an individual tree with a forest, so here you must not take an ant for the colony. You see, all the ants in Aunt Hillary are as dumb as can be. They couldn't converse to save their little thoraxes!

ACHILLES: Well then, where does the ability to converse come from? It must reside somewhere inside the colony! I don't understand how the ants can all be unintelligent, if Aunt Hillary can entertain you for hours with witty banter.

TORTOISE: It seems to me that the situation is not unlike the composition of a human brain out of neurons. Certainly no one would insist that individual brain cells have to be intelligent beings on their own, in order to explain the fact that a person can have an intelligent conversation.

ACHILLES: Oh, no, clearly not. With brain cells, I see your point completely. Only ... ants are a horse of another color. I mean, ants just roam about at will, completely randomly, chancing now and then upon a morsel of food.... They are free to do what they want to do, and with that freedom, I don't see at all how their behavior, seen as a whole, can amount to anything coherent-especially something so coherent as the brain behavior necessary for conversing.

CRAB: It seems to me that the ants are free only within certain constraints. For example, they are free to wander, to brush against each other, to pick up small items, to work on trails, and so on. But they never step out of that small world, that ant-system, which they are in. It would never occur to them, for they don't have the mentality to imagine anything of the kind. Thus the ants are very reliable components, in the sense that you can depend on them to perform certain kinds of tasks in certain ways.

ACHILLES: But even so, within those limits they are still free, and they just act at random, running about incoherently without any regard for the thought mechanisms of a higher-level being which Dr. Anteater asserts they are merely components of.

ANTEATER: Ah, but you fail to recognize one thing, Achilles-the regularity of statistics.

ACHILLES: How is that?

ANTEATER: For example, even though ants as individuals wander about in what seems a random way, there are nevertheless overall trends, involving large numbers of ants, which can emerge from that chaos.

ACHILLES: Oh, I know what you mean. In fact, ant trails are a perfect example of such a phenomenon. There, you have really quite unpredictable motion on the part of any single ant-and yet, the trail itself seems to remain well defined and stable. Certainly that must mean that the individual ants are not just running about totally at random.

ANTEATER: Exactly, Achilles. There is some degree of communication among the ants, just enough to keep them from wandering off completely at random. By this minimal communication they can remind each other that they are not alone but are cooperating with teammates. It takes a large number of ants, all reinforcing each other this way, to sustain any activity-such as trail building-for any length of time. Now my very hazy understanding of the operation of brains leads me to believe that something similar pertains to the firing of neurons. Isn't it true, Mr. Crab, that it takes a group of neurons firing in order to make another neuron fire?