The design argument

Originally posted by JS357

And I didn't say unfalsifiable ideas can't be true. I said they aren't scientific. That is neither a claim that the idea is untrue, nor is it a value judgement on the quality of the idea. It just means we shouldn't expect to determine the truth of the idea using scientific evidence.

Do you think SETI should be ruled out if any scientist doing that work pre- assumes that intelligent civilizations must be out there in outer space ?

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, your analogy doesn't say that at all. The odds that sperm A will lead to my existence is small, but that is irrelevant as the same result comes about if sperm B or C or -------------------------- to sperm AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA does.

Since we know the mechanism of human conception, we have no need to go to more esoteric ...[text shortened]... he universe's physical constants leading to a life compatible one are not the same as you state.

"We have two possible explanations and evidence that supports one over the other."

Which is favored? No matter what the outcome, no matter how implausible it seems, the ID adherent can say it was the design. Even a hypothetical universe that immediately collapses could get this judgement. So could a universe that is full of happiness forever. ID absorbs all, resistance is futile.

Originally posted by sonship

And I didn't say unfalsifiable ideas can't be true. I said they aren't scientific. That is neither a claim that the idea is untrue, nor is it a value judgement on the quality of the idea. It just means we shouldn't expect to determine the truth of the idea using scientific evidence.

Do you think SETI should be ruled out if any scientist doing that work pre- assumes that intelligent civilizations must be out there in outer space ?

I would say that scientist is not doing science at that moment. He may be wishfully thinking. Someone may even say it's in the Bible. But it's true, conviction or desire that one's hopes will be borne out can be a driver of scientific progress. We can't separate that out.

Originally posted by JS357
"We have two possible explanations and evidence that supports one over the other."

Which is favored? No matter what the outcome, no matter how implausible it seems, the ID adherent can say it was the design. Even a hypothetical universe that immediately collapses could get this judgement. So could a universe that is full of happiness forever. ID absorbs all, resistance is futile.

People can and do say almost anything.

I'm not emotionally wedded to an ID emanating from an anthropomorphic God, however. I'm willing to critically examine the evidence and take it where it leads. Of course, one can always say in the end that "Goddunnit" whether one accepts the Multiverse or MetaRules or whatever. But that's not where I'm coming from.

Originally posted by no1marauder
As I understand it, Hawking gets around the problem by asserting that present theory leads to the Multiverse and many different universes.

Is that your position?

Something like. There's a lot of uncertainty about what "the correct theory" is - String Theory or M-theory as it's evolved into is promising, but there are to all intents and purposes an infinite number of string vacua (my knowledge about string theory is pretty flaky though and I could easily be out of date with that statement). If there is a fine tuning problem with physics then it's resolution would be of that nature. But until our theories are closer to the truth then I think it's difficult to make any kind of call. My feeling is there should be a nice neat solution only requiring one universe, but the real world(s) is not necessarily like that.

Originally posted by JS357
I would say that scientist is not doing science at that moment. He may be wishfully thinking. Someone may even say it's in the Bible. But it's true, conviction or desire that one's hopes will be borne out can be a driver of scientific progress. We can't separate that out.

There is something called the Drake equation which attempts to estimate the number of technological civilizations that could be sending radio transmissions that humans on Earth could detect.http://www.seti.org/drakeequation

Of course, such estimates cannot possibly be precise based on the information we have but it isn't "unscientific" to plug in values based on extrapolating from the knowledge we do have. I would say that is also an answer to LemonJello's objection; we don't have perfect knowledge but in science we rarely do.

Originally posted by sonship

And I didn't say unfalsifiable ideas can't be true. I said they aren't scientific. That is neither a claim that the idea is untrue, nor is it a value judgement on the quality of the idea. It just means we shouldn't expect to determine the truth of the idea using scientific evidence.

Do you think SETI should be ruled out if any scientist doing that work pre- assumes that intelligent civilizations must be out there in outer space ?

There's the Wow! signal. No one can think of any natural phenomenon that would produce that signal. Sadly it's never been repeated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal

Originally posted by JS357

I would say that scientist is not doing science at that moment. He may be wishfully thinking. Someone may even say it's in the Bible. But it's true, conviction or desire that one's hopes will be borne out can be a driver of scientific progress. We can't separate that out.

I'm not sure if you're are following or rejecting a myth of the completely objective scientist. She has a hypothosis. "Wishful thinking?" Could be.

I think some "wishful thinking" accompanies a lot of science research for cures of diseases, searching for earth like habital planets, tracking stray asteroids, looking for oil, seeking to predict tornadoes or earthquakes, exploring faster rocket travel, getting clearer telescope capability.

A lot of "wishful thinking" goes into the doing of science.

The desire to know the truth about things also may drive the Christian's adopting a finding OF science even in contradiction to what was faith based assumption previous.

If Copernicus and Galileo prove that the earth is not the center of the solar system, that's too bad for some theists. They just should change their view about Ptolemy's geocentric solar system.

Churching people changed their view about the solar system as well as non-churching people. I would not assume people of faith cannot be flexible in this regard.

Atheists don't have "wishful thinking" ? Give me a break.
Scientists do not have pet personal philosophies and worldviews that they prefer to believe too? Give me a break.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Something like. There's a lot of uncertainty about what "the correct theory" is - String Theory or M-theory as it's evolved into is promising, but there are to all intents and purposes an infinite number of string vacua (my knowledge about string theory is pretty flaky though and I could easily be out of date with that statement). If there is a fine tu ...[text shortened]... e neat solution only requiring one universe, but the real world(s) is not necessarily like that.

How's the Copenhagen interpretation doing these days? Or do most physicists still subscribe to the view that there is no way to describe an objective reality (maybe I'm butchering CI; please correct me if I am)?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You obviously haven't read my posts anyway, so you are welcome to continue not reading them.

You obviously don't want to answer any of my questions. This suggests you don't believe your own arguments.

Have you considered the possibility that:
- I did read your posts, but didn't agree with them.
- I did read your posts, but didn't understand them so asked for clarifications (which you refused to answer).

Originally posted by twhitehead
You obviously don't want to answer any of my questions. This suggests you don't believe your own arguments.

I've answered all your questions actually. You've just ignored all the answers.

I'm fine with my arguments and willing to engage with those who meaningfully respond. You seem intent on not doing so.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I don't think that counter entirely works. Even if the chances of me existing are unbelievably remote, the chances of someone like me existing given a starting point around 1,700 A.D. or so are pretty high. These cosmological arguments aren't about how unlikely humans as a species are to exist, but how unlikely it is for a species capable of building r ...[text shortened]... laim is that the problem is with our current understanding of physics and not with the universe.

I don't think that counter entirely works. Even if the chances of me existing are unbelievably remote, the chances of someone like me existing given a starting point around 1,700 A.D. or so are pretty high.

Yes, the chances of HIS existence IS unbelievably remote. This is my talking point - not the existence of someone "like" him. No idea why you brought that up.

These cosmological arguments aren't about how unlikely humans as a species are to exist, but how unlikely it is for a species capable of building radio telescopes anywhere in the universe at any point in it's history is.

I'm not having a "cosmological argument" with no1 as you are.

Physics as we know it gives these odds at astronomically unlikely so there is a problem - my claim is that the problem is with our current understanding of physics and not with the universe.

I gathered that. My argument is up a level of abstraction with your "claim" moot. Let me explain.

Following is the beginning of my discussion with no1:

no1: The "lottery argument" really doesn't say anything but that IF the universe we have was a result of random forces it would appear on first view to be the result of "fine tuning" because we exist. But a universe that was fine tuned in reality would appear the same. So the argument itself isn't persuasive either way and external evidence must be consulted.

ToO: Herein lies the crux of the fallacy of the Fine Tuned Universe argument. As you've pointed out: " a universe that was fine tuned in reality would appear the same" as a universe that "was a result of random forces". And vice versa. As such, the Fine Tuned Universe argument "itself isn't persuasive either way and external evidence must be consulted". The bottom line is the Fine Tuned Universe argument carries no weight in and of itself.

no1: The argument itself doesn't; the evidence for and against the argument needs to be evaluated

ToO:As it stands right now, you seem to be agreeing that "...the Fine Tuned Universe argument carries no weight in and of itself" and that "...the Fine Tuned Universe argument itself isn't persuasive either way..." since "' a universe that was fine tuned in reality would appear the same' as a universe that 'was a result of random forces'."

If a universe created by "random forces" would appear the same as a universe that was "fine tuned", then the constants you cited in your OP would also appear the same. How then can you possibly find the "line of argument" you cited in your OP "quite persuasive"?

With the above in mind, reread my previous post to no1.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, your analogy doesn't say that at all. The odds that sperm A will lead to my existence is small, but that is irrelevant as the same result comes about if sperm B or C or -------------------------- to sperm AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA does.

Since we know the mechanism of human conception, we have no need to go to more esoteric ...[text shortened]... he universe's physical constants leading to a life compatible one are not the same as you state.

Please read my response to DT.

The bottom line is that the universe either came about by random chance or it came about by divine intervention. It is what it is.

Either way, the "evidence" would be the same. As I said:

Similarly, since the evidence would be the same regardless of whether the universe exists as the result of divine intervention or of random chance, there is no persuasive evidence that it is the result of divine intervention rather than that of random chance.

The odds that sperm A will lead to my existence is small, but that is irrelevant as the same result comes about if sperm B or C or -------------------------- to sperm AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA does.

You believe that the same YOU would have been produced regardless of which sperm fertilized the egg?

Since we know the mechanism of human conception, we have no need to go to more esoteric explanations.

The situation is really the same in the Rick's analogy. We have two possible explanations and evidence that supports one over the other. The fact that the less plausible explanation would result in the same observable condition after the event does not mean it is as realistic an explanation as the more plausible one. Thus, far from invalidating the Rick's analogy your analogy is complementary to it.

So thanks.

I'm using the term "evidence" in its broad sense i.e. as anything relevant presented in support of an assertion including direct and circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the evidence supporting random chance and non-randomness as the cause of the universe's physical constants leading to a life compatible one are not the same as you state.

Can you elaborate? There seems to be an implication that somehow how well humans understand the mechanism of how a given thing was created has a bearing on whether it was in fact created by divine intervention or by random chance. Even with an understanding of the mechanism of human conception, the existence of a given human being still could have come about by either divine intervention or random chance.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Please read my response to DT.

The bottom line is that the universe either came about by random chance or it came about by divine intervention. It is what it is.

Either way, the "evidence" would be the same. As I said:
[quote]Similarly, since the evidence would be the same regardless of whether the universe exists as the result of divine interven ...[text shortened]... was created has a bearing on whether it was created by divine intervention or by random chance.

I read it. You merely repeat over and over and over again the same thing.

There is no such implication. You are making a fallacious interpretation akin to this one:

A selection bias alone cannot explain anything. Consider the case of quasars. When first discovered, quasars were thought to be a strange new kind of star in our galaxy. Schmidt (1963) measured their redshift, showing that they were more than a million times further away than previously thought. It follows that they must be incredibly bright. The question that naturally arises is: how are quasars so luminous? The (best) answer is: because quasars are powered by gravitational energy released by matter falling into a super-massive black hole (Zel'dovich, 1964; Lynden-Bell, 1969). The answer is not: because otherwise we wouldn't see them. Noting that if we observe any object in the very distant universe then it must be
very bright does not explain why we observe any distant objects at all. Similarly, AP [anthropic principle] cannot explain why life and its necessary conditions exist at all.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647v1.pdf p. 4

In the Rick's analogy, we know that the possibility of a roulette wheel resting on "22" in consecutive spins is quite low (we also have other evidence but let's disregard that for a moment). It's possible that random chance could deliver such a result but not very likely. In the case of the universe, we can reason that the possibility of the universe having a whole set of physical properties within narrow ranges that create the possibility of life is even lower in fact far lower IF we rely on random chance. DT has already admitted as much. Thus, this evidence leads logically to the conclusion that such a result is not random. Our ability to understand that might make it easier to come to such a reasoned conclusion, but it does not change the probability that it is correct and I don't understand how you could possibly "imply" that from my posts.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Since my background is in physics I don't see how my comments can constitute "intellectual snobbery". There's a straightforward reason that physics departments don't regularly discuss these things and that is because they don't form part of researchers' work. Seminars are based around actual research, so theoretical physicists discuss what they've done ...[text shortened]... - which is not unlikely enough to be regarded as unnatural or any kind of fine tuning disaster.

One qualm I have with the whole "fine-tuning" debate is that there seems to be an assumption, accepted by both the "goddunnit" side and the "no-he-didn't" side, that there is only one fixed set of physical constants that are possible. I'm not talking about the adjustment of the dials, I'm talking about the assumption that there is only one possible set of dials that can be adjusted. How many fundamental constants are we talking about here? Aside from the notion that the fundamental constants we know of could have taken on different values at the universe's inception, what of the notion that wholly different fundamental constants might exist?

If we allow for the possibility that a given set of knobs can be twiddled to result in different universes, we should allow for the possibility that there can be different sets of knobs. That may open up the possibility for many more kinds of habitable universes than the standard "fine-tuning" arguments seem to allow.