Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Science → The Fine Tuning Argument

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

German nationalist party ...
Yesterday at 10:31 AM
New Britain
February 17, 2025, 11:51 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 15, 2025, 04:00 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
February 14, 2025, 08:00 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 13, 2025, 10:07 PM
Muslim grooming gangs sti...
February 13, 2025, 08:20 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
February 13, 2025, 01:08 PM
Russia invades Ukraine
February 13, 2025, 11:01 AM
Islam and Science Fiction
February 11, 2025, 11:57 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
February 06, 2025, 03:13 PM
Gaza assault
February 05, 2025, 10:04 AM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
February 03, 2025, 09:25 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: The Fine Tuning Argument

 (Read 13329 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #30 - April 17, 2011, 12:00 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on April 17, 2011, 05:30 AM
    Zeb, I've thought of another analogy that may help clarify this for you. Let's say you decide that you want to know how many people like coffee. Now a basic survey form might look like this:
    Question: do you like coffee?

    Possible answers (select one only):

    1/ Yes.
    2/ No.
    3/ Indifferent.
    4/ Don't know as I have never tried it.

    So this is ok, but you decide you want more information. You add more options to the possible answers. You are really fussy and want to get the most accurate results, so you add a hell of a lot of options. Let's say, just for the sake of conceptual argument, that you end up with a survey form that provides respondents with 5.763x10fucking lots options, of which they may select only one as their actual response.

    You are now ready to find out once and for all how what proportion of people like coffee and exactly how they like it. The great day is at hand! Afro

    So, you go out and pick one person at random. Just one person. You give them your survey form and ask them to pick their response. Naturally, this takes them a few days due to the size of the form, but somehow (don't get into this bit) they manage to get it done and then return the form to you.

    Awesome! Your survey is complete! You are now in the position to discern the answer to your conundrum and, holy motherfucking wombats, you find that 100% of people like their coffee hot, sweet, rich, grown by fair trade plantations, and served by dark-eyed tanned earth goddesses of the scrumptious variety whilst the recipient of said coffee reclines in a Jacuzzi full of mango juice!

    Fuck me dead! The chances of that happening are only one in 5.763x10fucking lots! This is a miracle! How can this be?

    Is it evidence of design? Huh?




    Basically that, and if you don't understand that, then step away from the internet!
    Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #31 - April 17, 2011, 12:11 PM
    Improbable things happen all the time: if you hit a golf ball, the odds it will land on a given blade of grass are millions to one, yet (unless it ends up in the lake or a sand trap) it is certain to land on some blades of grass.
    Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #32 - April 17, 2011, 12:39 PM
    The other funny thing about this, which just occured to me while I was watching tv, is that our universe is geting more and more improbable all the time. If people think it was bad enough in terms of probability just getting the thing into existence, it's far worse now and it's going to keep getting worse. Funnily enough this doesn't seem to be a problem.

    Of course this would also apply to any other universe, regardless of whether it could support life of not.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #33 - April 17, 2011, 12:41 PM
    Quote
    is that our universe is geting more and more improbable all the time


    explain?
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #34 - April 17, 2011, 12:47 PM
    Simple. Since it began, various events have constantly been happening in our universe. The probability of most of these events occurring exactly when and where they did is less than one. As a result of this, every time one occurs the resulting universe becomes more improbable.  Afro

    And on that note I'm off to bed. Laterz.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #35 - April 17, 2011, 02:30 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on April 17, 2011, 12:39 PM
    The other funny thing about this, which just occured to me while I was watching tv, is that our universe is geting more and more improbable all the time. If people think it was bad enough in terms of probability just getting the thing into existence, it's far worse now and it's going to keep getting worse. Funnily enough this doesn't seem to be a problem.

    Of course this would also apply to any other universe, regardless of whether it could support life of not.


    The other side to this is that the universe is becoming more and more predictable every day because entropy is always increasing.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #36 - April 17, 2011, 02:38 PM
    Quote from: Tlaloc on April 17, 2011, 09:03 AM
    Every version of the whole "fine tuning" thing can usually be summarized with this analogy:

    Let's assume that randomness exists.
    Let's throw a coin one gazillion times.
    What was the probability of that particular sequence of heads and tails happening exactly with that configuration i witnessed?
    It's 1/(2^(1 gazillion)).
    Which is basically zero.
    Therefore randomness does not exist.
    Therefore everything happens according to a plan.


    I could be wrong, but you really make it seem as though you're arguing: so what if event A is infinitely improbable? Given that it happened, then there's nothing special about it.

    EDIT: Also, I'm not sure your analogy is relevant. In your example, the *sample space* is finite. I'm not sure that's the case for the sample space of all universal events (is it finite, countable or uncountable?).

    In other words, in your example, one of these configurations must happen. I'm not sure that's the case for all universal events. What do you think?
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #37 - April 17, 2011, 02:54 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on April 17, 2011, 07:23 AM
    Do you realise that you began your post by saying you weren't sure if the fine tuning argument was evidence for design, and then finished your post by saying that effectively the fine tuning argument is evidence for design? Can you see a problem here?


    no, because I already said, if we are to look at it as a design, then it's an extremely bad one (being very sensitive to certain parameters). Saying that the universe was meant to be is referring to *intent*, and intent doesn't necessarily imply design. (a divine being, e.g., can will things into existence, without design).


    Quote
    It's not a good question though. A universe is not an apple tree. A universe does not require water and several other things to exist. You need to think of a much better analogy before you can hope to gain any traction. You have dumbed this one down to the point of uselessness.

    The apple tree is an analogy for planet earth, not the universe (it was based on the Ishina's video). Strictly speaking, a lush apple tree can exist in an arid desert. For example, and although it's infinitely improbable, the weather system can cause a little cloud to pass daily over the tree to give just enough rain. If this scenario, for example, is one reason why the tree is there, then one must admit intent.

    Anyway, you can ignore the analogy, it won't subtract anything from the discussion.
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #38 - April 17, 2011, 03:09 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on April 17, 2011, 12:47 PM
    Simple. Since it began, various events have constantly been happening in our universe. The probability of most of these events occurring exactly when and where they did is less than one. As a result of this, every time one occurs the resulting universe becomes more improbable.  Afro

    And on that note I'm off to bed. Laterz.

    I'm not sure i understand your argument, but you seem to assume all events are independent. If they are not, though (most/many events are interdependent), then your argument is invalid.

    EDIT: wait, I guess you're right, but let's just say that the rate at which the universe is becoming more improbable is slowing down since it began (and that's because of (positive) interdependence between events).
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #39 - April 17, 2011, 04:44 PM
    Quote from: debunker on April 17, 2011, 02:38 PM
    I could be wrong, but you really make it seem as though you're arguing: so what if event A is infinitely improbable? Given that it happened, then there's nothing special about it.

    EDIT: Also, I'm not sure your analogy is relevant. In your example, the *sample space* is finite. I'm not sure that's the case for the sample space of all universal events (is it finite, countable or uncountable?).

    In other words, in your example, one of these configurations must happen. I'm not sure that's the case for all universal events. What do you think?

    I posted it to illustrate why the fine tuning argument is flawed.

    The gist of the fine tuning argument is that "the universe must have been designed since true randomness cannot exist because if true randomness existed then something highly improbable must have happened".
    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #40 - April 17, 2011, 05:17 PM
    Ok, but do you agree that without being given the posterior knowledge that certain universal events happened, one cannot claim a priori that such events are possible to happen? (unlike the case in your example, where we can claim a priori that each one of these configurations (events) can indeed happen).
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #41 - April 17, 2011, 05:19 PM
    Quote from: Zebedee on April 16, 2011, 12:37 AM
    No. You're talking about just the existence of other universes, that's not the issue. The issue is the existence of life-permitting universes, and their extreme improbability compared to life-prohibiting universes. The probabilities are not equal.

    What is the probability of picking the Ace of Spades out of a deck of cards?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #42 - April 17, 2011, 05:42 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on April 17, 2011, 12:39 PM
    The other funny thing about this, which just occured to me while I was watching tv, is that our universe is geting more and more improbable all the time. If people think it was bad enough in terms of probability just getting the thing into existence, it's far worse now and it's going to keep getting worse. Funnily enough this doesn't seem to be a problem.

    Of course this would also apply to any other universe, regardless of whether it could support life of not.


    Yeah that is the basis of entropy, entropy of the universe is increasing. Eventually there will be a heat death of the universe.
    Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #43 - April 17, 2011, 05:46 PM
    Quote from: z10 on April 17, 2011, 02:30 PM
    The other side to this is that the universe is becoming more and more predictable every day because entropy is always increasing.


    Well, that is just basics, anything with low entropy, due to decay will increase in entropy and we can predict what will happen if the entropy increase. I can say with one 100 % confidence that you will die, does that make me God now? It's a basic observable phenomenon, there is nothing supernatural about it.
    Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #44 - April 17, 2011, 05:51 PM
    Anyway this is stupid, lets just say that due to the universe being so finally tuned and complex then something created it - if something created it then that something would have to be at least if not more complex then the universe itself making it less probable then the universe itself.
    Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #45 - April 17, 2011, 06:00 PM
    Quote
    Anyway this is stupid, lets just say that due to the universe being so finally tuned and complex then something created it - if something created it then that something would have to be at least if not more complex then the universe itself making it less probable then the universe itself.


    True, but the argument, as I understand it, is whether certain events are even probable at all (a priori).
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #46 - April 17, 2011, 06:06 PM
    Well, we exist don't we the universe exists, so it is academic really to say well is it possible at all? I think it would be safe to say "yes" rather then say "no" and then come up with a magic explanation. Occam's razor states: the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.
    Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #47 - April 17, 2011, 06:11 PM
    Quote
    Well, we exist don't we the universe exists, so it is academic really to say well is it possible at all? I think it would be safe to say "yes" rather then say "no" and then come up with a magic explanation. Occam's razor states: the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.


    it's a total cop out to rely on posterior knowledge to make your point when this knowledge is the center of the argument itself.

    And while parsimony is useful, thinking outside the box is not necessarily bad.
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #48 - April 17, 2011, 06:15 PM
    Quote from: debunker on April 17, 2011, 05:17 PM
    Ok, but do you agree that without being given the posterior knowledge that certain universal events happened, one cannot claim a priori that such events are possible to happen? (unlike the case in your example, where we can claim a priori that each one of these configurations (events) can indeed happen).

    No, I do not agree with that.

    Maybe given complete knowledge of how the universe works (if such knowledge is something definite and knowable) and given enough "computing power/space/time" (which would require a computing machine external from the universe itself, i suppose, or you would stumble upon a version of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem) it could be possible to determine whether any given configuration of the universe is possible or impossible.

    Also, I do not get how this would be relevant.
    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #49 - April 17, 2011, 06:18 PM
    The total energy of the universe is exactly zero.
    Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #50 - April 17, 2011, 06:23 PM
    Quote
    No, I do not agree with that.

    Maybe given complete knowledge of how the universe works (if such knowledge is something definite and knowable) and given enough "computing power/space/time" (which would require a computing machine external from the universe itself, i suppose, or you would stumble upon a version of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem) it could be possible to determine whether any given configuration of the universe is possible or impossible.


    I would have answered "I don't know". I personally know next to nothing about the universe as to be able to say whether the sample space of universal events is finite or not.

    Quote
    Also, I do not get how this would be relevant.

    It's not relevant to the fine-tuning argument as you understand it:

    Quote
    The gist of the fine tuning argument is that "the universe must have been designed since true randomness cannot exist because if true randomness existed then something highly improbable must have happened".

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #51 - April 17, 2011, 06:25 PM
    Quote from: King Tut on April 17, 2011, 06:18 PM
    The total energy of the universe is exactly zero.

    this is the answer to which comment?
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #52 - April 17, 2011, 06:29 PM
    Quote from: debunker on April 17, 2011, 06:25 PM
    this is the answer to which comment?


    Well I was pointing out we can measure the universe, but this magical entity you guys want to throw into the picture we can't even measure it. Would it not be reasonable first to show, that such an entity exists?
    Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #53 - April 17, 2011, 06:30 PM
    You asked if I agreed with some positive claim, so since I am a skeptic the answer is "no", not "I don't know".
    I know that I do not agree with that.

    It does not mean that I agree with the opposite either, though.
    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #54 - April 17, 2011, 06:34 PM
    ^ valid point.
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #55 - April 17, 2011, 06:36 PM
    Chatting with Debunker is always interesting, but I gotta leave for tonight.... will be back tomorrow <3
    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #56 - April 17, 2011, 06:40 PM
    Quote from: King Tut on April 17, 2011, 06:29 PM
    Well I was pointing out we can measure the universe, but this magical entity you guys want to throw into the picture we can't even measure it. Would it not be reasonable first to show, that such an entity exists?


    Well, in probability theory, the probability function is defined only on the sigma-alegbra of the sample space. This happens to be the entire power set of the sample space IF the sample space is finite. This means that when the sample space is infinite, then there ARE events which cannot be assigned any probability.

    Therefore, if the sample space of the universal events is not finite (and I don't know whether it isn't), then there could be events which cannot be assigned any probability.

    EDIT: completely irreleavnt info.
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #57 - April 17, 2011, 06:45 PM
    The universe is not infinite.
    Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #58 - April 17, 2011, 06:50 PM
    Quote
    The universe is not infinite.

     
    but the sample space of universal events could be (or could be not) infinite.
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: The Fine Tuning Argument
     Reply #59 - April 17, 2011, 07:39 PM
    The fine tuning argument is totally invalid. You want to know why.?
    - We, we our limited understanding of the Existence, have no idea whether there are other universa being part of Existence. Perhaps there are gazillions of other universa,- each totally uncoupled and independant of the other.
    - A great part(spatial AND temporal) of the universe is totally unsuitable for life.
    - Emergence of intelligent life in 14billion years in just one planet* isn't exactly what I would define as "universe created for us".

    *=Ofcourse, life on other planets is possible. However, we still have no reliable way to estimate the probability of emergence of life given the presence water. (I think that water is needed by all organisms whether worldy or extra-terrestrial.)
    I shouldn't be here. Really. Shaytan SWT deluded ALL of us. Amen.
  • Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »