Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Why am I seeing the Fine tuning arguemnt?

popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 12:19:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why don't you actually read up on the argument and then read the rebuttals and decide for yourself?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 12:24:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 12:19:56 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Why don't you actually read up on the argument and then read the rebuttals and decide for yourself?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
NightofTheLivingCats
Posts: 2,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 12:34:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 12:24:05 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 8/20/2013 12:19:56 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Why don't you actually read up on the argument and then read the rebuttals and decide for yourself?

First off, I have. I either saw ones that I didn't like (ie multiverse, or has 'probably')
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 12:45:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 12:34:33 AM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
At 8/20/2013 12:24:05 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 8/20/2013 12:19:56 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Why don't you actually read up on the argument and then read the rebuttals and decide for yourself?

First off, I have. I either saw ones that I didn't like (ie multiverse, or has 'probably')

How come you didn't like the multiverse objection? Look up a book called "Fallacy of fine tuning". It may fulfill what you're looking for. Victor Stenger directly attacks the claims of fine tuning. It's probably one of the best books out there on refuting it.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
NightofTheLivingCats
Posts: 2,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 12:51:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 12:34:33 AM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
At 8/20/2013 12:24:05 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 8/20/2013 12:19:56 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Why don't you actually read up on the argument and then read the rebuttals and decide for yourself?

First off, I have. I either saw ones that I didn't like (ie multiverse, or has 'probably')

What I REALLY want is someone who actually supports it, besides the derpy appeal to ignorance people.

Damn my internet. Im done for the day.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 5:26:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 12:51:01 AM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
At 8/20/2013 12:34:33 AM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
At 8/20/2013 12:24:05 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 8/20/2013 12:19:56 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Why don't you actually read up on the argument and then read the rebuttals and decide for yourself?

First off, I have. I either saw ones that I didn't like (ie multiverse, or has 'probably')

What I REALLY want is someone who actually supports it, besides the derpy appeal to ignorance people.

Damn my internet. Im done for the day.

You titled the thread "why am I seeing the fine tuning argument", so there you go, if you are seeing it then that would be the people you are looking for, debate them.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 11:16:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/19/2013 11:09:27 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
I know it's a fallacy. I just want some rock hard rebuttals.

Well for a B-Theorist it is easy. The values are simply "fixed" on a 4d or n + 1d space-time block. If you wanted a universe with different constants, you would need a whole new block (which there may not even be). If the constant values are just locked in place, then the idea of the universe having "different" values is fantasy when dealing with a tenseless universe and its ontological implications.

If we assume A-Theory, then the fine-tuning argument still fails because it assumes that if something is not due to random chance, it must be due to intelligence. That is false. Gravity isn't intelligent, but it isn't random either. Gravity isn't going to fling me to the side right now for no reason. Gravity will keep my butt on the seat. So, there are mechanisms that can lead to a certain result that have nothing to do with intelligence. Perhaps there is a non-intelligent mechanism which "forces" a universe with our constant values instead of any other (like how gravity "forces" our butts on the seat, instead of flinging me up, or to the side). We don't know. The fine-tuning argument is just an argument from ignorance. "I can only think of intelligence other than random chance, so if it's not random chance, it has to be intelligence". However, as the OP stated, the argument is self-evidently fallacious.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 11:24:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It also begs the question against determinism. If determinism is true, then everything that happens or every state of the universe, has a 1/1 chance of being that way in reality, with the idea of "chance" being strictly epistemological.

Also, the most common way to attack the fine-tuning argument is to just posit a multiverse and say that the odds would be very high that a universe like ours would exist by chance alone. I think this should be a last resort, as it seems like a rather "messy" solution. However, it suffices (assuming you don't buy the whole Boltzmann Brains nonsense) to defuse the fine-tuning argument. I would even argue that multiple universes is less of an assumption than one God, if the theist tries to argue that fine-tuning is more preferable to a multiverse due to Occam's Razor.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 1:11:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 11:24:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It also begs the question against determinism. If determinism is true, then everything that happens or every state of the universe, has a 1/1 chance of being that way in reality, with the idea of "chance" being strictly epistemological.

Also, the most common way to attack the fine-tuning argument is to just posit a multiverse and say that the odds would be very high that a universe like ours would exist by chance alone. I think this should be a last resort, as it seems like a rather "messy" solution. However, it suffices (assuming you don't buy the whole Boltzmann Brains nonsense) to defuse the fine-tuning argument. I would even argue that multiple universes is less of an assumption than one God, if the theist tries to argue that fine-tuning is more preferable to a multiverse due to Occam's Razor.

Meh, I don't really buy either response for the same reason: you could use the above to explain literally anything away. If a poker player gets 100 royal flushes in a row, for example, it seems incredible to think we'd accept a multiverse/determinist explanation, rather than think of something more sinister. Where I would agree is I'm not sure how good a theistic explanation would be.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 2:13:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 1:11:51 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/20/2013 11:24:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It also begs the question against determinism. If determinism is true, then everything that happens or every state of the universe, has a 1/1 chance of being that way in reality, with the idea of "chance" being strictly epistemological.

Also, the most common way to attack the fine-tuning argument is to just posit a multiverse and say that the odds would be very high that a universe like ours would exist by chance alone. I think this should be a last resort, as it seems like a rather "messy" solution. However, it suffices (assuming you don't buy the whole Boltzmann Brains nonsense) to defuse the fine-tuning argument. I would even argue that multiple universes is less of an assumption than one God, if the theist tries to argue that fine-tuning is more preferable to a multiverse due to Occam's Razor.

Meh, I don't really buy either response for the same reason: you could use the above to explain literally anything away. If a poker player gets 100 royal flushes in a row, for example, it seems incredible to think we'd accept a multiverse/determinist explanation, rather than think of something more sinister. Where I would agree is I'm not sure how good a theistic explanation would be.

Like I said; those aren't the best ways to attack it. As a B-Theorist, I believe the past, present, and future are fixed. Thus, it's not like things have to "come together" by chance. Fine-tuning is easily avoided this way. Also, assuming A-Theory, some non-intelligent mechanism could "force" those values, like gravity "forces" our butts on the seat. It is not clear why intelligence is the best explanation.

Regarding your criticisms, I think you are looking at it wrong. A multiverse is predicted by theories like Inflation, and String Theory, or Dark Flow. The multiverse wasn't conjured up as an explanation for fine-tuning. Thus, it is not fallacious to use it as an explanation for fine-tuning because there are already external reasons to believe in a multiverse. Either way, we don't think the Earth is just right for life because of fine-tuning, we know it is just right for life because there are so many planets that the odds are that at least one will be right for life. Is it that much of a stretch to think the same applies to the universe with regards to it being just right for life? Also, if determinism was true, getting a 100 flushes would still raise cheating the likelihood of cheating because that is now how hands usually turn up. That would be true whether or not everything that happens has a 1/1 chance or not. Thus, determinism can't really be looked at as a universal cop out.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 2:14:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
(correction)
*Also, if determinism was true, getting 100 flushes would still raise the likelihood of cheating because that is not how hands usually turn up.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 4:21:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 11:16:37 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/19/2013 11:09:27 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
I know it's a fallacy. I just want some rock hard rebuttals.

Well for a B-Theorist it is easy. The values are simply "fixed" on a 4d or n + 1d space-time block. If you wanted a universe with different constants, you would need a whole new block (which there may not even be). If the constant values are just locked in place, then the idea of the universe having "different" values is fantasy when dealing with a tenseless universe and its ontological implications.

If we assume A-Theory, then the fine-tuning argument still fails because it assumes that if something is not due to random chance, it must be due to intelligence. That is false. Gravity isn't intelligent, but it isn't random either. Gravity isn't going to fling me to the side right now for no reason. Gravity will keep my butt on the seat. So, there are mechanisms that can lead to a certain result that have nothing to do with intelligence. Perhaps there is a non-intelligent mechanism which "forces" a universe with our constant values instead of any other (like how gravity "forces" our butts on the seat, instead of flinging me up, or to the side). We don't know. The fine-tuning argument is just an argument from ignorance. "I can only think of intelligence other than random chance, so if it's not random chance, it has to be intelligence". However, as the OP stated, the argument is self-evidently fallacious.

The way I see the theists attacking arguments like yours, is to ask, why were these values fixed and not other ones? Same with the non intelligent fine tuner, why would it prefer values to support life?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 4:25:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
OP, here's links to Victor Stenger"s work on the fine tuning argument. I really think he's the best at refuting it.

http://www.colorado.edu...
http://www.amazon.com...
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 4:36:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 4:21:39 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 8/20/2013 11:16:37 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/19/2013 11:09:27 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
I know it's a fallacy. I just want some rock hard rebuttals.

Well for a B-Theorist it is easy. The values are simply "fixed" on a 4d or n + 1d space-time block. If you wanted a universe with different constants, you would need a whole new block (which there may not even be). If the constant values are just locked in place, then the idea of the universe having "different" values is fantasy when dealing with a tenseless universe and its ontological implications.

If we assume A-Theory, then the fine-tuning argument still fails because it assumes that if something is not due to random chance, it must be due to intelligence. That is false. Gravity isn't intelligent, but it isn't random either. Gravity isn't going to fling me to the side right now for no reason. Gravity will keep my butt on the seat. So, there are mechanisms that can lead to a certain result that have nothing to do with intelligence. Perhaps there is a non-intelligent mechanism which "forces" a universe with our constant values instead of any other (like how gravity "forces" our butts on the seat, instead of flinging me up, or to the side). We don't know. The fine-tuning argument is just an argument from ignorance. "I can only think of intelligence other than random chance, so if it's not random chance, it has to be intelligence". However, as the OP stated, the argument is self-evidently fallacious.

The way I see the theists attacking arguments like yours, is to ask, why were these values fixed and not other ones?

I already answered that. You would need a different block to have different values, as these values are fixed and inherent to our block. For all we know, there couldn't be any different values. Just because we can imagine different values, doesn't mean there could be any different values in reality.

Same with the non intelligent fine tuner, why would it prefer values to support life?

It wouldn't "prefer". That's like asking why gravity "prefers" to keep our butts in the seat. Perhaps it is a mechanism which forces star formation, and with so many stars, life is just a side-effect and not the main goal at all. There are endless possibilities.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 4:42:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 4:21:39 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 8/20/2013 11:16:37 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/19/2013 11:09:27 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
I know it's a fallacy. I just want some rock hard rebuttals.

Well for a B-Theorist it is easy. The values are simply "fixed" on a 4d or n + 1d space-time block. If you wanted a universe with different constants, you would need a whole new block (which there may not even be). If the constant values are just locked in place, then the idea of the universe having "different" values is fantasy when dealing with a tenseless universe and its ontological implications.

If we assume A-Theory, then the fine-tuning argument still fails because it assumes that if something is not due to random chance, it must be due to intelligence. That is false. Gravity isn't intelligent, but it isn't random either. Gravity isn't going to fling me to the side right now for no reason. Gravity will keep my butt on the seat. So, there are mechanisms that can lead to a certain result that have nothing to do with intelligence. Perhaps there is a non-intelligent mechanism which "forces" a universe with our constant values instead of any other (like how gravity "forces" our butts on the seat, instead of flinging me up, or to the side). We don't know. The fine-tuning argument is just an argument from ignorance. "I can only think of intelligence other than random chance, so if it's not random chance, it has to be intelligence". However, as the OP stated, the argument is self-evidently fallacious.

The way I see the theists attacking arguments like yours, is to ask, why were these values fixed and not other ones? Same with the non intelligent fine tuner, why would it prefer values to support life?

So, I would say that perhaps our values are necessary, or inherent to the block. Therefore, asking why the block doesn't have different values could be a non-starter. Also, perhaps life is just a side-effect of some other "end" the universe is reaching to that we are completely ignorant about, with life not being special at all. Perhaps life is special in the sense that a physical vessel is required for consciousness, and the universe's function is to become conscious of itself eventually through us. There are plenty of possibilities.
NightofTheLivingCats
Posts: 2,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 4:45:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 4:25:04 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
OP, here's links to Victor Stenger"s work on the fine tuning argument. I really think he's the best at refuting it.

http://www.colorado.edu...
http://www.amazon.com...

Thank you. I'll look at them later.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 6:13:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/19/2013 11:09:27 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
I know it's a fallacy. I just want some rock hard rebuttals.

It's a circular argument. A particular result only seems weird if you assume that it was the result wanted. If we assume that there is no god, or that god didn't care what result he got, then the fact that we wound up with humans doesn't seem like any kind of a miracle.

Thus, god must-have-wanted-to-create-humans only because it is also an unstated premise.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 7:05:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 6:29:23 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
One could equally well say, in my opinion, that of course we think that it's fine-tuned--we evolved to live here!

This just seems like a regurgitation of the Anthropic principle.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 11:00:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 7:05:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/20/2013 6:29:23 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
One could equally well say, in my opinion, that of course we think that it's fine-tuned--we evolved to live here!

This just seems like a regurgitation of the Anthropic principle.

If someone tells you that it's a miracle that fish happen to live in the water cactus lives in the desert, the anthropic principle is a cogent response.