Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

For and against fine-tuning?

AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 2:25:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What are arguments for and against fine-tuning?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 2:39:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm against the fine-tuning argument. I do not think there is anyway to conclude that because so many other combinations of constants are conceivable, that therefore, we can conclude them as actual possibilities. For this reason, I believe apparent calculations showing the odds of our particular universe existing, to be trivial. Here is a thought experiment:

Imagine you are in a room and you see a number generator. There is enough room for 3 digits, and it says 456. There is enough for 3 digits, meaning that there was 999 other conceivable numbers (if we include 000) that "could have" been appearing on that number generator. However, the number generator in reality, only can only spew out 6 different digit combinations:

685, 456, 780, 068, 583, 390

This means, we thought the odds, out of all the numbers that "could have" been, were 1 in 1000, when in reality, it was 1 in 6 because we were not in a position to know the nature of such a thing.

This is the same with the fine-tuning argument. For all we know, there were actually only a few ways the universe could have turned out. Just imagining different conceivable constants, doesn't seem to do much to show that the universe actually could have taken on those combinations in reality.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 3:15:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Fine-tuning is ignorant horse crap. We are anything but fine-tuned.

Our eyes are not ideal for seeing with. Our receptors are at the back, and we see the world through a small hole through the eyeball.

Our legs are not ideal for walking upright. Bipedalism causes back, leg and foot problems because of how our weight sits.

Our reproduction is uncomfortable and often life-threatening. Period pains, ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, breech babies and post-partum depression are all examples of this.

Our biochemistry is more complicated than it needs to be. There are some enzymatic reactions that take about 8 - 10 steps when the substrate could be broken in 2 - 3 steps.

Our brains have difficulty with logic, mathematics and abstract concepts (except for a lucky few).

Why would an intelligent being fine-tune us to be flawed? A far simpler explanation is that we have evolved through trial and error, and settling for "good enough" over perfection.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 3:52:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
For clarity, I mean fine-tuning of our universe with respect to the ability for it to be able to support life.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 4:24:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 3:52:25 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
For clarity, I mean fine-tuning of our universe with respect to the ability for it to be able to support life.

We need Gravity to hold the stars and planets together.

We need Electromagnetism to hold atoms and molecules together.

We need the Strong Nuclear Force to hold atomic nuclei together.

Why do we need the Weak Nuclear Force? Life doesn't really use radioactive decay.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 4:28:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 4:24:09 AM, APB wrote:
At 4/15/2013 3:52:25 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
For clarity, I mean fine-tuning of our universe with respect to the ability for it to be able to support life.

We need Gravity to hold the stars and planets together.

We need Electromagnetism to hold atoms and molecules together.

We need the Strong Nuclear Force to hold atomic nuclei together.

Why do we need the Weak Nuclear Force? Life doesn't really use radioactive decay.

Mhmm.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 3:48:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 4:28:45 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/15/2013 4:24:09 AM, APB wrote:
At 4/15/2013 3:52:25 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
For clarity, I mean fine-tuning of our universe with respect to the ability for it to be able to support life.

We need Gravity to hold the stars and planets together.

We need Electromagnetism to hold atoms and molecules together.

We need the Strong Nuclear Force to hold atomic nuclei together.

Why do we need the Weak Nuclear Force? Life doesn't really use radioactive decay.

Mhmm.

In fact, we don't even need this much space and time. There are probably ways to maintain some sort of "bubble universe" the size of the solar system, with only 1 Sun, 1 Earth and 1 Moon necessary for life as we know it. If God made the universe specifically for us, he hasn't been very efficient.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 4:01:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 3:48:01 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/15/2013 4:28:45 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/15/2013 4:24:09 AM, APB wrote:
At 4/15/2013 3:52:25 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
For clarity, I mean fine-tuning of our universe with respect to the ability for it to be able to support life.

We need Gravity to hold the stars and planets together.

We need Electromagnetism to hold atoms and molecules together.

We need the Strong Nuclear Force to hold atomic nuclei together.

Why do we need the Weak Nuclear Force? Life doesn't really use radioactive decay.

Mhmm.

In fact, we don't even need this much space and time. There are probably ways to maintain some sort of "bubble universe" the size of the solar system, with only 1 Sun, 1 Earth and 1 Moon necessary for life as we know it. If God made the universe specifically for us, he hasn't been very efficient.

Interesting argument.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 4:06:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The fine tuning argument is a silly example of how self-centered humans are.

If said "fine tuning" was slightly off, and life could only be generated in certain galaxies a million lightyears from the milky way, the Fine Tuners would have us believe that any sentient beings that arise in this other galaxy can claim God created the universe specifically to support life on their planet.

Of course, they never explain why "sentient beings" should be the goal of God other than to point out that sentience is "interesting" or "complex" while...say...a black hole apparently isn't. Basically, they'll magic up some criteria that divides humans from all other phenomena and say "that's what god was fine-tuning for because [criteria] is all he was interested in."

Yet we can just as easily claim the universe was designed for a certain arrangement of black holes. If you change the constants, you would not get this specific arrangement of black holes.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 4:44:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 2:25:16 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
What are arguments for and against fine-tuning?

The main counter argument is that the arguments for fine tuning commit errors of reason such as...

1) You can't conclude ID just because something is astronomical improbable (OMG what are the odds !!!)

2) You can't conclude ID because if something was different then you/us would not exist.

Other considerations against fine tuning include....

1) The data is heavily biased because of observer selection effects.

2) Human tendency to make sense out of things by using personal agency.

3) This universe is also fine tuned for such things as black holes, ebola virus, radiation, we don't have much problem accepting those things as not part of some extra cosmic plan, but when it comes to OURSELVES, well golly we must be the intended products....
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12