Inviting Al Moritz to discuss the "fine tune" argument

[rom422]

Tyrion;10532240:

Not relevant. There are intrinsically quantum unknowable events, but that is not important here.

It is relevant to what I was about to say in the second paragraph, but you missed it.

And that is what the “fine tune” argument was supposed to decide, but it was unsuccessful. It is funny that even is there is a designer, he took pains to make sure that the world does not “look” designed - possibly to leave it to our “free will” if we “wish” to believe in him or not. (This is one of the so-called arguments when the problem of evil is discussed)

Your rejection of the “fine tune” argument is NOT a refutation. So far, all your attempts to discredit the “fine tune” argument – including the present one - have been unsuccessful.

Why on Earth is this a “problem” with the model? It simply reflects reality. We have no information about the “inside” of the singularity, and that is a fact. Why do you wish to “shoot” the messenger?

It is a problem because the distribution of your red and white balls did not match your description of each box. The fact that you have no information about the “inside” of the singularity (at the beginning of the Big Bang) means that you do not know what kind of universe the universe will be. But if you want to model an intelligently designed universe (Box #1 argument), then - to be realistic, -you need to postulate red balls (favorable laws and properties) in it. (See more on this below.) And if you want to model a universe that resulted from purely chance events, then a distribution where there are significantly more white balls than red balls should be placed.

Oh, no. Definitely not. First, even with a designer it might be that the other, lifeless universes present other, interesting characteristics, which “prompted” the designer to “test them out”. Also, we KNOW that there are other possible, life-bearing universes. At the very least, the one which is the mirror image of our universe, where the “electric” charge of the particles is reversed.

I insist that we should model an intelligently designed universe to have nothing but red balls. Because, if there seem to be any odd white balls in a really designed system, then that must simply be due to the limitation of our knowledge, as we do not perfectly know what is in the Mind of the Designer. Even in our present world the apparent aberrations that we find in nature actually turn out to be favorable to the Designer’s grand design.

Therefore, that there should also be white balls in a designed universe is just a big assumption – and a very poor one. It is like saying that the world was designed, but that the Designer didn’t know what He was doing, so He had to produce white balls also to test them out and see how things would unfold. This is twisting the reality of an intelligently designed universe to fit your model, rather than adjusting the model to fit the reality. I don’t know what scientific term would best describe this strange procedure. The common man calls it “cheating.”

Again, an unsupported assumption. On what ground would anyone assert that (for example) the size of the electrons can “vary”, while the size of the other particles stays the same? Electrons which are as large as a biliard ball? Or the size of the Mount Everest? What kind of dumb idea is that? Since the attributes of the particles cannot be separated from the underlying material structure (no one would dare to talk about the immaterial “soul” of an electron - hopefully!) it is nonsense to imagine a “universe” in which both the protons and the “electrons” have a positive electrical charge. So we can safely state that in the “just is” box, you can only find “red balls”, but you cannot say it about the “artificial, made up, designed” universes.

In the Box#2 argument we have supposedly a universe that had no Intelligent Designer. It was the product of pure chance. If that is the case, then the model should have mostly white balls and little, if any, red balls. The reason is because, in a world that was all the result of chance, then the laws of nature and the properties of matter will all be as much a product of chance as the world itself is. To imagine that this chance world will contain the same regularity and characteristics as a designed world, or that the “just is” box can only have “red balls”, is another instance of “cheating.”

Tyrion, you have been trumpeting yourself as the champion of probability mathematics. But if you cannot even produce a correct model of reality to advance your theory, then all your calculations – no matter how sophisticated - will be bogus.

 

[Tyrion]

It is a problem because the distribution of your red and white balls did not match your description of each box.

The fact that you have no information about the “inside” of the singularity (at the beginning of the Big Bang) means that you do not know what kind of universe the universe will be.

As such there can be no assumption about the distribution.

But if you want to model an intelligently designed universe (Box #1 argument), then - to be realistic, -you need to postulate red balls (favorable laws and properties) in it.

Who said anything about “intelligently” designed? You cannot make any assumption about the designer, except one: “the designer was able to carry out the act”. You cannot assume that there were no incorrect attempts, you cannot make assumptions about the “purpose”… you cannot even assume that the “designer” was conscious, or even knew what it was doing. You are not allowed to “squueze” in the alleged attributes of your hypotetical god.

And if you look at our world at the actual, macro level, it sure does not look like “designed”, much less “intelligently designed”. Since we have absolutely no hard information about the internal structure of the singularity, we can make no assumption about the distribution of the red and white balls. Period. Case closed.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I do NOT apply a chance model. The proponents do. I am simply taking them at their word, and show that their “argument” is useless. I am saying that the actual values are the direct corollaries of the material those particles are “composed of”. An electron cannot have a “positive” charge, or the size of a golf-ball.

Actually, the proponents are claiming chance has nothing to do with how the universe came to be because a chance explanation simply fails to account for what has transpired.

It is the proponenets of the “fine tune” argument who must show just how could those constants “magically” become variables. How many “alternate” universes have they observed? How could they know that a totally different set of constants would not be appropriate setup for life? After all the basic equations of the universe are all dependent on those values, and a different set of values would require a different set of equations.

You seem not to understand that the term “constants” regarding physics only means these are observed to be consistent throughout the universe. The possibility that they could be something other than they are is a live one. The term “constant” does not mean they must be at a certain value but only that they are in order to have the universe we actually do.

To explain how a change in a constant setting could impact the state of the universe all one needs to know is how the current setting determines the state of the universe as we observe it. Once that is known, It is not a difficult matter to demonstrate the impact of a change. It has been done by numerous astrophysicists including Penrose, Hoyle, Gingerich, Davies, Ross and others.

As to supplying hard data that variations in the constants would effect, Spitzer does that. I have a Kindle version of the book on an iPad which does not allow a copy-paste process. I will try to come up with another means to provide the data to you.

 

[rom422]

As such there can be no assumption about the distribution.

Who said anything about “intelligently” designed? You cannot make any assumption about the designer, except one: “the designer was able to carry out the act”. You cannot assume that there were no incorrect attempts, you cannot make assumptions about the “purpose”… you cannot even assume that the “designer” was conscious, or even knew what it was doing. You are not allowed to “squueze” in the alleged attributes of your hypotetical god.

And if you look at our world at the actual, macro level, it sure does not look like “designed”, much less “intelligently designed”. Since we have absolutely no hard information about the internal structure of the singularity, we can make no assumption about the distribution of the red and white balls. Period. Case closed.

I really have more to say, but since you have closed the case on me, then I cannot continue to show you where your errors are. However, I will respect your wish and you can have the last word on this issue (about your models). I have said enough for the readers of this thread to judge the matter for themselves. But because this is a catholic forum, I reserve the right to discuss other issues with other participants. Just want to thank you now for the opportunity.

 

[rom422]

It’s just to my simple way of thinking, if there’s a one in 600 trillion chance of something happening, that means that thing, whatever it is, and regardless of how unlikely, can still happen, purely by chance.

If it then does happen, it’s no indicator of any intent behind it - it just proves it could, and did, happen.

Hello, Sarah!

Actually, I think that you are correct on that. Even if there’s just a one in 600 trillion chance of something happening, it still can happen, just highly unlikely. So it will not indicate intent.

That’s why for me the true indicator of intent is not merely the improbability of the event, but the regularity of the unlikely event. Let us consider Snarflemike’s example. He threw a dozen paints onto a canvas one time, and the outcome was a perfect portrait of his wife – a very unlikely event. If he did this experiment only once, I could still just think that it was a chance event, no matter how unlikely. However, if he does this everyday, and the same portrait of his wife appears every single time, then I know that it is not merely chance that is at work.

Lottery winners also have the same luck. You can win a powerball jackpot, no matter how unlikely that event is. But if you are consistently getting the jackpot, say ten times in a row, then I’m sure the police will soon be investigating your “luck.”

This means that, besides the mere improbability of an event, the regular occurrence of the event must also be premised to make the argument for design more cogent. We can think, for example, that it was a chance event that prompted a spider to spin its web in a certain way. But if it is observed to be doing this same pattern for hundreds of years, then we know that this was a work of design, not chance.

As a matter of fact, this was how St. Thomas argued for design. Let me quote his argument in full:

“We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. “ – St, Thomas Aquinas, ST Part 1, Q2, Art. 3. See newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm Emphasis is mine.

In my opinion, we must also bring the observed regularity of nature in the argument, if we want to make a stronger case for a designed universe.