2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you think about it, just one small event in the past could have resulted in you not being born ie knightmeister as we know it would not exist. So are you of the opinion that we can conclude, based on that observation that every single event that brought your parents together was carefully fine tuned in order to ensure your birth?
The flaw in your argument is that you are claiming that the current state of the universe (specifically human life) is somehow special. But nobody in this thread has given a reason why it is special. Jaywill tried to claim it was special by labeling it Zero, but later admitted that the label was arbitrary.
Next someone claimed that life was special, whic ...[text shortened]... event that brought your parents together was carefully fine tuned in order to ensure your birth?
--------------------------whitey----------------------------
Absolutely, I believe this is true for you and me both. It's easy to think that such a thought could lead to arrogance but actually in reality for me at least it brings about a tremendous feeling of sheer humility. It also brings about a deep respect for humanity and nature because it's not just true for me.
I think that your last post is just a bit desperate really. Do you think that if you held such a belief would make YOU an egotist?
If not then why are you going down this line? If so then it's you that's the egotist not me.
Originally posted by knightmeisterWell, if you believe that, then the argument makes sense. It is obvious. But don't expect anyone else to take you seriously, and don't waste your time as jaywill does talking about hemoglobin and the complexity of the brain as they are really quite irrelevant.
Absolutely, I believe this is true for you and me both. It's easy to think that such a thought could lead to arrogance but actually in reality for me at least it brings about a tremendous feeling of sheer humility. It also brings about a deep respect for humanity and nature because it's not just true for me.
The argument only holds water if your existence is special.
However, for you to convince me that the argument is worth anything, you must convince me that you are special.
It is also a bit of a tautology, as once we have established that you are special and that God specifically wanted to create you, (and all other human beings past and present) then showing that he designed the universe is hardly necessary now isn't it? Certainly arguing it from probability theory sounds a bit stupid to me anyway.
I think that your last post is just a bit desperate really. Do you think that if you held such a belief would make YOU an egotist?
If not then why are you going down this line? If so then it's you that's the egotist not me.
I really cant see how that follows.
It is quite clear that if you believe that the universe is fine tuned specifically for the purpose of creating knightmeister then clearly you have a large ego. I don't see why my pointing that out, means I am an egotist. What is your reasoning?
And why do you conclude that I am desperate? It makes no sense.
4 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister…If we know that the value of "X" in our universe is say 125 then why do we need to know what other possible values there are?
You are right that I didn't read your post in full or understand the physics etc and I am joining this part of the thread late , however, I don't understand how your point is relevant.
If we know that the value of "X" in our universe is say 125 then why do we need to know what other possible values there are? All we need to know is what would happe hought , but then we could still say that we were quite lucky to have a "narrow" band.
.…
Because if you do not know what other possible values there are then how do you calculate how much of a “coincidence” that the actual value is within the range that permits life? -in fact, how would you even know if “other possible values” even exist? Obviously, IF no other possible values can exist then the probability of the actual value being within the range that permits life is 100% because there would be only ONE possible set of values!
…My understanding was that the calculations showed that changing these values by very small amounts would have very serious consequences for the Universe.
.….
Yes -that may well be. But that still begs the question;
how could you know that the values “could” have been “very slightly different” from what they actually are?
… Therefore , I don't see why we need to know about all the other possibilities because it wouldn't change a thing.….
Yes it would! IF the values couldn’t be different from what they are (or, alternatively, IF they could only deviate by only a tiny amount), then the probability of them falling into the range that would support life would be 100%.
…Even if it was PROVEN that all the physical laws we know of can only possibly be of the value that they currently are and that life as we know it was inevitably we would still be LEFT wondering why this was the case.
..… (my emphasis)
If it was “PROVEN” then I would presume we would know why they inevitably have to be the values they are (I would guess probably because of some very complicated mathematical reason -but who knows) and therefore we would NOT still be “LEFT wondering why this was the case“.
… To use an analogy , if we won millions playing dice because the dice came up 6 over and over again , and then we found out that the said dice was fixed to only produce 6 what might we think? We might say that we were not so lucky because throwing conscutive 6s was not a narrow band but actually a probability , but then again would we not think ourselves very LUCKY indeed to have come across such a dice?
We could say that our "narrow band" was nowhere near as narrow as we once thought , but then we could still say that we were quite LUCKY to have a "narrow" band.
..…(my emphasis)
What if “LUCK” had nothing to do with it? What if ALL dice in that universe had all 6’s on all their sides? -then the chances of coming across such a dice would be 100%.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYour response is fallacious reasoning.
I have already explained it in detail several times.
What makes it unreasonable, is the fact that you are essentially claiming that life, galaxies and many other things that exists are all special and more importantly are special solely because they exist.
Such an argument is essentially equivalent to the claim that the result of a roll of a die is special because it is the result and therefore it is non-random.
I don't recall using the word "special". I direct you back to my prior post and ask you to respond to the point raised which was fairly specific, to wit:
What is unreasonable about the proposition that because many of the properties of the universe have to have occurred within very narrow bands to make life (or galaxies or many other things) possible, that therefore the result that life (or galaxies or many other things) exist is non-random?
Originally posted by no1marauderJust because you did not use the word 'special' does not mean you did not imply it in your argument. Your argument depends on it. Why else would you claim that a given result of the throw of a die is non-random?
Your response is fallacious reasoning.
I don't recall using the word "special". I direct you back to my prior post and ask you to respond to the point raised which was fairly specific, to wit:
What is unreasonable about the proposition that because many of the properties of the universe have to have occurred within very ...[text shortened]... , that therefore the result that life (or galaxies or many other things) exist is non-random?
Your argument is equivalent to:
1. A series of events, properties etc lead to the current state of the universe.
2. The current state of the universe is special.
3. Therefore the series of events, properties etc were non-random.
Without 2., 3. makes no sense whatsoever.
If you still think I am going wrong somewhere then explain why you conclude 3. from 1. alone. And explain why you would not apply the same reasoning to three throws of a die which comes up 5, 2 then 6.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhat if “LUCK” had nothing to do with it? What if ALL dice in that universe had all 6’s on all their sides? -then the chances of coming across such a dice would be 100%.--------hammy----------------
[b]…If we know that the value of "X" in our universe is say 125 then why do we need to know what other possible values there are?
.…
Because if you do not know what other possible values there are then how do you calculate how much of a “coincidence” that the actual value is within the range that permits life? -in fact, how would you even kn ...[text shortened]... ll 6’s on all their sides? -then the chances of coming across such a dice would be 100%.[/b]
But we might still ask how it was that all the dice just "happened" to have all 6's (when for example they might have been 5's)
You could of course say that there is no way the dice could have been anything other than 6's , but that would be interesting as well.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYes -that may well be. But that still begs the question;
[b]…If we know that the value of "X" in our universe is say 125 then why do we need to know what other possible values there are?
.…
Because if you do not know what other possible values there are then how do you calculate how much of a “coincidence” that the actual value is within the range that permits life? -in fact, how would you even kn ...[text shortened]... ll 6’s on all their sides? -then the chances of coming across such a dice would be 100%.[/b]
how could you know that the values “could” have been “very slightly different” from what they actually are? -----------hammy---------
And that might mean that the Universe is fixed rigidly in such a way that it will inevitably produce human life , which is quite interesting in itself.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is quite clear that if you believe that the universe is fine tuned specifically for the purpose of creating knightmeister then clearly you have a large ego. I don't see why my pointing that out, means I am an egotist. What is your reasoning? -----whitey--------------
Well, if you believe that, then the argument makes sense. It is obvious. But don't expect anyone else to take you seriously, and don't waste your time as jaywill does talking about hemoglobin and the complexity of the brain as they are really quite irrelevant.
The argument only holds water if your existence is special.
However, for you to convince me ...[text shortened]... What is your reasoning?
And why do you conclude that I am desperate? It makes no sense.
Your wording is misleading because actually it's fine tuned to create all of us whereas you make out I'm only thinking about me. What's clear in your mind is clear only to yourself , own it for yourself.
If you believed the same thing would you become egotistical?
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterBut there are nevertheless a large number of finely tuned events that were necessary solely for the purpose of creating you. Though maybe the fact that the same applies to everyone else makes you a bit less egotistical.
Your wording is misleading because actually it's fine tuned to create all of us whereas you make out I'm only thinking about me. What's clear in your mind is clear only to yourself , own it for yourself.
If you believed the same thing would you become egotistical?
Though I don't like the phrasing 'become egotistical' as it implies I would be egotistical in all matters, it would certainly indicate that I had a big ego if I believed it. Unless you can give another reason for the belief than your ego.
Originally posted by knightmeister…But we might still ask how it was that all the dice just "happened" to have all 6's (when for example they might have been 5's) .…
What if “LUCK” had nothing to do with it? What if ALL dice in that universe had all 6’s on all their sides? -then the chances of coming across such a dice would be 100%.--------hammy----------------
But we might still ask how it was that all the dice just "happened" to have all 6's (when for example they might have been 5's)
You could of cours ...[text shortened]... y the dice could have been anything other than 6's , but that would be interesting as well.
What if it is logically impossible for a dice in that universe to have anything but all 6,s on all sides? Then the word "happened" in “ all the dice just "happened" to have all 6's ” in the above statement would be totally inappropriate here -you would be implying “chance” in this analogy when no such “chance” would exist.
… You could of course say that there is no way the dice could have been anything other than 6's , but that would be interesting as well..….
Yes -if we knew the reason why it inevitably had to be so and why it couldn’t logically be any other value.
4 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister…And that might mean that the Universe is FIXED rigidly in such a way that it will inevitably produce human life , which is quite interesting in itself..…(my emphasis)
Yes -that may well be. But that still begs the question;
how could you know that the values “could” have been “very slightly different” from what they actually are? -----------hammy---------
And that might mean that the Universe is fixed rigidly in such a way that it will inevitably produce human life , which is quite interesting in itself.
What would be the premise for your belief that the universe was “FIXED” rigidly in ANY particular way?
What would be the premise for your belief that the universe was “FIXED” ? -I mean, “FIXED” by what!? -a god!? -is that what you are implying? -If so, then let me explain this with an analogy:
If we make the universe analogous to a perfect 2D circle then we could make the physical constant c the speed of light analogous to the mathematical constant pi. In everyday language I think it would be inappropriate to say that the pi value was “ “FIXED” for each individual perfect 2D circle that can exist” because that would make it sound like that there is some “process” fixing it or even a “mind“ fixing it. But we know that there is no “mind” nor “process” fixing it and we also know there is no spectacular “coincidence” that pi has the precise value it does.
Now lets extend this analogy: let the fact that human life can exist in our universe be analogies to the fact that the sequence of decimal digits of pi from the 4th decimal place to the 20th decimal place is EXACTLY: 9265358979323846 .
Now if that number was in some way “randomly” generated then it would be a spectacular coincidence that that exact number appeared. But we know that pi is not randomly generated but is enviably the value it is and, if you are good at maths, you would even know WHY it is that precise value and the reason WHY has nothing to do with any divine intervention nor any absurdly unlikely “coincidence“.
So how would you know that we (or at least some scientists -the mathematics involved may be beyond most of us!) could NOT one day know “WHY” the physical constants of the universe are what they are AND this reason why has nothing to do with any divine intervention nor any absurdly unlikely “coincidence“?
Originally posted by knightmeisterDo you agree that the argument is circular? ie if you start with the assumption that the universe is fine tuned to allow our existence it is circular reasoning to then have as a conclusion the assumption.
Your wording is misleading because actually it's fine tuned to create all of us whereas you make out I'm only thinking about me. What's clear in your mind is clear only to yourself , own it for yourself.
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut given the fact that even some very small changes to some of the physical laws of the universe would have had disasterous effects for us , it seems reasonable to assume that there is infact quite a narrow band for human life to exist. If there was a very broad band then why have scientists claimed that even small tweaks would have wiped us out of the equation?
Do you agree that the argument is circular? ie if you start with the assumption that the universe is fine tuned to allow our existence it is circular reasoning to then have as a conclusion the assumption.
There is no reason for my argument to be circular on this because my faith does not rest on it particularly. I've always thought that life was a miracle anyway whichever way you look at it.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI for one have never disputed that, and I find it unlikely that anyone else has. And as I pointed out, since it is not in dispute, there is no need to bring up examples such as quantum tunneling and hemoglobin to prove it.
But given the fact that even some very small changes to some of the physical laws of the universe would have had disasterous effects for us , it seems reasonable to assume that there is infact quite a narrow band for human life to exist. If there was a very broad band then why have scientists claimed that even small tweaks would have wiped us out of the equation?
There is no reason for my argument to be circular on this because my faith does not rest on it particularly.
What your faith rests on is irrelevant. The argument we are discussing is circular. Do you agree?
I've always thought that life was a miracle anyway whichever way you look at it.
And you are welcome to that thought. However, you cannot logically show that it is a miracle by looking at it solely from a probability perspective.
Originally posted by no1marauderBecause it embeds a misconception about probability theory.
What is unreasonable about the proposition that because many of the properties of the universe have to have occurred within very narrow bands to make life (or galaxies or many other things) possible, that therefore the result that life (or galaxies or many other things) exist is non-random?
An example. Draw an outcome randomly from a normal distribution. Call it x. The ex-ante probability of that outcome being drawn is zero. From that, you cannot infer that the outcome of x was non-random, even in this extreme case when that band that you refer to is infinitely narrow.