Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Since we do not know that it is possible (let alone probable) to have a universe with cosmological constants being different from what they are in our universe, we cannot deduce anything whatsoever about the probability of the cosmological constants being different (let alone significantly different) from what they are.
Why is it necessa ...[text shortened]... to believe in the existence of 'fine-tuning'.[/b]
Nor the other alternatives, it seems.[/b]
“...Why is it necessary to know that other universes with different constants exist
before we calculate the probability of a universe arising that is fine-tuned for life? ...”
I didn't say that! I think you can be forgiven for misreading what I said for, if you read my statement fast, you may read it
as if I said “other universes” rather than “a universe”! Let me say that statement again but with emphasis and extra bracketed comment:
“....Since we do not know that it is possible (let alone probable) to have A UNIVERSE (not “OTHER universes”; not referring to the possibility of other universes here) with cosmological constants being different from what they are ...( ...the rest like before... ) ” (my comment)
“...having no knowledge of the possibility of the universe being different than it is, to assign values to the various constants and determine the precision necessary for a universe , like ours, being thermodynamically suited for life. ...”
of course it is reasonable. I never said nor implied it was unreasonable to determine such a thing. But that tells us nothing about the
possibility let alone
probability of it being outside those range of values that permit life.
“...Certainly it is possible that the cosmological constants are as they are due to necessity. So? Following your expert opinion (above), shouldn't we conclude that since there is no evidence of any other universes besides our own displaying the exact same constants as our own, then there is no evidence nor reason to believe in the existence of "necessity" either? ...”
don't follow your reasoning here: where you say “...the existence of "necessity" either? “ at the end of that above statement, which type of “necessity” are you referring to?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/necessity
“...
necessity [nɪˈsɛsɪtɪ]
n pl -ties
1. (sometimes plural) something needed for a desired result; prerequisite necessities of life
2. a condition or set of circumstances, such as physical laws or social rules, that inevitably requires a certain result it is a matter of necessity to wear formal clothes when meeting the Queen
3. the state or quality of being obligatory or unavoidable
4. urgent requirement, as in an emergency or misfortune in time of necessity we must all work together
5. poverty or want
6. Rare compulsion through laws of nature; fate
7. (Philosophy) Philosophy
a. a condition, principle, or conclusion that cannot be otherwise
b. the constraining force of physical determinants on all aspects of life Compare freedom [8]
8. (Philosophy / Logic) Logic
a. the property of being necessary
b. a statement asserting that some property is essential or statement is necessarily true
c. the operator that indicates that the expression it modifies is true in all possible worlds. Usual symbol ☐, ∟
of necessity inevitably; necessarily “
and why would it matter to my argument if that type of "necessity" (whichever type you are referencing here) does not exist ?