Fine-tuning - chance vs design? (including a designed simulation)

[excreationist]

....The biggest premise that remains unstated in the fine tuning argument is that the universe has a purpose, and that purpose is to support the existence of life. The fine tuning argument assumes the very premise the argument is being used to demonstrate, and is therefore circular.

I'm using the fine tuning argument and I think the purpose of the universe is to meet the needs of whoever or whatever created the simulation. It could be to entertain or for research, etc.

 

[skepticalbip]

I would ask if this quote is from someone who doesn't understand English, is intentionally "lying for Jesus", or so twisted by their belief that they only hear what they want to hear.....

It seems to be from a journal - perhaps a peer-reviewed one:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...lligent-life/222321D5D4B5A4D68A3A97BBE46AEE45

From your link, the paper is NOT a "scientific paper". It amounts to a philosophical (religious) argument against Victor Stenger's recent book The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed for Us. The writer is apparently a religious advocate that is really sloppy with his wording (whether intentionally false or a misunderstanding of those 'scientists') by claiming that "scientists" share his view of a 'fine tuned universe'.

 

[atrib]

....The biggest premise that remains unstated in the fine tuning argument is that the universe has a purpose, and that purpose is to support the existence of life. The fine tuning argument assumes the very premise the argument is being used to demonstrate, and is therefore circular.

I'm using the fine tuning argument and I think the purpose of the universe is to meet the needs of whoever or whatever created the simulation. It could be to entertain or for research, etc.

You have no evidence that our universe is a simulation. And you have no evidence that our universe serves a purpose. If you want to argue that either of these premises is true, you have to present evidence, something other than a mere philosophical assumption based on very limited data.

 

[excreationist]

....You have no evidence that our universe is a simulation. And you have no evidence that our universe serves a purpose. If you want to argue that either of these premises is true, you have to present evidence, something other than a mere philosophical assumption based on very limited data.

Do you believe that simulations/games will ever get to a point that they are indistinguishable from reality (even in a few centuries time?)

 

[excreationist]

....From your link, the paper is NOT a "scientific paper".

You put it in quotes but I didn't say that... I said it was a journal article - I think it is a peer-reviewed one....

It amounts to a philosophical (religious) argument against Victor Stenger's recent book The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed for Us.

Well that's good because sometimes people bring up that book as "proof" that fine-tuning does not exist. Note here is the full 76 page article
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647v1.pdf
It has 100+ references at the end.

Note The writer is apparently a religious advocate that is really sloppy with his wording (whether intentionally false or a misunderstanding of those 'scientists') by claiming that "scientists" share his view of a 'fine tuned universe'.

Well he's better at this than me.... so I thought his article is better than me trying to argue this topic....

 

[atrib]

....You have no evidence that our universe is a simulation. And you have no evidence that our universe serves a purpose. If you want to argue that either of these premises is true, you have to present evidence, something other than a mere philosophical assumption based on very limited data.

Do you believe that simulations/games will ever get to a point that they are indistinguishable from reality (even in a few centuries time?)

What does that have to do with what I said?

 

[excreationist]

....You have no evidence that our universe is a simulation. And you have no evidence that our universe serves a purpose. If you want to argue that either of these premises is true, you have to present evidence, something other than a mere philosophical assumption based on very limited data.

Do you believe that simulations/games will ever get to a point that they are indistinguishable from reality (even in a few centuries time?)

What does that have to do with what I said?

You said there is no evidence... the possibility of a simulation seeming like reality is evidence so please respond to my question.

 

[excreationist]

BTW if most scientists were convinced of the simulation hypothesis the game wouldn't be so immersive....

It's like the Roy game in Rick and Morty - Morty ends up having no awareness he's in a simulation (until he dies)

(Jump to 24 seconds)
[video=youtube;szzVlQ653as]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=24&v=szzVlQ653as&feature=emb_l ogo[/video]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

BTW: We can basically discard the simulation case. A simulation means a simulator--and thus a universe capable of supporting life that built the simulator.

I think ultimately outside of all of the simulations there is a naturalistic universe. What is illogical about that?

Nothing--my point is that it's not an answer to the finicky nature of the constants.

 

[atrib]

What does that have to do with what I said?

You said there is no evidence... the possibility of a simulation seeming like reality is evidence so please respond to my question.

The fact that something is possible does not necessarily imply that it is also probable. The fact that humans can create simulations of reality is evidence that simulations of reality can be created. It is not evidence that we live in a simulation.

Consider the following statements:
1. The Pope is a member of the clergy in the Roman Church.
2. Some clergymen in the Roman Church are pedophiles.

Should the existence of pedophiles in the Roman Church be considered evidence that the Pope is a pedophile? Of course not. There is no evidence that the Pope is a pedophile. Any more than there is evidence that the Pope is a murderer, which also exists. Just because something is possible does not necessarily mean it is probable.

 

[excreationist]

BTW: We can basically discard the simulation case. A simulation means a simulator--and thus a universe capable of supporting life that built the simulator.

I think ultimately outside of all of the simulations there is a naturalistic universe. What is illogical about that?

Nothing--my point is that it's not an answer to the finicky nature of the constants.

Maybe outside of the simulations there is a multiverse or whatever explanation that naturalists use.

 

[excreationist]

......The fact that something is possible does not necessarily imply that it is also probable...

These days billions of people play games. In a century it seems probable that there will still be billions of people playing games and many of these will be indistinguishable from reality. I think there would be a strong demand for video games that are indistinguishable from reality. It seems more likely that a person would find themselves in a simulation (including ones they're not aware of, like in post 28) than being in a naturalistic universe. (there are also other arguments in favour of simulations)

 

[fromderinside]

I'm going to argue that humans won't ever have the capacity to determine whether the universe has design. We re just way too limited. We will find design because we have design, it is among our directives to find design but we'll never prove the universe isn't stochastic in nature.

To do so we'd need get around this nut. Given the irreducible presence of noise in everything we measure we cannot exclude apparent order is in fact also noise.

Noun

1.

stochasticity - the quality of lacking any predictable order or planhaphazardness, randomness, noise unregularity, irregularity - not characterized by a fixed principle or rate; at irregular intervals ergodicity - an attribute of stochastic systems; generally, a system that tends in probability to a limiting form that is independent of the initial conditions

 

[excreationist]

I'm going to argue that humans won't ever have the capacity to determine whether the universe has design....

I think we are in a simulation and the problem you're talking about is deliberate so that the simulation is more immersive than if the simulation was obvious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

".....Stephen Hawking, along with Thomas Hertog of CERN, proposed that the universe's initial conditions consisted of a superposition of many possible initial conditions, only a small fraction of which contributed to the conditions we see today. According to their theory, it is inevitable that we find our universe's "fine-tuned" physical constants, as the current universe "selects" only those past histories that led to the present conditions. In this way, top-down cosmology provides an anthropic explanation for why we find ourselves in a universe that allows matter and life..."
​

That's a bit like what I believe... I think human history was the initial goal of the simulation and then possible starting conditions were calculated to give the impression that we've had billions of years of history.

 

[fromderinside]

Ah the mind game of egoists coming 13 billion some odd years after whatever.

Works for somebody I guess.

Don't you think the idea of some conditions out of many is a bit too naive.

My view is we don't have, worn't have, access to sufficient information about things ever to pose encompassing theory. In every case we'll wrap ourselves around our own axel just as you've shown how Hawking et al have done.

 

[atrib]

I'm going to argue that humans won't ever have the capacity to determine whether the universe has design....

I think we are in a simulation and the problem you're talking about is deliberate so that the simulation is more immersive than if the simulation was obvious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

".....Stephen Hawking, along with Thomas Hertog of CERN, proposed that the universe's initial conditions consisted of a superposition of many possible initial conditions, only a small fraction of which contributed to the conditions we see today. According to their theory, it is inevitable that we find our universe's "fine-tuned" physical constants, as the current universe "selects" only those past histories that led to the present conditions. In this way, top-down cosmology provides an anthropic explanation for why we find ourselves in a universe that allows matter and life..."
​

That's a bit like what I believe... I think human history was the initial goal of the simulation and then possible starting conditions were calculated to give the impression that we've had billions of years of history.

You are free to believe whatever you want, but there is no evidence to make this conclusion even remotely reasonable. We have no evidence to suggest the existence of supernatural, intelligent entities who created our universe for unknown purposes. We have no evidence to suggest that we live in a simulation. We have no evidence to suggest that this aforementioned simulation was initiated in the recent past, and that our memories, along with historic artifacts were all planted to make the simulation appear more real. You are simply heaping speculation on speculation, which gets you nowhere.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Not only that. Warner Brothers and Village Road Show own copyright on The Matrix, so back the eff off.

 

[Jokodo]

The chance that a living being that's observing the universe and philosophizing about it finds itself in a universe that's suitable for life is exactly 100%, given the null hypothesis that the universe is not a simulation.

It would be much more indicative that we live in a simulation if we found ourselves in a universe unsuitable for life.

 

[skepticalbip]

The chance that a living being that's observing the universe and philosophizing about it finds itself in a universe that's suitable for life is exactly 100%, given the null hypothesis that the universe is not a simulation.

It would be much more indicative that we live in a simulation if we found ourselves in a universe unsuitable for life.

That would be an argument that the universe is a simulation. Of the billions and billions of cubic parsecs of the universe, the only part if it we have found that is suitable for life is the tiny, insignificant, blue dot we inhabit. Anywhere else in the massive universe pretty much spells instant death.

 

[fromderinside]

One of you really likes the dribble cup. I'm just not sure which one is though.*

*^{_{lazy, stupid, confusing. Indeed me, that is.}}