What is so improbable about a fine-tuned universe for life

[ryan]

The odds of winning the Gold Lotto division one jackpot are about 45,000,000:1

Therefore there's almost no chance at all that this week's winner actually chose the correct numbers. We must therefore conclude that he cheated, and throw him in jail for fraud.

We don't know how he cheated, and our only evidence of cheating is that he won. But there's just no credible way that he could have won by pure luck, not at odds of forty five million to one against.

-----------

Of course, the above argument is fallacious, and the jackpot is actually claimed every two or three weeks, without any suggestion that cheating is involved.

If you replace 'jackpot winner' with 'universe that supports life', and you replace 'cheated' with 'directed by a creator god', then the above fallacious argument is the same as the 'fine tuning' argument.

The fine tuning argument is therefore also fallacious.

It's not bilby. There is little to no dispute that the universe is fine-tuned for life; scientists agree on this. It forces them to evoke a multiverse. But if there is no multiverse, there apparently is a nearly impossible coincidence that needs explaining.

Reputable scientists all over YouTube and in other literature believe this.

My issue is what is it about an extremely narrow range of values allowing life that makes it such a coincidence. There really does seem to be a major problem here, a problem using probability that I don't understand.

 

[bilby]

The odds of winning the Gold Lotto division one jackpot are about 45,000,000:1

Therefore there's almost no chance at all that this week's winner actually chose the correct numbers. We must therefore conclude that he cheated, and throw him in jail for fraud.

We don't know how he cheated, and our only evidence of cheating is that he won. But there's just no credible way that he could have won by pure luck, not at odds of forty five million to one against.

-----------

Of course, the above argument is fallacious, and the jackpot is actually claimed every two or three weeks, without any suggestion that cheating is involved.

If you replace 'jackpot winner' with 'universe that supports life', and you replace 'cheated' with 'directed by a creator god', then the above fallacious argument is the same as the 'fine tuning' argument.

The fine tuning argument is therefore also fallacious.

It's not bilby.

Yes, it is.

There is little to no dispute that the universe is fine-tuned for life; scientists agree on this.

No, they don't.

We only have a sample size of one. We cannot know whether other settings for universal constants are possible; Nor whether if they were, they would result in a lifeless universe. Possibly they would result in a universe where life doesn't look anything like it does in our universe, or simply doesn't exist, but which of these is more likely is just pure speculation.

It forces them to evoke a multiverse.

No, it doesn't. That's only one set of several sets of hypotheses, none of which can be eliminated with such a small sample size to observe.

But if there is no multiverse, there apparently is a nearly impossible coincidence that needs explaining.

No, there isn't. A sample size of one is inadequate to draw any conclusions at all.

Reputable scientists all over YouTube

Seriously? 'YouTube' and 'reputable' don't belong in the same sentence.

and in other literature believe this.

Which 'other literature'? Links, or it didn't happen. Your credibility as an assessor of what constitutes a 'reputable scientist' is in tatters after your suggestion that YouTube is a suitable place to find such people. So I am unfortunately not able to take your word for this.

My issue is what is it about an extremely narrow range of values allowing life that makes it such a coincidence.

We don't know whether that's the case. Remember your sample size is one.

There really does seem to be a major problem here, a problem using probability that I don't understand.

As you don't understand it, I am left wondering about the confidence with which you rejected my demonstration that the fine tuning argument is a fallacious argument.

Perhaps we won the lottery (even without cheating). Perhaps everyone wins. Perhaps we are just lucky. With only one example, we are in no position to infer anything about how probable or improbable a universe containing life might be. All we can say for sure is that as this one does, it's not impossible.

 

[ryan]

Yes, it is.

There is little to no dispute that the universe is fine-tuned for life; scientists agree on this.

No, they don't.

We only have a sample size of one. We cannot know whether other settings for universal constants are possible; Nor whether if they were, they would result in a lifeless universe. Possibly they would result in a universe where life doesn't look anything like it does in our universe, or simply doesn't exist, but which of these is more likely is just pure speculation.

It forces them to evoke a multiverse.

No, it doesn't. That's only one set of several sets of hypotheses, none of which can be eliminated with such a small sample size to observe.

But if there is no multiverse, there apparently is a nearly impossible coincidence that needs explaining.

No, there isn't. A sample size of one is inadequate to draw any conclusions at all.

Reputable scientists all over YouTube

Seriously? 'YouTube' and 'reputable' don't belong in the same sentence.

and in other literature believe this.

Which 'other literature'? Links, or it didn't happen. Your credibility as an assessor of what constitutes a 'reputable scientist' is in tatters after your suggestion that YouTube is a suitable place to find such people. So I am unfortunately not able to take your word for this.

My issue is what is it about an extremely narrow range of values allowing life that makes it such a coincidence.

We don't know whether that's the case. Remember your sample size is one.

There really does seem to be a major problem here, a problem using probability that I don't understand.

As you don't understand it, I am left wondering about the confidence with which you rejected my demonstration that the fine tuning argument is a fallacious argument.

Perhaps we won the lottery (even without cheating). Perhaps everyone wins. Perhaps we are just lucky. With only one example, we are in no position to infer anything about how probable or improbable a universe containing life might be. All we can say for sure is that as this one does, it's not impossible.

So there are no reputable scientists on YouTube?! You clearly don't know anything about this, so stay in your ignorance.

 

[skepticalbip]

The odds of winning the Gold Lotto division one jackpot are about 45,000,000:1

Therefore there's almost no chance at all that this week's winner actually chose the correct numbers. We must therefore conclude that he cheated, and throw him in jail for fraud.

We don't know how he cheated, and our only evidence of cheating is that he won. But there's just no credible way that he could have won by pure luck, not at odds of forty five million to one against.

-----------

Of course, the above argument is fallacious, and the jackpot is actually claimed every two or three weeks, without any suggestion that cheating is involved.

If you replace 'jackpot winner' with 'universe that supports life', and you replace 'cheated' with 'directed by a creator god', then the above fallacious argument is the same as the 'fine tuning' argument.

The fine tuning argument is therefore also fallacious.

It's not bilby. There is little to no dispute that the universe is fine-tuned for life; scientists agree on this. It forces them to evoke a multiverse. But if there is no multiverse, there apparently is a nearly impossible coincidence that needs explaining.

Reputable scientists all over YouTube and in other literature believe this.

My issue is what is it about an extremely narrow range of values allowing life that makes it such a coincidence. There really does seem to be a major problem here, a problem using probability that I don't understand.

The phrase, "fine tuned", is a dangerous mine field. It can be taken to mean intentionally set. I think a better description of the conditions in the universe is that there are very small, isolated areas where life is possible. Scientists don't agree that the universe is fine tuned but that the universal constants as they are means that the universe will allow for stars and planets to form and so a possibility for life. Also only some scientists (primarily mathematicians, string theorists, and science philosophers) think that the idea of a multiverse makes any sense. There is no evidence for such a thing so no reason to seriously consider it other than as a whimsical idea to play with. One of the problems with popular science that is covered by the public media is that it is primarily the whimsical "what if" musings that make it to air, not the nitty gritty real science. This tends to give the general public a very skewed idea of what science and scientists do.

I don't know why anyone would think the conditions for life is a "coincidence", whatever that is supposed to mean. Science is concerned with what is and how it came to be that way. Life is. The conditions for life are what they are. Now the question of whether the universal constants could be different than they are may be interesting but those questions do no alter the fact that they are what they are.

 

[ryan]

The odds of winning the Gold Lotto division one jackpot are about 45,000,000:1

Therefore there's almost no chance at all that this week's winner actually chose the correct numbers. We must therefore conclude that he cheated, and throw him in jail for fraud.

We don't know how he cheated, and our only evidence of cheating is that he won. But there's just no credible way that he could have won by pure luck, not at odds of forty five million to one against.

-----------

Of course, the above argument is fallacious, and the jackpot is actually claimed every two or three weeks, without any suggestion that cheating is involved.

If you replace 'jackpot winner' with 'universe that supports life', and you replace 'cheated' with 'directed by a creator god', then the above fallacious argument is the same as the 'fine tuning' argument.

The fine tuning argument is therefore also fallacious.

It's not bilby. There is little to no dispute that the universe is fine-tuned for life; scientists agree on this. It forces them to evoke a multiverse. But if there is no multiverse, there apparently is a nearly impossible coincidence that needs explaining.

Reputable scientists all over YouTube and in other literature believe this.

My issue is what is it about an extremely narrow range of values allowing life that makes it such a coincidence. There really does seem to be a major problem here, a problem using probability that I don't understand.

The phrase, "fine tuned", is a dangerous mine field. It can be taken to mean intentionally set. I think a better description of the conditions in the universe is that there are very small, isolated areas where life is possible. Scientists don't agree that the universe is fine tuned but that the universal constants as they are means that the universe will allow for stars and planets to form and so a possibility for life. Also only some scientists (primarily mathematicians, string theorists, and science philosophers) think that the idea of a multiverse makes any sense. There is no evidence for such a thing so no reason to seriously consider it other than as a whimsical idea to play with. One of the problems with popular science that is covered by the public media is that it is primarily the whimsical "what if" musings that make it to air, not the nitty gritty real science. This tends to give the general public a very skewed idea of what science and scientists do.

I don't know why anyone would think the conditions for life is a "coincidence", whatever that is supposed to mean. Science is concerned with what is and how it came to be that way. Life is. The conditions for life are what they are. Now the question of whether the universal constants could be different than they are may be interesting but those questions do no alter the fact that they are what they are.

I agree. A multiverse is not scientific, but even scientists like to speculate.

I don't know why but there is a large population of legitimate scientists that claim that there is a big coincidence that needs explaining.

 

[bilby]

Yes, it is.

No, they don't.

We only have a sample size of one. We cannot know whether other settings for universal constants are possible; Nor whether if they were, they would result in a lifeless universe. Possibly they would result in a universe where life doesn't look anything like it does in our universe, or simply doesn't exist, but which of these is more likely is just pure speculation.

No, it doesn't. That's only one set of several sets of hypotheses, none of which can be eliminated with such a small sample size to observe.

But if there is no multiverse, there apparently is a nearly impossible coincidence that needs explaining.

No, there isn't. A sample size of one is inadequate to draw any conclusions at all.

Reputable scientists all over YouTube

Seriously? 'YouTube' and 'reputable' don't belong in the same sentence.

and in other literature believe this.

Which 'other literature'? Links, or it didn't happen. Your credibility as an assessor of what constitutes a 'reputable scientist' is in tatters after your suggestion that YouTube is a suitable place to find such people. So I am unfortunately not able to take your word for this.

My issue is what is it about an extremely narrow range of values allowing life that makes it such a coincidence.

We don't know whether that's the case. Remember your sample size is one.

There really does seem to be a major problem here, a problem using probability that I don't understand.

As you don't understand it, I am left wondering about the confidence with which you rejected my demonstration that the fine tuning argument is a fallacious argument.

Perhaps we won the lottery (even without cheating). Perhaps everyone wins. Perhaps we are just lucky. With only one example, we are in no position to infer anything about how probable or improbable a universe containing life might be. All we can say for sure is that as this one does, it's not impossible.

So there are no reputable scientists on YouTube?! You clearly don't know anything about this, so stay in your ignorance.

There are reputable scientists on YouTube. But YouTube is an awful choice of venue if you are looking for reputable scientists.

If I told you that 'Reputable scientists in the audience at a heavy metal concert, and in other places' agree with my position on some issue, the fact that some reputable scientists do go to heavy metal concerts would not give you confidence that I am depending only on the most reputable or learned people, right?

If you are looking for reputable scientists, you look in reputable journals, or reputable universities. You don't go looking in YouTube, or at concerts, or at your local fairground - despite the fact that reputable scientists are present in all of those places.

YouTube is for suckers and charlatans; It's riddled with nonsense, stupidity, and disinformation. There's some useful stuff there, but it's drowned out by the huge volume of shit.

 

[ryan]

Yes, it is.

No, they don't.

We only have a sample size of one. We cannot know whether other settings for universal constants are possible; Nor whether if they were, they would result in a lifeless universe. Possibly they would result in a universe where life doesn't look anything like it does in our universe, or simply doesn't exist, but which of these is more likely is just pure speculation.

No, it doesn't. That's only one set of several sets of hypotheses, none of which can be eliminated with such a small sample size to observe.

No, there isn't. A sample size of one is inadequate to draw any conclusions at all.

Reputable scientists all over YouTube

Seriously? 'YouTube' and 'reputable' don't belong in the same sentence.

and in other literature believe this.

Which 'other literature'? Links, or it didn't happen. Your credibility as an assessor of what constitutes a 'reputable scientist' is in tatters after your suggestion that YouTube is a suitable place to find such people. So I am unfortunately not able to take your word for this.

My issue is what is it about an extremely narrow range of values allowing life that makes it such a coincidence.

We don't know whether that's the case. Remember your sample size is one.

There really does seem to be a major problem here, a problem using probability that I don't understand.

As you don't understand it, I am left wondering about the confidence with which you rejected my demonstration that the fine tuning argument is a fallacious argument.

Perhaps we won the lottery (even without cheating). Perhaps everyone wins. Perhaps we are just lucky. With only one example, we are in no position to infer anything about how probable or improbable a universe containing life might be. All we can say for sure is that as this one does, it's not impossible.

So there are no reputable scientists on YouTube?! You clearly don't know anything about this, so stay in your ignorance.

There are reputable scientists on YouTube. But YouTube is an awful choice of venue if you are looking for reputable scientists.

If I told you that 'Reputable scientists in the audience at a heavy metal concert, and in other places' agree with my position on some issue, the fact that some reputable scientists do go to heavy metal concerts would not give you confidence that I am depending only on the most reputable or learned people, right?

If you are looking for reputable scientists, you look in reputable journals, or reputable universities. You don't go looking in YouTube, or at concerts, or at your local fairground - despite the fact that reputable scientists are present in all of those places.

YouTube is for suckers and charlatans; It's riddled with nonsense, stupidity, and disinformation. There's some useful stuff there, but it's drowned out by the huge volume of shit.

I didn't say YouTube is the place to go to find reputable scientists. I said I found some on YouTube.

 

[bilby]

Yes, it is.

No, they don't.

We only have a sample size of one. We cannot know whether other settings for universal constants are possible; Nor whether if they were, they would result in a lifeless universe. Possibly they would result in a universe where life doesn't look anything like it does in our universe, or simply doesn't exist, but which of these is more likely is just pure speculation.

No, it doesn't. That's only one set of several sets of hypotheses, none of which can be eliminated with such a small sample size to observe.

No, there isn't. A sample size of one is inadequate to draw any conclusions at all.

Seriously? 'YouTube' and 'reputable' don't belong in the same sentence.

and in other literature believe this.

Which 'other literature'? Links, or it didn't happen. Your credibility as an assessor of what constitutes a 'reputable scientist' is in tatters after your suggestion that YouTube is a suitable place to find such people. So I am unfortunately not able to take your word for this.

My issue is what is it about an extremely narrow range of values allowing life that makes it such a coincidence.

We don't know whether that's the case. Remember your sample size is one.

There really does seem to be a major problem here, a problem using probability that I don't understand.

As you don't understand it, I am left wondering about the confidence with which you rejected my demonstration that the fine tuning argument is a fallacious argument.

Perhaps we won the lottery (even without cheating). Perhaps everyone wins. Perhaps we are just lucky. With only one example, we are in no position to infer anything about how probable or improbable a universe containing life might be. All we can say for sure is that as this one does, it's not impossible.

So there are no reputable scientists on YouTube?! You clearly don't know anything about this, so stay in your ignorance.

There are reputable scientists on YouTube. But YouTube is an awful choice of venue if you are looking for reputable scientists.

If I told you that 'Reputable scientists in the audience at a heavy metal concert, and in other places' agree with my position on some issue, the fact that some reputable scientists do go to heavy metal concerts would not give you confidence that I am depending only on the most reputable or learned people, right?

If you are looking for reputable scientists, you look in reputable journals, or reputable universities. You don't go looking in YouTube, or at concerts, or at your local fairground - despite the fact that reputable scientists are present in all of those places.

YouTube is for suckers and charlatans; It's riddled with nonsense, stupidity, and disinformation. There's some useful stuff there, but it's drowned out by the huge volume of shit.

I didn't say YouTube is the place to go to find reputable scientists. I said I found some on YouTube.

And I didn't say that you didn't - only that your choice of source Seriously lowers your credibility. Which you could recover by providing links to genuinely reputable sources, such as scientific journals, showing that your claim has merit.

 

[skepticalbip]

The phrase, "fine tuned", is a dangerous mine field. It can be taken to mean intentionally set. I think a better description of the conditions in the universe is that there are very small, isolated areas where life is possible. Scientists don't agree that the universe is fine tuned but that the universal constants as they are means that the universe will allow for stars and planets to form and so a possibility for life. Also only some scientists (primarily mathematicians, string theorists, and science philosophers) think that the idea of a multiverse makes any sense. There is no evidence for such a thing so no reason to seriously consider it other than as a whimsical idea to play with. One of the problems with popular science that is covered by the public media is that it is primarily the whimsical "what if" musings that make it to air, not the nitty gritty real science. This tends to give the general public a very skewed idea of what science and scientists do.

I don't know why anyone would think the conditions for life is a "coincidence", whatever that is supposed to mean. Science is concerned with what is and how it came to be that way. Life is. The conditions for life are what they are. Now the question of whether the universal constants could be different than they are may be interesting but those questions do no alter the fact that they are what they are.

I agree. A multiverse is not scientific, but even scientists like to speculate.

I don't know why but there is a large population of legitimate scientists that claim that there is a big coincidence that needs explaining.

There is 'a large population of legitimate scientists' who claim that there is a hell of a lot that is still unknown. I would disagree that they see a 'coincidence' involved. Science tends to focus on cause and effect, not coincidences.

 

[steve_bank]

What would a universe that's hostile to life look like?

\

Not much different than this one. Life at least as we see it can exist only in infinitesimally small pockets compared to the scale of the universe.

Get closer to the center in out galaxy and radiation increases. In our solar system there is the Goldilocks Zone roughly Earth to Mars where liquid water can exist.

 

[steve_bank]

Om the 19th century some considered Newtonian physics was the end of scince. They were qrong.

I know electromagnetics and have used the theories, but it is not satisfying. It is based on fields which is a mapping of forces on a small test unit. Fields say nothing what an electrostatic field 'is'.

The EM wave particle duality. Obviously EM propagation is a unified whole, but with the limitations of our instruments measure one way get a wave, another way a particle. We have no idea what EN propagation 'is'. Our map of exists only in terms of our arbitrary definitions.

Quantum entanglement where two particles travel in opposite directions. Change one and the other changes. To me that speaks to a deeper reality we have no way to detect with instrumentation.

There is no way to know if we know everything.

I am thinking of the book Flatland. When a 3D creature steps through Flatland they can only see a 2D image.

 

[James Brown]

About the fine-tuned universe, I heard one scientist say, "What does it mean to say that this parameter or that physical property is 'fine tuned' when the upper boundary for some of the factors is infinity?"

 

[ryan]

And I didn't say that you didn't - only that your choice of source Seriously lowers your credibility. Which you could recover by providing links to genuinely reputable sources, such as scientific journals, showing that your claim has merit.

I am not interested in hand-holding. Find it yourself.

 

[steve_bank]

Isn't fine tuning one of the creationist arguments in line with Intelligent Design? Or a variation of the watchmaker argument for ID? It all fits together so well it must have been designed and could not have just happened.


There are credentialed creationist scientists who write books and make videos without bring explicitly religious.

 

[ryan]

Isn't fine tuning one of the creationist arguments in line with Intelligent Design? Or a variation of the watchmaker argument for ID? It all fits together so well it must have been designed and could not have just happened.


There are credentialed creationist scientists who write books and make videos without bring explicitly religious.

Right now things point to a universe fine-tuned for life.

 

[skepticalbip]

Isn't fine tuning one of the creationist arguments in line with Intelligent Design? Or a variation of the watchmaker argument for ID? It all fits together so well it must have been designed and could not have just happened.


There are credentialed creationist scientists who write books and make videos without bring explicitly religious.

Right now things point to a universe fine-tuned for life.

That is a gigantic leap. As I understand it, the best that can be confidently asserted is that life can exist in some small, isolated areas of the universe given the current values for the universal constants.

 

[bilby]

And I didn't say that you didn't - only that your choice of source Seriously lowers your credibility. Which you could recover by providing links to genuinely reputable sources, such as scientific journals, showing that your claim has merit.

I am not interested in hand-holding. Find it yourself.

I am not interested in helping you to make your case. If you don't have the evidence, you don't have a case to make.

- - - Updated - - -

Isn't fine tuning one of the creationist arguments in line with Intelligent Design? Or a variation of the watchmaker argument for ID? It all fits together so well it must have been designed and could not have just happened.


There are credentialed creationist scientists who write books and make videos without bring explicitly religious.

Right now things point to a universe fine-tuned for life.

But you don't have, or won't present to us, those 'things', so we have no reason to believe your claim.

 

[DBT]

If it hasn't already been said, proposing a creator introduces something of an even greater complexity than what we have in the universe, therefore just passes the issue of 'how did this complex universe come about' up the scale of complexity. Rather than being a solution, makes the issue more complex.

 

[ryan]

I just want to understand how there is a coincidence assuming fine tuning exists in one universe. I am missing something about how they are using probabilities.

 

[steve_bank]

Isn't fine tuning one of the creationist arguments in line with Intelligent Design? Or a variation of the watchmaker argument for ID? It all fits together so well it must have been designed and could not have just happened.


There are credentialed creationist scientists who write books and make videos without bring explicitly religious.

Right now things point to a universe fine-tuned for life.

You are free to believe what you want. For me the universe just is. we have objective mathematical scince, philosopy and metaphysics, and religion that are used to try and comprehend the reality we see.

For me philosophy and religion used to describe cosmology is an imagined product of our brains.

Creationists see a creator. I see a complexity that no being could possibly design. And as I like to say whoever did the creating or fine tuning did a lousy job. The universe is filled with violent activity. Astrophysics predicts some millions of years from now the sun will run out of fuel and it will expand incinerating the Earth. Asteroid strikes that wiped out life, is that fine tuning?

As to probilities one has to be able to enumerate the possibilities to apply probability. A six sided cube has a 1/6 popanilty of any side in a toss.

There is no way to enumerate possibilities with cosmology. Probabilities become a subjective way of speaking. The attempt to derive the number of planets that are hapbital is a good example. As best as possible from available observational data a function is derived. By varying constants one can do a 'what if' analysis. Scientifically useful, it can not be proven. When someone in science says there are probably 1.2 million planets where life can exist it is an educated guess based on science speculation and observation.

As to multiverse for me that is more philosophical speculation from science. There can be no proving or conclusions that must be true.