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

[PyramidHead]

This seems to mean that everything is a wild coincidence. For my lamp to be where it is a large number of things had to go exactly a certain way. It would seem like almost everything is a coincidence.

Not really. Your lamp is where it is because of a lot of factors, but if it wasn't there it would be somewhere not too different, or it would be another lamp, and for your purposes that wouldn't make a difference because any lamp is fine as long as it works and looks nice. In other words, the particularity of that lamp being right there isn't crucially important in any way; if it were, for instance if the lamp happened to belong to a royal prince whose family fortune ended up paying for your surgery, then that would be a big coincidence. The difference between the lamp and your being born is that from your perspective, any lamp is pretty much equivalent if it serves its function, but you can't say the same thing about all the other potential people who could have existed in your place. Other people might, but for you it's of life-and-death importance that none of those people were born instead.

For your example, there must be something or someone in the past to start with information (like the likelyhood of my future existence) and then there needs to be a match in the future using certain parameters.

But there are lots of imaginary examples where that obviously wouldn't be the case, but the situation would still be improbable from the perspective of the person it happens to. Take a guy who has been struck by lightning like seven separate times. Nobody designated him as special or calculated ahead of time what the odds were. And when you think about it, if enough time passes and there are enough people, once in a great while somebody is going to get struck by lightning that many times in their life. So from the third-person perspective where nobody is singled out as special, it's probably very likely to happen to somebody at some point. But from the first-person perspective of the one being struck, it would indeed be very improbable for that to happen to him, wouldn't it?

You might notice that this reasoning is no different from the other examples like the lottery, but unlike those it doesn't involve any "match" between a predetermined bit of information and a random occurrence.

After the die has been rolled and observed the probability becomes one, not 1/6.

I'm not talking about the probability that it has already happened, I'm talking about judging between explanations based on how probable or improbable they make your current observation.

 

[Peez]

Claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. You have provided no evidence that the universe is 'fine tuned for life', or that "reputable" scientists think so, or that the universe as it is is 'unlikely', or that there are not infinite universes anyhow. In short, all you have is your own expression of surprise that what exists actually exists.

Peez

I am not interested in explaining where cosmology is at. It would be like asking a question that includes e=mc^2 as part of the question. If someone doesn't believe that e=mc^2, I do not want to go over it.

You have made a number of assertions, explicit and implied, without providing and reason to accept that they are true. Once again: claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

Peez

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Plus, the entire argument is one from incredulity. Essentially, it's, "This is so improbable, it must be volitional." That's simply false. That something may be improbable is utterly irrelevant, particularly after the fact.

So even if one grants the improbability of it occurring, it is still a completely meaningless observation.

 

[Wiploc]

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

I think that question is confused. The claim is that it would be improbable for this universe to have happened by accident, and that therefore it must have happened on purpose. The fine-tuned universe isn't supposed to be improbable; it is supposed to be probable by contrast.

The argument works equally well when applied to the Mississippi River: What are the odds against the Mississippi river winding up exactly where it is? Over billions of years, every bit of erosion had to work out just so, and every little rain squall had to be timed just right. Otherwise, some tiny aspect of the river might have been different. That rock might have been over there, this sand bar might have been shorter, that tributary might have intersected a foot farther downstream.

Therefore, since this exact location of the river is almost impossibly unlikely, we must conclude that somebody put the river where it is.

I am having a problem wrapping my head around why our universe is so improbable.

For simplicity, if there were, say, a billion possible universes that could have existed and each one is different in some way, then of course the one universe that appears had the one in a billion chance of existing.

One-in-a-billion chances happen all the time. I used to have a deck of cards that was far worse than that. Every time I shuffled, the deck wound up in an order so unlikely that the odds if getting that order were only 1 in 10 to the 68th power.

That deck was obviously broken. I had to take it back for a refund.

I believe that I am wrong because after hours or research, I find my argument aligning with the general public while the scientists all seem to be in agreement and are publicly stating that this universe is too unlikely to exist. The odds are something like 1 in 10^125 or something wild like that.

That's obviously a made up number.

In the first place, we don't know that electrons can have a different amount of charge, or that gravity can have a different strength, etcetera. So the odds of getting a universe like ours may be 1 out of 1.

But, suppose those values could have been different. Then the strength gravity could have been anywhere from positive infinity to negative infinity, and whatever the short stretch of finite values can support life as we know it, the odds of randomly selecting something within that finite stretch are one in infinity.

1 in infinity, not 1 in 10 to the 125. And that's before we look at even a second of the many factors.

 

[steve_bank]

Intelligent Design was crafted by Christians as a way to get creationism into public school education.

One of the problems with ID and similar views is there is no explanation of where the designer or guiding spirit came from. You are then back to deities and spirits with imagined features and powers.

If we were designed by physical creatures then where did they come from.

Foe me the state of the universe is the result of a chain of causal events stretching back in time.?

cOINCIDENCE IS NOT THE BEST WORD. IN AN INFINITE UVERSE TNE STAE AT ANY GIVEN TIME IS THE RESULT OF A CHIN OF CAUSAL EVENTS STRETCHING BACK IN TYIME.

 

[Peez]

True, it fails at every level.

It is not at all clear that the universe (at least 99.99999% of which is inhospitable for life as we know it) is 'fined tuned' for life.

Even if it was, there is no indication that this is improbable.

Even if it was, such improbability does not support an argument that it was somehow directed.

Even if it was, we would still be left with the 'fine tuned', improbable, directed source of the universe.

Peez

 

[ryan]

It is improbable Ryan will ever find his way out of his eternal quest for answers to unanswerable questions. As the saying goes it is the journey that counts.

Why am I here?
Is my future presdermuined or is their a choice?
If I make a choice was the choice already predetermined?
How did the universe began and will it end?
Will the Los Angeles Lakers win annoyer championship in my lifetime?

These and other mysteries that have plagued human thought since the beginning.

The scientists practically all agree that if the universe were fine-tuned for life in a single universe, then there would be too much of a coincidence. Forget whether or not the universe actually is fine-tuned for life; that is irrelevant to my issue. After researching maybe 100 different discussions about this, not one scientist has made my argument in the OP, so I know I am wrong. And it seems that I am wrong in how I am interpreting the probabilities of a fine-tuned universe that makes it improbable.

 

[ryan]

We are here by the very token that we live in a Universe that allows life to evolve. Otherwise we would not be here to talk about it. How this Universe came to be the way it is, probably determined in the first microseconds of the BB, is simply not understood.

I agree, but for some reason there is supposedly too much of a coincidence if the universe were fine-tuned for life. I really want to understand how they are interpreting the probabilities that makes this universe more improbable than any other.

 

[ryan]

After the die has been rolled and observed the probability becomes one, not 1/6.

Ya, but the same would be true with universes. If, as you say in the OP, there is a multiverse and the odds of having a universe which is able to support life within it is something like 1/10^125, if you have 10^34502384234234234535342 universes within that multiverse, then you're going to have a whole lot of universes which are able to support life and after any of them start existing, the probability of it being able to support life is then one.

Yes, that's what I said in the OP. But for some reason if there were no multiverse, then the scientists claim that a fine-tuned universe - assuming it is fine-tuned for life - in a single universe would be too improbable. I don't understand why. We shouldn't be surprised after the fact.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

We are here by the very token that we live in a Universe that allows life to evolve. Otherwise we would not be here to talk about it. How this Universe came to be the way it is, probably determined in the first microseconds of the BB, is simply not understood.

I agree, but for some reason there is supposedly too much of a coincidence if the universe were fine-tuned for life.

Once again, it's not. And "too much of a coincidence" is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. Or, rather, the basis for one. There is no standard for "coincidence" for there to be too much or too little. It's a meaningless observation.

 

[skepticalbip]

The question seems to be one that is seeking to confirm some belief rather than an understanding.

The universe is exactly what it is. It can be nothing else and still be what it is - it would be something else which the same question could be asked about. Assuming it is 'fine tuned' assumes a conscious tuner with a specific desired outcome. It that what you are looking for?

Science is involved with attempting to understand what is, not what would be if the universe wasn't what it is.

 

[ryan]

Not really. Your lamp is where it is because of a lot of factors, but if it wasn't there it would be somewhere not too different, or it would be another lamp, and for your purposes that wouldn't make a difference because any lamp is fine as long as it works and looks nice. In other words, the particularity of that lamp being right there isn't crucially important in any way; if it were, for instance if the lamp happened to belong to a royal prince whose family fortune ended up paying for your surgery, then that would be a big coincidence. The difference between the lamp and your being born is that from your perspective, any lamp is pretty much equivalent if it serves its function, but you can't say the same thing about all the other potential people who could have existed in your place. Other people might, but for you it's of life-and-death importance that none of those people were born instead.


But there are lots of imaginary examples where that obviously wouldn't be the case, but the situation would still be improbable from the perspective of the person it happens to. Take a guy who has been struck by lightning like seven separate times. Nobody designated him as special or calculated ahead of time what the odds were. And when you think about it, if enough time passes and there are enough people, once in a great while somebody is going to get struck by lightning that many times in their life. So from the third-person perspective where nobody is singled out as special, it's probably very likely to happen to somebody at some point. But from the first-person perspective of the one being struck, it would indeed be very improbable for that to happen to him, wouldn't it?

You might notice that this reasoning is no different from the other examples like the lottery, but unlike those it doesn't involve any "match" between a predetermined bit of information and a random occurrence.

After the die has been rolled and observed the probability becomes one, not 1/6.

I'm not talking about the probability that it has already happened, I'm talking about judging between explanations based on how probable or improbable they make your current observation.

But I am talking about something that already happened. We are now looking at a probability of 1 that this universe exists. We are looking back in time and seeing something play out naturally with other possible universes that also could have existed.

The die has already been rolled.

 

[PyramidHead]

But I am talking about something that already happened. We are now looking at a probability of 1 that this universe exists. We are looking back in time and seeing something play out naturally with other possible universes that also could have existed.

The die has already been rolled.

Well, in that case, is anything improbable? If I told you that someone threw a box of Scrabble pieces on the ground and they happened to fall in the right pattern to spell All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, would you reply "ho hum, that took place in the past, therefore there is nothing improbable about it"?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

But I am talking about something that already happened. We are now looking at a probability of 1 that this universe exists. We are looking back in time and seeing something play out naturally with other possible universes that also could have existed.

The die has already been rolled.

Well, in that case, is anything improbable? If I told you that someone threw a box of Scrabble pieces on the ground and they happened to fall in the right pattern to spell All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, would you reply "ho hum, that took place in the past, therefore there is nothing improbable about it"?

Conversely, if they did in fact fall that way, would pointing out how improbable it may be have any relevance?

 

[skepticalbip]

But I am talking about something that already happened. We are now looking at a probability of 1 that this universe exists. We are looking back in time and seeing something play out naturally with other possible universes that also could have existed.

The die has already been rolled.

Well, in that case, is anything improbable? If I told you that someone threw a box of Scrabble pieces on the ground and they happened to fall in the right pattern to spell All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, would you reply "ho hum, that took place in the past, therefore there is nothing improbable about it"?

Such a result would be just as improbable as if the tiles fell to spell out "qui kahi fdi yh oima cnvu ugys r qeui giw".

 

[PyramidHead]

But I am talking about something that already happened. We are now looking at a probability of 1 that this universe exists. We are looking back in time and seeing something play out naturally with other possible universes that also could have existed.

The die has already been rolled.

Well, in that case, is anything improbable? If I told you that someone threw a box of Scrabble pieces on the ground and they happened to fall in the right pattern to spell All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, would you reply "ho hum, that took place in the past, therefore there is nothing improbable about it"?

Conversely, if they did in fact fall that way, would pointing out how improbable it may be have any relevance?

It would in the following scenario: you enter the room to see the words spelled out in Scrabble tiles on the floor. You are presented with two hypotheses, one being that somebody dropped them and they just accidentally fell that way, the other that someone intentionally spelled the words. Even though the event is in the past and thus has a probability 1 of having happened, you can still infer that the hypothesis saying the tiles fell that way accidentally is highly unlikely to be true.

 

[PyramidHead]

But I am talking about something that already happened. We are now looking at a probability of 1 that this universe exists. We are looking back in time and seeing something play out naturally with other possible universes that also could have existed.

The die has already been rolled.

Well, in that case, is anything improbable? If I told you that someone threw a box of Scrabble pieces on the ground and they happened to fall in the right pattern to spell All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, would you reply "ho hum, that took place in the past, therefore there is nothing improbable about it"?

Such a result would be just as improbable as if the tiles fell to spell out "qui kahi fdi yh oima cnvu ugys r qeui giw".

Suppose you didn't know how the letters got that way.

If you had to place a bet of a billion dollars upon the hypothesis that the Scrabble tiles were randomly dropped in a way to accidentally spell All work and no play... and the competing bet was that someone purposefully arranged them that way, where would you place your money? How about if the letters didn't spell All work... but instead spelled qui kahi fdi... would your bet be just as confident, moreso, or less, and why?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Conversely, if they did in fact fall that way, would pointing out how improbable it may be have any relevance?

It would in the following scenario: you enter the room to see the words spelled out in Scrabble tiles on the floor. You are presented with two hypotheses, one being that somebody dropped them and they just accidentally fell that way, the other that someone intentionally spelled the words. Even though the event is in the past and thus has a probability 1 of having happened, you can still infer that the hypothesis saying the tiles fell that way accidentally is highly unlikely to be true.

Which would likewise be an irrelevant observation to make.

 

[PyramidHead]

After something has occurred, we use probability judgments about competing hypotheses to select which hypothesis is most likely to be true. This proves that probability is not obliterated just because something happened in the past.

For example, suppose you wanted to know if a deck of cards in your possession was a normal deck or if it only contained face cards. You draw seven cards at random, and they are all face cards (assume none are duplicates). If you're being honest, this makes it much more likely that the deck contains only face cards, because that would have made your draw much more probable than if it were a normal deck. As more face cards are randomly drawn in succession, it becomes more and more probable that the deck contains only face cards.

Yet, drawing seven face cards is no more improbable than drawing any random series of cards. It is, of course, possible that you happened to randomly draw only the face cards contained in the normal deck. But over many iterations, you would be correct in rejecting that hypothesis more often than not, given your evidence of drawing seven face cards in a row.

In the same way, an event has already taken place: you were born. That's in the past, probability 1. But what hypothesis accounts for it? One hypothesis says your birth depended upon a chance occurrence many orders of magnitude less likely than drawing seven face cards at random from a normal deck of cards. The other hypothesis says that, in effect, all of the cards are face cards (any conscious being is you). By the same reasoning as before, you should reject the hypothesis about your existence that makes it dependent on something very improbable.

 

[steve_bank]

It is improbable Ryan will ever find his way out of his eternal quest for answers to unanswerable questions. As the saying goes it is the journey that counts.

Why am I here?
Is my future presdermuined or is their a choice?
If I make a choice was the choice already predetermined?
How did the universe began and will it end?
Will the Los Angeles Lakers win annoyer championship in my lifetime?

These and other mysteries that have plagued human thought since the beginning.

The scientists practically all agree that if the universe were fine-tuned for life in a single universe, then there would be too much of a coincidence. Forget whether or not the universe actually is fine-tuned for life; that is irrelevant to my issue. After researching maybe 100 different discussions about this, not one scientist has made my argument in the OP, so I know I am wrong. And it seems that I am wrong in how I am interpreting the probabilities of a fine-tuned universe that makes it improbable.

There is objective testable science and there is speculation and philosophu based on science.

'virtually every scientists says' means absolutely nothing. One can construct elaborate mathematical cosmologies that are consistent logically but have no reflection in reality. I can mathematical create and simulate electric circuits which will occilate forever, but can never be built.


Unless you want to delve into the silly argument od wheter we exist or what uis reality, then the onservable fact t is we exist. That is all we know for sure. We know for certain wat we can observe.

The universe exists. In the cosmology book I read the author used universe for what we observe and deduce, and Universe for all that does exist.

There can not be multiple Universes, only one Universe.

The ancient philosophies had supernatural influences of one kind or another.

There is no way to prove any kind of influence.

What we call constants can be misleading. They describe relations as observed. Only the supernaturalists and theists see anything in that. It is the way things are. In trillions of years the unversed may be something we can not imagine.

In cosmic time atoms may be a short lived phenomena.