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

[Lion IRC]

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.

The ontological enigma is not so much whether we are looking at something which suggests real fine tuning or looking at some trompe l'oiel that our pattern seeking (presuppositional) mind has mistakenly superimposed on reality.

The enigma is why we are able to discern patterns from non-patterns.

We recognise the difference between sand dunes and sand castles.

We don't see patterns in everything.

And we can easily conceive concepts such as chaos, chance, randomness, unintentional, spontaneity, etc. So it's not as if we need to dismiss fine tuning as a presuppositional pattern-seeking ontological view.

The menu of available options for types of universes has a seemingly infinite number of
non-Goldilocks, undesigned alternatives from which to choose.

But the Big Bang gave us this one.

 

[skepticalbip]

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?

You are confusing two very different things, what we know and the probability of how a handful of tiles will fall. How surprised we would be by any resulting order of how the tiles fell is irrelevant to the probability of them landing that way.

 

[ryan]

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.






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.

The point is that none of the scientists, for or against a fine-tuned universe, are pointing out the fact that the cards/universe has already been dealt.

They all seem to believe that a fine-tuned universe is improbable whether they believe in a fine-tuned universe or not.

The general public seems to agree with me, you for example, yet all the scientists I have come across in papers or interviews all believe that a fine-tuned universe for life would be improbable.

 

[ryan]

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.

I thought of that too. The string theorists love this "problem" because it evokes a multiverse. While the rest are left scratching their heads and trying to show that the universe is not fine-tuned for life.

What is so strange and unacceptable about a universe that has already come into existence after anyone existed to make the unlikely prediction.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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.

I didn't say it was "obliterated;" I said it was an irrelevant observation.

 

[ryan]

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"?

It would be a coincidence because brains have already made a connection between that sentence and the outcome of the scrabble pieces. But the pieces fgsyendiojvsjsjsnsb have not been observed by you before, at least not that you would have remembered.

I think the deeper issue is that spaces in the universe do not tend to reproduce itself because of the laws of thermodynamics and how information entropy tends to increase in disorder from more ordered states.

 

[steve_bank]

It is the watchmaker argument again. Find a watch which have never seen before and you assume humans or something else made it, it looks unnatural. Same with scrabble tiles.

I do not know the specific logical fallacy.


I flip a switch and a light comes on. I see a lightning flash and I assume somewhere somebody or some guiding intelligence flipped a switch. I hear thunder and it is Thor tossing his hammer in the heavens. Thunder must have some intelligence behind it.

There must be something in the volcano, maybe if we toss in virgin women whatever it is will be appeased. A volcano can't just be a volcano, a natural phenomena.

This idea of fine tuner is just a modern version of mythology.

If you want a myology to sooth your thoughts there is plenty around that are well developed. Hinduism. Native American traditions.

What makes a rock a rock? The sprit that lives in it, animism.

The idea of a guided creation is a lot like animism, the unversed is alive.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

Ryan has alawys sought reassurance that he, himself, is not the product of random, uncaring process. If someone or something made sure to include him in this universe, it improves his chances of being necessary.
Then, when he dies, he will either continue on in some other form, or be reborn, restored in some other place.
I'm guessing sonething prevents him from just picking an existing religion and going with t hat....

 

[ryan]

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

Ryan has alawys sought reassurance that he, himself, is not the product of random, uncaring process. If someone or something made sure to include him in this universe, it improves his chances of being necessary.
Then, when he dies, he will either continue on in some other form, or be reborn, restored in some other place.
I'm guessing sonething prevents him from just picking an existing religion and going with t hat....

You are looking way to far into it. Do you have an answer to the OP?

 

[Jokodo]

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".

I doubt it. My scrabble set has only one letter Q and one letter Y (the latter may be because its a German set and Y is rare in German, but I'm assuming the standard English one doesn't have a lot of Qs either), so your pattern is essentially impossible unless you merge several sets.

On the other hand, I'm not sure a standard set contains five Ls.

 

[Wiploc]

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.

That's because we know that the tiles could have been arranged that way by a person. We don't know that a god could have arranged the world this way.

 

[DBT]

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.

It wouldn't be a coincidence.

It would just be the way the Universe is. Like somebody who unexpectedly gets ill, cancer, heart disease or whatever, asking the question ''Why Me''

It has to be someone.

In each and every instance it is that someone who happens to ask the question.

 

[Peez]

ryan:
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.

What is the basis for this claim? Can you name 10? As I have been pointing out: claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

Forget whether or not the universe actually is fine-tuned for life; that is irrelevant to my issue.

I don't think so, but as I have explained your argument fails at every level.

Peez

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Let's reframe this in order to see it in a different light. We live because we find ourselves in a universe that allows for/produces life. It would, therefore, take an x shift in this universe's natural laws for this universe to be fine-tuned for not having life.

Right?

So, since we have life, what is the probability that an x shift in this universe's natural laws did not happen?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Let's reframe this in order to see it in a different light. We live because we find ourselves in a universe that allows for/produces life. It would, therefore, take an x shift in this universe's natural laws for this universe to be fine-tuned for not having life.

Right?

So, since we have life, what is the probability that an x shift in this universe's natural laws did not happen?

Life is just complex chemistry, not something magical or inexplicable. People toss around the word "life" like it's something different than an electron or a planet, something that inspires awe and feelings of woo. Is it really that complex or are we just confirming a lot of bias? What does it take to have an electron and a photon and all that quantum weirdness? Is that stuff any less complex than complex chemistry? We're just a bigger pile of all that complex weirdness that is contained in the existence of a single photon.

Shouldn't we also be talking about a universe fine tuned to make gravity? How about a universe fine tuned to make black holes and synchrotron radiation and magma? Isn't that stuff pretty cool too? Do we need that stuff to make life? No? Yes? Isn't the universe fine tuned to make that too? What is this universe fine tuned for exactly? Seems like it's fine tuned to make just about an infinite number of things in an infinite number of combinations.

"Life" is such a piss ant small and insignificant part of it all that focusing on it is really saying the universe is fine tuned to make stupid arguments about fine tuning.

Toilets! Yes, the universe is fine tuned to make toilets! That's it!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

ryan,

Here is my advice. There is some philosophy and subjectivity involved in probability. Yes, I am actually writing that with risk of me being taken out of context and crucified for it.

First, the probability of all past events is either 0% or 100%, we just don't know which. We can speculate and try to model the event in some space but we may have limited information. It's a step away from pseudoscience when we say things like the probability of such and such is a gazillion to 1. Here's a thought experiment. I have a penny. Now, I have flipped it. I ask you, "what is the probability that it landed heads up?" You say 50%. However, with my knowledge, I know the answer is 0%. Should I tell you, you are wrong? By the way, some pennies are biased toward heads-up, not 50%. Also, once I flipped a quarter and it landed on its short cylindrical side. How do you know I didn't use technological tricks or something in this experiment when I asked you the question? You immediately went to some kind of abstract thing and made assumptions. Anyway, as you can see, a lot of info is unknown and unquantified, and a past event happened one way or the other, or it didn't.

Second, there's such a thing as conditional probability: given A, what is the probability of B? Given that you went to a convenience store on Tuesday at 3pm, what is the probability you would have been shot at? Given the conditions of the universe are the way they are, the conditions of primordial earth, what is the probability life will occur within a second in a puddle of soup of size X? given that you just got 5 lottery balls correct, what is the probability all 6 will be correct?

Do you want to ask what is the probability you would exist? Or do you want to ask, given that the universe exists as it does, the galaxy, the solar system, the earth, and life, that intelligent life will exist? AND given that intelligent life exists, what is the probability an individual will ponder, "what is the probability I exist?" 100%? Picture a puddle. In the puddle are bacteria. A bacterium feeling special that day says, "what is the rare probability that I would exist?"

 

[Treedbear]

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.

From what I've read it has to do with the probability of various physical constants lieing within the narrow range that allows things like hydrogen and helium to form in the right proportion to form stars which can go on to form the more complex elements for life as we know it, or possibly any kind of life at all, or the possibility for any degree of complexity at all, even given many billions of years. I don't know of (and probably wouldn't trust) anyone's answers to those questions. Nevertheless I find it irrelevant to the issue of fine tuning and what it implies. Fine tuning implies that there is some preferred outcome beforehand. That's what it means to have a coincidence. It's the co-incidence of two things. When you start with nothing the only two things at issue are the end result and some particular case, such as life. Now it's easy to see why life is a particularly interesting case for us. And while it could be argued that some type of intelligent creator god may be intrigued with a universe that produced living things, the universe itself (or whatever it sprang from) would arguable remain indifferent. And besides, it seems likely (at least to me) that as soon as there is the possibility of complexity life will inevitability arise. So the question of complexity is the most basic issue. Is a universe that allows complexity to develop extremely improbable? My guess is that complexity is also inevitable as soon as you can have two or more things interacting. Because when two things interact they produce a third thing. And this interacting with either of the first two produces a forth. And so on. And eventually an equilibrium is produced between the various states with boundary regions. Before you know it you have an ecosystem of particles and forces. I might even argue that a universe that at some point in its existence doesn’t produce an environment that allows for complexity to develop would itself be extremely improbable. But that’s probably the basis for any scientific argument for FTA. The possibility of complexity vs, what? Complete randomness?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I have a question on this topic.

When someone argues or suggests that the universe is fine tuned for life are they including death as part of life? Are they really arguing that the universe is fine tuned for life and death?

Or are they simply arguing that the universe is fined tuned for biology?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I have a question on this topic.

When someone argues or suggests that the universe is fine tuned for life are they including death as part of life? Are they really arguing that the universe is fine tuned for life and death?

Or are they simply arguing that the universe is fined tuned for biology?

Biology.

 

[bilby]

I have a question on this topic.

When someone argues or suggests that the universe is fine tuned for life are they including death as part of life? Are they really arguing that the universe is fine tuned for life and death?

Or are they simply arguing that the universe is fined tuned for biology?

Biology.

Biology is just self replicating chemistry.

And chemistry is just complicated physics.

I am wondering whether any universe is possible in which there's nothing at all that can lead to self-replicating patterns that make occasional errors. Given those conditions, natural selection makes biology unavoidable - for a sufficiently broad definition of biology.