1. Comment #81386 by menoone on October 24, 2007 at 4:38 pm

If something cannot come from nothing, then it cannot come from nothing even if God waves his magic wand to do so.But then why is there a god and not no god? If god exists then she he or it is a "something" and thus very much a part of the very same question of the ultimate origin of existence.

If they say that god is eternally uncreated then why can't any of the other somethings be eternally uncreated?

All of this of course leaves aside the question of how this god could have created a universe or life in any case. What did this being do exactly? This is especially perplexing given the tendency of the theist to define god as "immaterial" rather than material; a being of "spirit" rather than of matter and energy. How an immaterial being could even interact with a material universe, to say nothing of creating one from complete nothingness, is entirely incomprehensible to me.

I dont know why there is something rather than nothing, and neither do theists. When asked any of the questions posed above, "I dont know" is also a popular answer among theists. They would have done better to have admitted that at the ourset, and not bent their brains in knots only to fall back in a heap at the same spot.

Other Comments by menoone

2. Comment #81393 by Eamonn Shute on October 24, 2007 at 4:47 pm

If the "something" is matter, then we must remember that matter is just one of several forms of energy (E=mc2). Another form is gravitational energy, which is negative. This means that the universe can have a total energy of zero, so there is no need to explain where it all came from!

Other Comments by Eamonn Shute

3. Comment #81454 by maton100 on October 24, 2007 at 6:57 pm

Carrot Top was the first cause, and you can't prove that he wasn't.

Other Comments by maton100

4. Comment #81496 by prettygoodformonkeys on October 24, 2007 at 8:51 pm

The fundamental constants are not fine-tuned, you are just witnessing the anthropic principle, which leads to: "Because I am here, the Creator wants me to be here. Because I am here now, and all of time is behind me, then I am the the pinnacle, the ultimate reason for the universe to have existed: it was all to get me, here, now. And I stand here as proof of that."

It is the flip side of the same psychosis: "It is all empty, so I must have been created to be tortured by its pointlessness." We should be able to agree that both are equally useless descriptors, or the original argument must be dropped.

Having said that, it is much more probable, in the view of physics, that there would be something rather than nothing. To assume otherwise is simply an argument from incredulity: "It's amazing that we're here at all, therefore GOD!"

The fundamental constants are not all that fine-tuned; it's the difference (for instance) between 10 to the negative power of 35, and 10 to the negative power of 36; it is an order of magnitude, but the difference of one small integer is easily exploited by the credulous.

Also, there are many different probable universes (to use the spring-board of the presented argument of fine-tuned universes), and the majority of them work out to be something rather than nothing (refer here to the work of Hawkings and Victor Stenger, and don't try to be a physicist yourself - another trap).

And, while you're at it, explain that probability is a science. They hate that.


Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

5. Comment #81532 by prettygoodformonkeys on October 24, 2007 at 9:49 pm

Another argument from design is the watch found on the beach, that must have had a designer. A parallel is the tornado going through a junkyard and assembling a 747.

What is missed (by us, usually) is that watches (and 747 parts) evolved over thousands of years of random tinkering with levers, springs, gears, metallurgy, and there never at any one point is an actual designer.

The watch on the beach is actually one of the best arguments for evolution, and yet is frequently lost to the ID proponents because of the acceptance of a false premise in the beginning.

Nothing is designed. If you sit down to design something, you are borrowing from all the evolution that has gone before you.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

6. Comment #81538 by BAEOZ on October 24, 2007 at 10:12 pm

A good comeback, from Atheist Universe is to say to a theist "Have you ever noticed that nearly all major cities have a river or permanent water supply? It's almost like they were put there for the cities." This is no different to when a theist says the universe is finely tuned so that we exist.
It's looking at the problem from the wrong direction. There are cities near permanent water supplies because the water supplies existed and then came the cities. Human settlements evolved where they could and thus are intimately tied to the places where settlements could flourish. We live in a universe which seems fine tuned because we evolved within the confines of such a universe. We have been finely tuned to it be blind evolution. We are intimately tied to and shaped by the universe, not it for us.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

7. Comment #81634 by Conrad on October 25, 2007 at 1:39 am

Simply put, Darwin has dismantled the idea of "design" through naural selection quite clrearly.

More intersetngly are the fundanental constants. We know little about them. In the end it is just as likely that they could be no other way than how we see them.

First cause leads to infinite regress. What caused the first cause? If something must be uncaused, the universe is just as likely (or more) than anything else.

As for something rather than nothing, physicist Victor Stienger (and nobel laureate Frank Wilczek) answers that "something" is the natural order of things. In fact the greatest proof one could give of god is a universe with nothing in it. The transition from simplicity to complexity is a natural one (think snow flakes). "Nothing" being the simplest state there could be, we cannot expect it to be very stable. Nothing is unstable; Thus: something.

Other Comments by Conrad

8. Comment #81652 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 2:13 am

The fundamental constants seem to be very fine-tuned. For virtually all values of these constants the universe either explodes so fast that nothing can form or collapses instantly after formation into a black hole.

However, it is very likely that this is not the only universe, as multiverse models of reality are far simpler. So, if universes exist for all values of the fundamental constants, it is no surprise that one exists with the values that allows complex life.

Other Comments by steve99

9. Comment #81696 by LeeC on October 25, 2007 at 3:50 am

Why is the universe so poorly design from the point of view of man? (The list is HUGE)

OK - we can live nicely here on Earth for a period of time - but if Earth was like Mars or Venus we would not be here asking the questions (the anthropic principle).

That's it... "rare Earth" – but not designed Earth.

Look outside Earth and you see a universe either out to kill us or too far away to be of any interest apart from to Astrophysicist.

The sun is trying it's best to kill us, and will in time. This is not good design, so again... where is the evidence of good design?

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

10. Comment #81720 by Conjuror on October 25, 2007 at 5:07 am

It is ridiculous to say God existed eternally before the beginning of the universe, because there was no time before the beginning of the universe. And even if God did exist eternally what CAUSED it/he/she to create the universe?

Other Comments by Conjuror

11. Comment #81723 by JerryD385 on October 25, 2007 at 5:18 am

Like in comment 6, the "fine tuning" argument can be likened to Pangloss in Voltaire's Candidate. You dont have to mention the character, just the ideas.

"Oh, the universe is fine tuned to support life? I suppose you think our legs are fine tuned to fit in our pants, or our nose is fine tuned to support our glasses, or our hands fine tuned for gloves."

Life adapts to the conditions of the universe, NOT the other way around.

*edit* I don't mean to bring up Gould and Lewitons' argument that adaptionist stances are "Panglossian", which I think misinterprets Voltaire's intent.

Other Comments by JerryD385

12. Comment #81724 by BillySands on October 25, 2007 at 5:21 am

Whether a god is there or not, the theists point is one of personal ignorance, so it is not an argument that god exists.

Other Comments by BillySands

13. Comment #81728 by phasmagigas on October 25, 2007 at 5:27 am

we are biased towards 'something' because we are and surrounded by the 'something', maybe we should ask the question 'why is there nothing' theres no reason to suppose that there should be something rather than nothing.

If there was nothing there would be no god, if there is something then you dont need a god.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

14. Comment #81780 by JoeK on October 25, 2007 at 7:01 am

The first too are prone to argument from lack of a counter example (or the "first show that things _could_ be otherwise" argument):

Why is there something rather than nothing?

You show me all the "nothing" universes out there that make this universe a special case that needs explaining, and then I'll answer that question. Until you can do that then what reason do you have to suspect that "nothing" is the natural state of things?

What about the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of the universe (The "Goldie Locks" proposition)?

Show me all the universes with badly tuned constants and then I'll explain why this one is so well tuned. Until you do that then what reason do you have to suspect that the fundamental constants of the universe are independent, never mind "finely tuned".

First Cause?

The universe has limits in time and space. This does not imply that something exists outside those limits.

Actually this is an easy one to explain, but a really tricky one to explain simply. I'll think about it...

Other Comments by JoeK

15. Comment #81782 by eggplantbren on October 25, 2007 at 7:08 am

At uni recently there was a debate between one of our astrophysics professors and an anglican minister on the existence of god. I wrote up a review for the science society newsletter, which ended up mostly being a critique of the minister's nonsense on universe origins. You can find the review here, I hope it is helpful.

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~brewer/debate.html

Other Comments by eggplantbren

16. Comment #81814 by JFHalsey on October 25, 2007 at 8:26 am

I'm not very good at making debate points, but I know that in the whole infinite regress thing, when you point out to a fundamentalist that 'God' faces the same problem of a First Cause as a universe without 'God', they will often say silly things over and over like, "Well, He's just God. He doesn't have to have a First Cause!" or "He created Himself" or "His beginning just goes beyond our human understanding."

I think it is helpful at this point to stop talking about First Causes and shift the conversation then to their claim that this God they're describing is the God that just happens to be described in their Holy Texts, and no one else's.

Other Comments by JFHalsey

17. Comment #81817 by BMMcArdle on October 25, 2007 at 8:30 am

Causal:
Everything must have a cause. It is impossible to continue backwards to infinity with causes, therefore there must have been a first cause which was not conditioned by any other cause. That cause must be God.
Objections: If you allow one thing to exist without cause, you contradict your own premise. And if you do, there is no reason why the universe should not be the one thing that exists or originates without cause.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/GODEXIST.html

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

18. Comment #81819 by irate_atheist on October 25, 2007 at 8:35 am

Stock reply -

"What, or who, made your God?"

Other Comments by irate_atheist

19. Comment #81820 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 8:35 am

The First Cause argument is out of date. Physics has changed our understanding of the universe beyond anything we could have imagined. Time is flexible, and causality is not guaranteed. The idea of a 'start time' of the universe may make no more sense than an idea of going North at the North Pole.

Other Comments by steve99

20. Comment #81883 by Bonzai on October 25, 2007 at 10:45 am

I honestly don't think multiverse is such a good rebuttal. It is speculative and there is not really a shred of proof to it. ,Steve said that it is "simple", but that is very subjective (I see no obvious justification to apply probability theory that we develop in this universe across an ensemble of "universes" which are not causally connected.)

I think invoking "multiverse" as if it is an established fact is scientifically somewhat dishonest. Most people on this site know well enough to add a disclaimer when pressed, but I have seen "multiverse" being offered up as the answer to fine tuning without further comment in some shorter posts.

My answer, even though it may not win debating points, would be we really don't know. IMO this is the only honest way to put it.

We don't really know even if it makes sense to talk about "fine tuning". It is possible that the values of these constants are rigidly fixed by theory,--hence no "tuning" is possible,--even though at the moment we are still working on it.

After admission of ignorance I will go on to argue that "design" proponents don't know any better either, only that they don't even know they don't know because they don't understand what "knowing" means. I suggest a more Socratic way of debating fine tuning.

"Design" is really cheating because without knowing any property of the designer, the method it uses in setting these constants etc we are not really getting any better understanding to why these constants have the values that they do. So religion doesn't have an answer either but it only pretends that it does.It is intellectually lazy as well as irresponsible.

This is a marked contrast between science and religion. Science promises no absolute truth, but it gives us approximations that are "good enough" and a robust method to improve on them; it doesn't claim to know all the answers but it delivers enough of them. Religion claims to have all the answers but it delivers nothing; it promises absolute truth but all its answers are either non answers or have been demonstrated to be false, worse, it doesn't have any mechanism to correct its answers, they give "answers" in such a way that they don't admit further probing, elaboration on details and verifications. Compare that with science, if your prediction is wrong by several decimal places in some experiments the whole elaborate theory may have to be shot down, in addition, a scientific theory is tightly constrained by the requirement of internal consistency within the discipline.

Science is often "wrong" exactly because it has to live up to an extremely high standard; I like to see any "creator" type theory about the origin of the universe be subjected to the same rigorous examinations and reexaminations and see how well it fares. Religion is always 'right" because it has no standard.

Other Comments by Bonzai

21. Comment #81885 by Bonzai on October 25, 2007 at 10:54 am

JerryD385,

Life adapts to the conditions of the universe, NOT the other way around.

Well I think the point is why the universe permits life to form in the first place. If the laws of physics forbid the formation of certain elements there wouldn't be any life around to "adapt".

Other Comments by Bonzai

22. Comment #81890 by miaka on October 25, 2007 at 11:12 am

I'd prefer people stayed away from the "multiverse" explanation, because my gut feeling is that a non-cosmologist is likely to misinterpret what physicists are actually doing, and come off sounding silly.

My response to the fine-tuning argument is much simpler, and it's an answer every scientist can appreciate. The response is this: "wow, what an interesting topic for research."

In some sense, the fine-tuning argument is another God of the gaps argument, because it discourages further investigation into why the fundamental constants of nature take on their particular values. Physicists understand, in a deep sense, all sorts of phenomena that we probably thought were axiomatic. For example, physicists understand why the force between two charges varies as 1/r^2 (as opposed to 1/r^a for some other power a). The explanation comes from quantum field theory. Given that, do we not have reason to hope that we'll one day understand where the fundamental constants of nature come from? To me, the observation that their values are so important for the universe to behave the way it does suggests that there might be some underlying deep physical explanation that we should look for. In other words, it should inspire us to learn more physics, not theology.

Other Comments by miaka

23. Comment #81908 by Vinelectric on October 25, 2007 at 11:33 am

Something rather than nothing:

The presmuption is that nothingness is the default position. This comes not from observation but from claims made by religious holy books.

Stegner writes well on the topic. What do you mean by "Nothing"? Any description to nothingness makes it "something". However if nothing is meant to describe an absolute vaccum (something not observed in the universe) then Stegner explains how such a vaccum would be too unstable not to break its own symmetry and disintegrate into some form of energy.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

24. Comment #81912 by Vinelectric on October 25, 2007 at 11:35 am

Fine tuning:

Unless it could be demonstrated that the universal constants can be varied in any way then the suggestion that they can is pure metaphysics.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

25. Comment #81915 by Vinelectric on October 25, 2007 at 11:41 am

Argument from design

Compares apples with oranges.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

26. Comment #81923 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 12:00 pm

Unless it could be demonstrated that the universal constants can be varied in any way then the suggestion that they can is pure metaphysics.

No, that doesn't work, as it pre-supposes the answer to what is currently an open and hotly debated scientific question - why the constants have their current values. According to many models of physical reality, the constants DO vary.

Other Comments by steve99

27. Comment #81926 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 12:05 pm

I honestly don't think multiverse is such a good rebuttal. It is speculative and there is not really a shred of proof to it. ,Steve said that it is "simple", but that is very subjective (I see no obvious justification to apply probability theory that we develop in this universe across an ensemble of "universes" which are not causally connected.)

No, I really don't think isn't subjective. As I understand the physics, multiverses really are simpler, as they require fewer parameters to describe them.

I think invoking "multiverse" as if it is an established fact is scientifically somewhat dishonest. Most people on this site know well enough to add a disclaimer when pressed, but I have seen "multiverse" being offered up as the answer to fine tuning without further comment in some shorter posts.

Fair point, but I don't think anyone is doing that. All it shows is how the 'fine tuning' argument could be explained without invoking a designer.

Other Comments by steve99

28. Comment #81930 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Hmm... I am getting a bit concerned about people thinking it is easy to dismiss what many of the best physicists consider to be a real problem (fine tuning). If we don't accept that it IS a problem, then we could end up putting people off when they read articles and books by prominent physicists, like Sir Martin Rees, who think it is.


Other Comments by steve99

29. Comment #81933 by Quine on October 25, 2007 at 12:17 pm

JerryD385 mentioned legs fitting pants, but isn't it even more amazing that almost everyone's legs are just the right length to reach the floor when standing? Now, that is what I call fine tuning!





Other Comments by Quine

30. Comment #81948 by Quine on October 25, 2007 at 12:42 pm

steve99,

The religious side has hijacked the phrase "fine tuning" from the world of Physics. Yes, there is real, and very interesting, work going on to understand the basic parameters of the Universe. However, the religious use the phrase as shorthand for "this Universe must have been designed by a Creator because these parameters could not be here by chance." It is a flavor of the "God of Gaps" and it is for that we need a quick snappy retort.


EDIT: Yes, the retort should not be about a multiverse or anything else they are not going to get. (Or we will have to eat later.)




Other Comments by Quine

31. Comment #81969 by Axulus on October 25, 2007 at 1:07 pm

I like Douglas Adam's rebuttal to the form of the argument that "if any constant were different in the universe, life/planets/stars etc. would not have formed."

IIRC, the rebuttal went something like this:

This is like a puddle that has formed in a pothole thinking to itself: "This pothole is just the perfect size/shape for me, if this pothole were only slightly different, I would never exist. This pothole was clearly formed by an intelligent designer since its parameters are perfect for me."

Other Comments by Axulus

32. Comment #81987 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 1:44 pm

This is like a puddle that has formed in a pothole thinking to itself: "This pothole is just the perfect size/shape for me, if this pothole were only slightly different, I would never exist. This pothole was clearly formed by an intelligent designer since its parameters are perfect for me."

I hate to have to say this, but Douglas Adams was wrong. The problem can't be solved in this way. The fine tuning has to be very fine even to get any kind of structure or stability at all in the universe - to use Adams' metaphor, the puddle is entitled to wonder why there are even atoms to form the pothole.

We are just going to have to face the fact that the 'fine tuning' problem is as yet something unsolved, rather like the question of how the first living organisms arose. It may be answered by science later.

No disrepect to the memory of a wonderful author, but I'll take the view of Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, over that of Adams in this area!

Other Comments by steve99

33. Comment #81998 by JerryD385 on October 25, 2007 at 2:09 pm

Bonzai,

Well I think the point is why the universe permits life to form in the first place.

From our current understanding of how life formed, it was replication that was 'permitted'. Does this replication actually require nucleic and amino
acids, or were these just the substances that happened to stumble upon replication first (if they really were first)

It is assumed that life (not as we know it, but complex self sustaining replicators) needs certain conditions (H2O, Goldilocks zone, atoms, etc etc.). Yet Darwinian natural selection is a substrate neutral algorithm. Maybe I'm just ignorant on the cutting edge physics, but do we really know what substrate would form if any of these initial conditions (fine tunings of the strong force and such) were changed in any degree,or do we only know that they will not form the universe as we know it? If not atoms, then what?

I say that our assumptions of 'what could be' are failures of imagination as well as the relative infancy of quantum mechanics. Conway's game of life (look it up, great fun to be had) shows us that even when one knows the initial conditions and rules, surprising patterns will emerge. I have a hunch that if or when physicists can model different 'initial conditions' and play Yahweh the knob-twiddler, some unexpected things will emerge.

Again, if I am ignorant to this and these computer models have already been done, please tell me. I just wanna learn!

Other Comments by JerryD385

34. Comment #82006 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Maybe I'm just ignorant on the cutting edge physics, but do we really know what substrate would form if any of these initial conditions (fine tunings of the strong force and such) were changed in any degree,or do we only know that they will not form the universe as we know it? If not atoms, then what?

The problem is far worse than talking about different types of substrate. If the cosmological constant was not very fine-tuned indeed, the early universe would undergo phenomenal accelerated expansion that would prevent any structure at all from forming.

Other Comments by steve99

35. Comment #82012 by Vinelectric on October 25, 2007 at 2:27 pm

According to many models of physical reality, the constants DO vary.

Good, so it is incorrect to talk about 'constants' to begin with if they do (?can) vary. Did I read you correctly?

Other Comments by Vinelectric

36. Comment #82035 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Good, so it is incorrect to talk about 'constants' to begin with if they do (?can) vary. Did I read you correctly?

Well, they (probably) don't vary within a universe. So it sort of makes some sense to call them 'constants'.

Other Comments by steve99

37. Comment #82041 by Quine on October 25, 2007 at 3:25 pm

It is not about the physics. It is about a fallback position from Paley's Watch. In the past (and still for ID), life was so complex people thought it had to be designed by an intelligent force. Now, thanks to the fossil record, we can see how life builds complexity without intervention. So, they have fallen back to where we do not have a fossil record, and never will: parameters of this Universe. Yes, we have the background IR (EDIT: more specifically, microwave) as a fossil of the Big Bang, but from inside the Universe we cannot go farther except by inference. We cannot know the Universe of Universes.

So back to "fine tuning" as a red herring: what about your personal "fine tuning"? Let us look at your last 1000 male ancestors (could as well be 1 million etc.) and number each sperm cell ejaculated for each conception. At a low number of 10,000,000 choices for each sperm cell that makes 7 decimal digits per ancestor giving a "fine tuned" number for you that is 7000 digits long. Suppose you could not look around and see other people, and know how this came about? Yes, you might think your spectacular "fine tuning" meant something very special.

Get over it.




Other Comments by Quine

38. Comment #82053 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 3:39 pm

It is not about the physics. It is about a fallback position from Paley's Watch. In the past (and still for ID), life was so complex people thought it had to be designed by an intelligent force. Now, thanks to the fossil record, we can see how life builds complexity without intervention. So, they have fallen back to where we do not have a fossil record, and never will: parameters of this Universe. Yes, we have the background IR as a fossil of the Big Bang, but from inside the Universe we cannot go farther except by inference. We cannot know the Universe of Universes.

Yes, we can. Or at least many physicists are trying to, with ideas like the String Theory Landscape and inflationary multiverses.

Saying it is not about the physics when talking about fine tuning is rather like saying it is not about the biology when talking about evolution.

Get over it.

The Paley's Watch argument is appropriate. Complex life did look just about impossible without a designer before Darwin and Huxley came along. Fine tuning is probably going to look the like a trivial issue when the appropriate mechanism has been found - perhaps some future version of String Theory, or some sort of 'evolving universe' idea like that of Lee Smolin.

But to deny there is a problem at all in terms of fine tuning is equivalent to some pre-Darwin biologist denying that some mechanism is needed to explain the complexity of life by declaring life 'not complex'.

I don't think we are going to impress the religious by denying something is a problem when internationally respected cosmologists and physicists think it is. We just have to deal with the issue when it arises in the same honest way that Dawkins did in TGD.

Other Comments by steve99

39. Comment #82054 by Mewtwo_X on October 25, 2007 at 3:40 pm

"To ask why, you must first ask if the question makes sense. In this case, I claim it does not."

Other Comments by Mewtwo_X

40. Comment #82067 by Axulus on October 25, 2007 at 4:00 pm

"I hate to have to say this, but Douglas Adams was wrong. The problem can't be solved in this way. The fine tuning has to be very fine even to get any kind of structure or stability at all in the universe - to use Adams' metaphor, the puddle is entitled to wonder why there are even atoms to form the pothole."

The point is to demonstrate the non sequitor of concluding a designer. It doesn't explain why the universe appears fine tuned, just that it is a non sequitor to assume it must have been/could only have been a designer.

Other Comments by Axulus

41. Comment #82072 by Quine on October 25, 2007 at 4:13 pm

steve99 would you please step us through the argument that starts with the constants of Physics, and ends up with an afterlife based on our current free will choices of belief?




Other Comments by Quine

42. Comment #82073 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 4:18 pm

steve99 would you please step us through the argument that starts with the constants of Physics, and ends up with an afterlife based on our current free will choices of belief?

I think you may have confused me with a believer. I am not. I simply share with physicists of renown who know far more than me the belief that the values of the constants of physics needs explaining. That is all. I am confident that such an explanation will be scientific. What I don't much like is attempts to claim that no explanation is needed. I think that is poor science, and perhaps an attempt to hand-wave away something that theists raise that is a problem.

The point is to demonstrate the non sequitor of concluding a designer. It doesn't explain why the universe appears fine tuned, just that it is a non sequitor to assume it must have been/could only have been a designer.

I don't think so. I believe it is intended to mean that there is no point wondering why the universe is supposed to be such a good fit to us, when in reality we are a good fit to the universe, as we come from it. However, if anyone can point me at further commentary from Adams that explains this in more detail, I am prepared to accept that I could be wrong. However, I have come across several uses of that Adams quote which implies that that it relates to fine tuning, which is the sense I take from it.

Other Comments by steve99

43. Comment #82112 by Quine on October 25, 2007 at 5:19 pm

No, steve99, I have not confused you for a believer. I know very well from your past writings that you are both a non-believer and an excellent thinker. What I am trying to get to, here, is a response to the rhetoric from a believer on this issue. (That was the question in my last post.) There are several places to hit that bogus chain of 'reasoning' and I am trying to get you to see that it is not necessary that physics have an explanation for the nature of the constants we use in our models to do so. If I am wrong about that, then the believers will always be able to point to the difference between what we do know and what we want to know as their justification.

But to deny there is a problem at all in terms of fine tuning is equivalent to some pre-Darwin biologist denying that some mechanism is needed to explain the complexity of life by declaring life 'not complex'.

Not quite. Before Darwin there was no objection to the claim that humans were specially created with an immortal soul that justified belief in an afterlife. After Darwin, we ask believers when and where in the continual process of decent from ancestors that soul thing started to happen? Also, from biology we see how psychoactive pharmaceuticals shatter the simplistic ideas of duality.

I contend that questions about the physical constants in our models do not logically lead to an afterlife, no matter how they came to be. So, what is belief with no afterlife? I would say, a difference that makes no difference.




Other Comments by Quine

44. Comment #82117 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 5:36 pm

What I am trying to get to, here, is a response to the rhetoric from a believer on this issue. (That was the question in my last post.) There are several places to hit that bogus chain of 'reasoning' and I am trying to get you to see that it is not necessary that physics have an explanation for the nature of the constants we use in our models to do so.

That is what I have a problem with. I think it is necessary, as it is a question about physics.

If I am wrong about that, then the believers will always be able to point to the difference between what we do know and what we want to know as their justification.

The way to avoid such 'god of the gaps' arguments is to explain how other gaps have been filled in the past, and to explain that such arguments are poor in themselves. I don't think we are going to get anywhere by trying to convince ourselves that there are no gaps.

Sorry if I am misunderstanding you here; I get the impression that I may be.

Other Comments by steve99

45. Comment #82130 by Quine on October 25, 2007 at 6:02 pm

I will try to narrow it down. I am not taking a position that science should not pursue the physics of this. I am trying to get to the perception (which is what the Theist argument is based on) that these fundamental parts of our models somehow support them. Perhaps as more is known, it will eat into that perception. I do not think it will be anything as important as was Darwin, because the biology more directly makes us what we are, personally, and impacts our behavior. I also worry that if we do not work on the flaws in the logic of the perception, that they will just keep sliding that along even in the face of past failures.

Always, we need to keep asking believers: "Show me the step by step argument that starts with something science does not know (yet) and ends up with me on my knees praying to your deity."




Other Comments by Quine

46. Comment #82148 by miaka on October 25, 2007 at 6:34 pm

Steve99 has it right. Understanding the "fine tuning" of physical constants is a fundamental problem in high energy physics. We should embrace this problem as a lofty goal worth pursuing, not try to brush it under the rug. Even an unsuccessful attempt at understanding the nature of physical constants should still lead to some fascinating physical and mathematical discoveries.

So if a religious believer confronted me with this issue, my answer would be, "what a fascinating observation, let's explore whether there's a deep physical or mathematical explanation." As I mentioned in an earlier post (which it seems no one paid any attention to) physicists have been able to arrive at deep explanations for why the electric force law is an inverse square law, why like charges repel and opposite charges attract, etc. They even have deeper understandings of how quantum fields acquire mass. Focus on these successes when confronted with believer incredulity (an oxymoron?). We may not understand why the fundamental constants take on the values they do, but that doesn't mean we never will, and given the remarkable progress of physics in the last 100 years, it's far too soon to plug this mystery with a God of the gaps cork.

Other Comments by miaka

47. Comment #82161 by Bonzai on October 25, 2007 at 7:06 pm

I agree with Steve99 that "fine tuning" is a fundamental question that needs address in physics and there are attempts to understand it. (Multiverse is one possibility,--no pun intended,-- but I am more receptive to the idea that the values of these constants are actually fixed by some yet to be discovered grand unifying theory, hence no "tuning" is actually required or possible)

But I also agree with Quine that we don't need to evoke some highly speculative physics in order to answer the theists.

The argument that "fine tuning" proves design is a non sequitur. Just because science doesn't have the answers to some questions it doesn't follow that God exists or religion has the answer. This is a basic point and we don't need any physics to make it. It is conceivable that there are even harder questions whose answers are in principle unknowable or at least unknowable to us because of our defective brain wiring, but it doesn't prove God exists. Whether science can eventually explain the values of these constants, "Design" is not an explanation.

I think we have to make this point head on. The error of theists is an epistemological one and its rebuttal shouldn't hinge on the truth or falsehood on some theories on the speculative end of cosmology. There are always questions that current science cannot answer or the answers will eventually proven to be wrong. It is exactly the job of science to find out about what we don't know. Admitting this in a forthright manner in no way cedes any ground to the theists.

Other Comments by Bonzai

48. Comment #82302 by steve99 on October 26, 2007 at 2:57 am

But I also agree with Quine that we don't need to evoke some highly speculative physics in order to answer the theists.

Ah... I see what you are saying now. I agree. Personally, I like the approach Dawkins uses in TGD... other forms of 'order' have been explained using physics and biology, so why assume this one needs any special explanation? We should point out the trend of gaps that people have used God to fill having closed one by one over the millenia.

Other Comments by steve99

49. Comment #82334 by JerryD385 on October 26, 2007 at 5:12 am

As steve99 said,

The problem is far worse than talking about different types of substrate. If the cosmological constant was not very fine-tuned indeed, the early universe would undergo phenomenal accelerated expansion that would prevent any structure at all from forming.

Alright, I shall certainly concede that this is a mystery/ problem for science. It seems to be a rephrasing of the "why is there something rather than nothing" or "why is there structure rather than no structure." But, like Bonzai and Quine keep pointing out, we shouldn't take their "God is the default" BS seriously.

We have to get people out of their human centric thinking, or this whole "15 billion years of the universe was made just for our measly 150,000 year existence" will never end. Its still the Pangloss argument, because even if you need to explain why we have a nose, saying they were made to support glasses is fallacious and ridiculous. So perhaps the best response IS ridicule. Something like "We may not know, but COME ON, your not even CLOSE!"

Other Comments by JerryD385

50. Comment #82338 by steve99 on October 26, 2007 at 5:19 am

Alright, I shall certainly concede that this is a mystery/ problem for science. It seems to be a rephrasing of the "why is there something rather than nothing" or "why is there structure rather than no structure."

Actually no, it is quite a different question. This is about what the values of physical constants have - not why there are physical constants in the first place.

But, like Bonzai and Quine keep pointing out, we shouldn't take their "God is the default" BS seriously.

Absolutely.

Other Comments by steve99