tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post8178400310788227426..comments2023-06-01T14:08:49.977+00:00Comments on Confessions of a Doubting Thomas: The fine tuning argument revisitedUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-88356084616927033522012-10-16T15:28:28.621+00:002012-10-16T15:28:28.621+00:00The fine tuning argument does presuppose that the ...The fine tuning argument does presuppose that the constants could have been otherwise, but I have never heard this demonstrated. It is just speculation. And without that speculation the fine tuning argument falls apart. <br /><br />Yes, I suppose the Christian view is that God simply 'spoke' the universe into existence in the way he wanted it to be, but my question goes one step back from that - how did he know that the thing he spoke would work? Did he try others first (either as real or thought experiments) and they failed? The theist says no, God simply knew the right constants. That is, the right constants were simply there in the mind of God. This is pretty much analagous to the way in which the constants appear to be simply there in the nature of the universe. So why do we need God as an explanation here? The constants are just there in either case, but one theory also needs an additional infinite God.Ricky Carvelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17975085318645232701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-36681979846941104252012-10-16T15:19:11.894+00:002012-10-16T15:19:11.894+00:00You say, "In order to demonstrate that the pa...You say, "In order to demonstrate that the parameters are 'fine tuned' you actually need to be able to demonstrate that the parameters could have been otherwise. As far as I know, no theist has ever done this." Isn't the whole point of the anthropic question, whether or not one is a theist, that the constants could have been different? As I understand it, the reason certain values are considered "fine tuned" is exactly because there is no known reason why they should be what they are. Of course, a reason could be forthcoming, but currently they appear arbitrary. <br />An infinite multiverse could solve the problem, but with the weaknesses you point out. I don't understand your objection to God planning the universe the way it is. Rather than conceptualizing God as "trying out" a vast assortment of constants, as if he were an experimenter, isn't it possible that he simply "spoke" the universe into existence as he wanted it to be? The observed physical interactions would be a <i>result</i>, not a constraint, of what he wanted to perform.Mike Blythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09189486229376291297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-84901677473909956192012-10-13T01:10:14.142+00:002012-10-13T01:10:14.142+00:00The issue is whether a set of constants enables th...The issue is whether a set of constants enables the formation of informationally complex structures. There is a unique criterion: the organized particles must be capable of Turing-universal computation. One reads that many parameter settings preclude the formation of sufficiently rich structures. Your point of alternative life forms is accounted for, and there are people who hold that the range of possible alternatives is underestimated. (<a href="http://blog.chungyc.org/2008/07/is-fine-tuning-really-fine-tuning/" rel="nofollow">Here</a> is a reference to Stephen Baxter, which rings the bell I had in mind.)<br /><br />My angle is the idea of an attribute, human or otherwise, that cannot be excelled. There is lots about the design of life as we know it that could be bettered---Neil DeGrasse has a noted <a href="http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/quotes-by-neil-degrasse-tyson/intelligent-design-quotes" rel="nofollow">quip</a> to that effect---so none of those aspects is such an attribute. The only two I've been able to think of are the capacity for love and the capacity for Turing-universal computation; the Church-Turing thesis asserts that the latter cannot be excelled in any physical regime. (I was an onlooker for David Deutsch's challenge to that in Oxford in 1985, which was turned aside.) <br /><br />So to try to answer your interesting point about choice among life-supporting constants and query about what could be "in the mind of God", I can point only to such attributes above all else, the rest being ancillary. KWReganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09792573098380066005noreply@blogger.com