They never rest, and you know the creationists are constantly probing, trying to find the next likely inroad into the schools. Sahotra Sarkar offers some concerns about what’s coming next in creationism—these seem like quite probable strategies to me.
As the physicist and astronomer Victor Stenger noted in the Skeptical Briefs newsletter last September, The Privileged Planet represents a new wedge in the creationists’ arsenal. Equally importantly, the Smithsonian episode shows how this new physics-based version of creationism is being propagated with unusual stealth. Biologists may now feel safe that the problem of combating creationism has moved out of their backyards to infest the haunts of the physicists. Some religious biologists have even endorsed the idea of a conscious creator of the universe, so long as it does not affect biological theory. For instance, the biochemist Ken Miller, who ably defends evolution against creationist charges in Finding Darwin’s God, goes on to claim that God created the universe with its laws and evolution is simply a result of these laws.
These moves are dangerous: once the creator enters the science classroom, even through the physicists’ backdoor, the room for mischief is enormous. Biologists would do well to remember that, ultimately, what has motivated creationists to action throughout history is the natural origin of the human species. Sooner or later creationists will return to the theory they fear and detest most: evolution by natural selection. Moreover, if religious dogma manages to breach the defenses of science, there is every reason to believe that it will proactively encroach on every other secular institution of society. The new stealth creationism is, in short, as dangerous as its older cousins, Intelligent Design and Young Earth creationism. It can and should be defeated in the same way they were.
We’ve seen this coming for a long time: the Discovery Institute has been pushing that fine-tuning argument for a while, and that line of argument makes an end run around one of our most successful debaters, Ken Miller, and also puts Francis Collins and many other theistic evolutionists on their side. We prickly, cranky, vociferous biologists, who’ve been fighting this nonsense for years and are ready to start roaring at the first attempt to smuggle a creationist onto a school board, are also going to be less effective—for instance, I don’t pay that much attention to the physics standards, and wouldn’t have any influence at all on physics teaching. We’d need more effort at the public school level in this discipline.
And, honestly, physics teachers are smart people, but they get even less training in coping with creationist arguments than biology teachers, and unfortunately, a lot of physics instructors and engineers and chemists have more sympathy for ID than do the biologists. Add to that problem the fact that a few notable evolutionists are perfectly willing to pass the headaches on to the physicists, conceding the Big Bang to a vague version of a god, and this could be a major worry.
I wonder what Ken Miller thinks about that new LHC that is being built at CERN? It, along with theoretical physics, might unlock secrets to how the ‘fine-tunings’ were tuned by a natural process. And then he needs to find another hiding place for god.
It’s precisely because of this new focus from the DI that I must now ally myself with the astronomers … oops!
Another good reason to vote for Phil, he’ll need props if he’s going to take over from PJ.
Oops, wrong blog. PZ not PJ
Is there an alarm I could set off that is made up of a series of mountain-top bonfires? Or an army of the dead I could summon? No? Crap.
I never quite got the fine tuning arguments. I get the impression that the point is that the probability of the constants taking the value for life etc is very small, so therefore unless there are multiple universes we infer a creator. I’m assuming therefore that these people know how the constants are selected when the universe was created. I’ve asked a couple of physicist friends and they have no idea.
What am I missing? Creationists/IDers are trying to knock out a central principle in natural science. This seems more like harmless Deism (however silly) in that it’s not trying to deny anything well-established. I would be delighted if students finished high school with enough comprehension of cosmological constants to even appreciate what these folks are talking about.
I think the fact that nobody knows how they are selected *is* the point. Unlike traditional creationism, there’s no need to ignore or discredit a body of existing knowledge. Of course, like all “god of the gaps” arguments, there’s no reason to suppose that physicists will *never* know the reason.
I don’t think this is going to work out. The moron public can get their heads around a dopey “humans aren’t monkeys” argument, but I don’t see how they’re going to get a hook on physicists– this is difficult subject matter to understand, even when you’re trying.
As a high school physics teacher I have been waiting for the assault from a religious zealot in my district to object to the NOVA programs I show that indicate the age of the universe is billions of years old or that everything on this planet, including us, is made of old stardust. Cosmology, radioactive dating and the “Big Bang” theories are definitely a target. I read this blog for several reasons, one of which is to frequent a community of people who confront the assault daily. Any advice for us physics types?
Thank you C, I was really just thinking “It would be marvelous if some waffeling intellectual relativist started talking through his hat right now”.
The problem is that they’re not trying to hock Deism. They’re counting on you to believe that they’re hocking Deism so that, once they have Bog in his Bolshy Heaven integrated into those already nonsensical books on cosmology right next to that dressed up tautology of “The Anthropic Principle”, they’ll have their little creationist Sketchers in the door. They’re counting on establishing themselves there, and then using that as a staging point to squeeze into the other areas of science education. They’re counting on getting the kids to believe in a sky wizard who will be so vaugely defined as to slip past all of that “no teaching religion in school” stuff that’s kept our science cirriculum out of the dregs of the earth for the last few decades because, as soon as they go skipping out of the classroom, they’ll go skipping to the local church to fill its coffers.
And how about that Discovery Institute? They don’t actually do science. So having some inkling of the little numerical values that should follow the capital lambdas and H-naughts in the cosmology book doesn’t seem to do much by itself.
And, in my opinion, that sympathy will last until about the twelvth time they hear the same creationist abuse the second law of thermodynamics. The only reason that there is more support for the anti-evolution creationist crowd among the physical sciences is that they haven’t been exposed enough to the creationist crowd, and the heat hasn’t been on any theories important to them (at least, not nearly as high). Once they are subject to the full-court lie of the creationist lobbying machine, the physical scientists will figure out what’s going on pretty quick. All it will take is some southern or midwestern state putting a sticker on a textbook asking to “teach the controversy” around Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. As you say, they are pretty smart.
” etc is very small, so therefore unless there are multiple universes we infer a creator. ”
Well, that would apply to the constants that effect the entire universe.
But there are also the factors required for Earth to support life (distance from Sun, etc), and you’d expect those to pop up multiple times across the entire universe.
So even if they claim the universe was set up for our existence, that doesn’t mean there is anything uniquely special about Earth – which is no doubt what they would want to claim.
I wouldn’t worry about physics, anyhow. The creationists will get as warm a reception from physicists as the relativity deniers, perpetual motion machine inventors, and ufologists do.
So biology and evo devo are not difficult? :-)
I agree with “C” above:
I was surprised by Jon Rowe’s thoughts http://positiveliberty.com/2006/04/contra-atheism.html
Yes, this is a probable scenario and it could be part of the explanation why fine-tuning is mentioned so often.
This tickles my fancy since I have been debating John Pieret on Sandwalk about Millers claim about and on science. We had to agree to disagree, but perhaps I will drop a link referring to why Miller’s ideas may be harmful. Chamberlaining seems dangerous!
Sarkar’s argument on finetuning could be sharpened to creationists disadvantage.
Creationists conflate physical fine-tuning with conditions that happened to produce Earth. Sarkar also makes a conflation of his own. Fine-tuning of several parameters in current physical theories is an observation. The anthropic principle is an independent idea how parameter values come to be.
Parameter values may be fixed by first principles in some “theory of everything”. It seems most theoretical physicists would like that to be true since anthropic reasoning may give hypotheses that are hard or impossible to falsify. A concern is if they are theories then.
There are several anthropic principles which compete with creationism. The most plausible is the tautological AP – parameters we observe must allow for our life. It can be sharpened to the weak AP – the probabilities for parameters that we observe allow for our life was most likely higher. Either of those explains fine-tuning in several different plausible scenarios.
My preferred answers to finetuning is to mention such scenarios since a parameter-setting TOE seems a more remote possibility. But I can also point out that the Ikeda-Jefferys argument shows that fine-tuning seemingly paradoxically supports a naturalistic universe ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe ).
The belief that fine-tuning supports a creationistic universe comes from a nonexisting or sloppy analysis. Even accepting the ad hoc constraint of a designer means no support either way. It is simply Dembski’s Explanatory Filter debacle in another setting.
BTW, in the original version I-J use a multiverse setting, but any universe where parameters are set by probability suffice. Inflation does that (AFAIK, absent a theory that fixes the values). The case for inflation is good but AFAIK not settled. But the upcoming Planck probe may do that in a few years.
That could place creationists cosmological EF god-of-the-gaps claims explicitly between the Scylla of a theory of everything that fixes parameters and the Charybdis of a theory that does not.
Yes, this is a probable scenario and it could be part of the explanation why fine-tuning is mentioned so often.
This tickles my fancy since I have been debating John Pieret on Sandwalk about Millers claim about and on science. We had to agree to disagree, but perhaps I will drop a link referring to why Miller’s ideas may be harmful. Chamberlaining seems dangerous!
Sarkar’s argument on finetuning could be sharpened to creationists disadvantage.
Creationists conflate physical fine-tuning with conditions that happened to produce Earth. Sarkar also makes a conflation of his own. Fine-tuning of several parameters in current physical theories is an observation. The anthropic principle is an independent idea how parameter values come to be.
Parameter values may be fixed by first principles in some “theory of everything”. It seems most theoretical physicists would like that to be true since anthropic reasoning may give hypotheses that are hard or impossible to falsify. A concern is if they are theories then.
There are several anthropic principles which compete with creationism. The most plausible is the tautological AP – parameters we observe must allow for our life. It can be sharpened to the weak AP – the probabilities for parameters that we observe allow for our life was most likely higher. Either of those explains fine-tuning in several different plausible scenarios.
My preferred answers to finetuning is to mention such scenarios since a parameter-setting TOE seems a more remote possibility. But I can also point out that the Ikeda-Jefferys argument shows that fine-tuning seemingly paradoxically supports a naturalistic universe ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe ).
The belief that fine-tuning supports a creationistic universe comes from a nonexisting or sloppy analysis. Even accepting the ad hoc constraint of a designer means no support either way. It is simply Dembski’s Explanatory Filter debacle in another setting.
BTW, in the original version I-J use a multiverse setting, but any universe where parameters are set by probability suffice. Inflation does that (AFAIK, absent a theory that fixes the values). The case for inflation is good but AFAIK not settled. But the upcoming Planck probe may do that in a few years.
That could place creationists cosmological EF god-of-the-gaps claims explicitly between the Scylla of a theory of everything that fixes parameters and the Charybdis of a theory that does not.
I’d love to see a Creationist present a coherent argument detailing why life isn’t possible if physical constants were slightly different – not just our familiar kind of life, but life in general.
I’d also love to see how they explain why there’s only one place suitable for life-as-we-know it within the entire known universe if the universe is designed to be hospitable to us.
From what I’ve seen, they do a little misdirection act where they talk about cosmological constants and then, for their example, jump clear out of context and start talking about things like “if there were 4 spatial dimensions, the planets wouldn’t be stable in their orbits”. It’s the Hovind Gallop Redux.
The real fun comes when they mistake something for a cosmological constant when it isn’t anything of the sort. They’ll try to throw around things like ground state energies of carbon as though they were arbitrarily set independently of the rest of physics. That’s when they get shot down in short order.
I’ve said it before:
*Black eye from hanging out with bad UD crowd.* That’s what you get for “communicating” (I’m done).
I never got the fine-tuning claim either. (What did they use to tune the thing, a branch rubbed against a pitchfork?)
Why claim that some intelligent designer fine-tuned everything from the beginning and ballooned, rhyme-runed, and festooned our universe when you are later going to claim that something went “wrong”? Because something always goes “wrong.” And then, out of the magic hat (nothing up their sleeves, right?) they pull–ah! Sin and a Fallen World! Isn’t that sweet. Just the thing to cheer me up.
And then it’s hop-on-the-atheist time. Prove to me that you really believe that your life has meaning when you don’t believe in the intelligent designer of all this bad design. Hey, how come there aren’t any atheist charities? (Um, that’s so false.) Well, you know, because atheists don’t believe that everyone’s a miserable sinner they never give their money away, because true altruism requires a heavenly reward for yourself.
Got it? Yes, we see.
Frankly, I think there’s something even worse coming down the pike, considering all this You Hideous Atheists Don’t Believe in Love talk. Just my hunch.
It was fine-tuned way back when in Seattle.
I’m out in lay land fighting the good fight. Think of me as infantry. I’ve spent the last year understanding scientific method and biological evolution. It wasn’t all that hard to digest. I now know for instance why my head is on one end and my feet are at the other. From Darwin’s observations to modernscience figuring out the mechanisms. From bio-medical to bio-engineering. Prediction, prediction, prediction. The wealth of information found at TO is all you really need as a lay person to refute the fundie misconceptions within a lay group of computer nerds. (I’m an old hippy with nerd qualities ;) )
Is there a physics site comparable to TO ? I’d like to get a head start on learning what it will take to refute the fundies in a physics debate.
An Index to Creationist Claims in Physics maybe? etc.
I don’t think this is going to get Creationsists anywhere when it comes to public school curriculum the way it has in biology. Not a whole lot of time in high school physical science is spent talking about anything more than basic mechanics and motion and electricity… we certainly don’t talk at all about questions of cosmology and the origin of fundamental constants. So unless the new tactic is to suggest that God nudges balls down inclined planes at a particular acceleration (“Intelligent Rolling Theory”) I really doubt any HS physics prof is going to have to deal with these issues.
Dr. Dave, I’m ashamed of you. Your metaphysical naturalism has discounted the possibility of an ontologically richer array of causes in which invisible angels push the balls down the incline. This is clearly an example of the philosophical presuppositions of an archnaturalist affecting his interpretation of the empirical data.
I know the response to this is going to be – like “C” gave above – that the two cases are different: attacking evolution undermines well-established science, the fine tuning hypothesis merely speculates on something science hasn’t resolved. But this distinction simply isn’t true: the strategy of Intelligent Design has been to claim that unresolved issues in evolutionary biology are intractable. In that respect ID is a “God of the gaps” argument similar in nature to the ones theistic evolutionists and scientific deists have presented. The only difference between claiming that God set the constants of the Universe and claiming that the structure of a particular molecule is “irreducibly complex” is that the latter is likely to be disproved sometime soon.
If you’re going to present science to the public, you should take especial care with the parts that are incomplete, not just use them to jam in whatever speculation fits your world view. Speculation over how science could resolve the issue should take precedence over how to interpret the fact that it might not be able to (which is what all “God of the gaps” arguments are).
… perhaps I will drop a link referring to why Miller’s ideas may be harmful.
Why would they be that? Miller identifies his ideas about the uncertainty principle and the universal constants as theology. That’s the last thing the DI crowd want.
Dustin I think I’d spell it “waffling” and the verb you want is “hawk” as in sell, not “hock” which means pawn.
http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/329/hock/
As for substance, I simply posed a question, so there’s not even a position to be called relativist. I did mark a distinction between the sort of creationism that would attack astronomical knowledge (which is a serious threat) and the long-standing tradition of Deism which’ll always be with us because it’s irrefutable, but which has also always acknowledged, and *indeed relied on*, natural science. Deism, strictly speaking, is not a threat to science. It’s not particularly helpful either, but it’s a supplemental belief. (Traditional deism is also anti-Christian because it denies miracles, so it would be interesting to know if somebody has effected a new synthesis.)
Of course the Discovery Institute is up to no good. But you’re going to have to write more coherent posts to delineate the threat.
“…unfortunately, a lot of physics instructors and engineers and chemists have more sympathy for ID than do the biologists.”
No kidding. At one of the two major high schools in our town, the chemistry teacher begins the year by standing up in front of the class and saying, “Now, I am a Christian, and I do want y’all to know that.” As if that were remotely relevant to the teaching of chemistry. He also happens to believe in six-day creation.
Just a quick tip for any physicists who haven’t had experience with Creationists:
If they bring up probability, chances are that you can use these three magic words: “Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.”
Thanks poke for a careful reply.
“the strategy of Intelligent Design has been to claim that unresolved issues in evolutionary biology are intractable.”
ID has been a relentlessly stupid-making, bad-faith attack on the very *idea* of science. It draws directly on the worldview Darwin went after, that the natural world shows the work of a Creator at the finest-grained level — an infinite number of tiny miracles, as it were.
But Deism is the opposite of the gaps-God argument. It’s a God of the whole, a God outside the whole, a watchmaker God who sort of pushed everything off in the right direction and never intervened again. Deism gets its enlightenment-era inspiration *from* Newton and in fact relies on natural science as a knowledge-making project. Deists have generally been happy to get out of the way and let science show order, and whatever order it shows, say how lovely it is.
I agree that Deism ain’t science. And I agree that some of the arguments around fine-tuning have an annoyingly woo-woo feeling about them. I just want to sort out the issues.
John-Michael Caldaro, a high school physics teacher, asked a good and useful question above. It appears to have zoomed right past without notice. How about some of the physics types here answer him. Where are the appropriate physics resources? Who is working on making the compendium of rebuttals to the misrepresentations that he’ll be faced with? Privileged Planet bullshit is already showing up in high school science fairs, so it has already started for those teachers. How about the physical scientists give their high school colleagues some help here.
Dustin wrote
“I wouldn’t worry about physics, anyhow. The creationists will get as warm a reception from physicists as the relativity deniers, perpetual motion machine inventors, and ufologists do.”
Yes, but the problem is that most of us physicists just smirk or frown at these types of crackpots (there are of course exceptions). But they are much more innocent than creationists, so there may be a problem there. Physicists may have to learn that creationists are in another league.
“Not a whole lot of time in high school physical science is spent talking about anything more than basic mechanics and motion and electricity… we certainly don’t talk at all about questions of cosmology and the origin of fundamental constants.”
I’d think it would show up more often in elementary school. Not so much because physics or cosmology are in the curriculum, but teachers might slip it into Earth Science lectures, especially if some kid brings up the Big Bang.
Correction: It was a bloody middle school science fair!
There’s something I’ve never understood about the claim of fine-tuning. How exactly is any observer not going to observe a “finely-tuned” universe, no matter how low the probability of such conditions actually existing? I mean, I know that my own existence is highly unlikely, but how could one go about observing one’s own non-existence? Am I missing something in the creationists’ arguements, or are they really that dense?
Nope, NElls, that’s the anthropic principle for you.
As Douglas Adams once put it, it’s like a puddle of water being amazed at how perfectly the depression it sits in conforms to its shape.
Many anthropic arguments entail a subjective interpretation. I tend to shy away from the idea that because we are here to talk about it that the universe was built whole and fit for us to do so. In any sense of the idea except the natural progression of things.
It seems apparent that regardless of the exact universal constants as we know them here presently, another universe similar to ours would likely have a certain (high?) probability of being hospitable to those forms of life that might live in it, if any. If one (or more) of those lifeforms developed the means to do so, they might well remark on their good fortune.
Some of them, by virtue of their ability to comment on their good fortune one to another, might also be tempted to codify such revealing insights into a form that “everyone” could understand. Read “dumbed down.”Then, given wide acceptance and vaguely (or non-) stated principles, offer the inside poop for a special introductory price.
If this is true then not only must the rational suffer the faithful (and vice versa) but also this same scenario may be playing out right now, as we speak, in universes between our cells and under our beds, in numbers incalculable.
It isn’t just the creationists. I just gave “Cosmological Inflation and Large-Scale Structure” a once-over. Liddle and Lythe cite the Anthropic Principle as some kind of profound, earth-shattering revelation and actually use it in the footnotes as a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card whenever they’re stumped on the reasons for this-or-that value of this-or-that constant. It wasn’t pervasive, but it still marred my opinion of the book.
Now this:
Now you’re just being disingenuous. You did not simply pose a question, and you did take a position. I’d blockquote your original post, but I trust you can scroll back and read it, C.
I don’t think it has come to that. Meanwhile, different physics FAQ (and also Wikipedia in some cases) does a decent job as being resources. And TO tackles some of these issues too, IIRC. Perhaps it should simply be expanded on.
John, remember we had to agree to disagree. I think it is clear that Miller makes claim about and on science, while you do not.
As to why they would be harmful, Sarkar’s argues so convincingly without the issue of identified theology being either a concern to his argument or disadvantageous to stealth ID since it is a well known and often used backdoor for religious claims on science. “For instance, the biochemist Ken Miller, who ably defends evolution against creationist charges in Finding Darwin’s God, goes on to claim that God created the universe with its laws and evolution is simply a result of these laws.
These moves are dangerous: once the creator enters the science classroom, even through the physicists’ backdoor, the room for mischief is enormous. Biologists would do well to remember that, ultimately, what has motivated creationists to action throughout history is the natural origin of the human species.”
I am very fond of that analogy. I’m glad someone thought to bring it up.
The weak AP should be that the probability was high that the depression was deep enough to contain all of the rain water draining to it. Personally, I think that idea is somewhat slippery, if not wet.
I don’t think it has come to that. Meanwhile, different physics FAQ (and also Wikipedia in some cases) does a decent job as being resources. And TO tackles some of these issues too, IIRC. Perhaps it should simply be expanded on.
John, remember we had to agree to disagree. I think it is clear that Miller makes claim about and on science, while you do not.
As to why they would be harmful, Sarkar’s argues so convincingly without the issue of identified theology being either a concern to his argument or disadvantageous to stealth ID since it is a well known and often used backdoor for religious claims on science. “For instance, the biochemist Ken Miller, who ably defends evolution against creationist charges in Finding Darwin’s God, goes on to claim that God created the universe with its laws and evolution is simply a result of these laws.
These moves are dangerous: once the creator enters the science classroom, even through the physicists’ backdoor, the room for mischief is enormous. Biologists would do well to remember that, ultimately, what has motivated creationists to action throughout history is the natural origin of the human species.”
I am very fond of that analogy. I’m glad someone thought to bring it up.
The weak AP should be that the probability was high that the depression was deep enough to contain all of the rain water draining to it. Personally, I think that idea is somewhat slippery, if not wet.
Following up on NElls question: It is true that an observer has to see constants that are exactly what they need to be for him (or her) to observe them. That’s the tautological side of the anthropic principle, the part that just means that the universe is self-consistent (and the part that annoys many of my fellow physicists).
The interesting part comes when you note that very small changes in some of these constants would produce a very different universe, and if you can make the argument that such a universe would be vastly less hospitable to life. Different physics could lead to different forms of life, of course, but there are some relatively small changes that could make a universe very boring indeed. Galaxies (and hence large quantities of stars) would never form if there were a bit more dark energy in the universe, stars wouldn’t shine if you tweaked a few nuclear parameters a bit, etc. These kinds of observations do present a very interesting challenge to our usual program of understanding. If these numbers are specified by some fundamental particle physics, why should they also be so amenable to life? If they are random, why should we have been so insanely lucky?
These questions lead to two ultimate ways out (other than just saying “I don’t know”). One is to say that someone planned it that way, and that we’ve uncovered the first really interesting evidence for some form of intelligent design. The other is to say that the universe is very big and some of these numbers are different in different regions – we hit the jackpot, but that will happen eventually if you play enough! The reasoning is very intriguing, though it’s not clear how to test this argument (upsetting to me as an experimentalist). In fact, it may be that there is no experimental way of distinguishing the two options. God or an infinitude of universes – choose the option that upsets your Occam’s razor instincts the least.
Regardless, this very interesting debate has nothing to do with evolution. Even if you took this as evidence of God, it wouldn’t show he was the God of creationism of the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible. It plays into the old fallacy: “If I think God exists, that must mean everything my preacher told me is true!”.
The Anthropic Principle is proof that scientists can be just as silly as theologians sometimes. Honestly, it’s as bad as or worse than the Ontological Argument.
“So biology and evo devo are not difficult? :-)”
I don’t find them nearly as difficult as contemplating the nature of the universe, no! Biology is very interesting, but it really lacks that “too big for my puny human brain” component of something like astrophysics. If anyone wants to get me a killer Cephalopodmas gift, though, how about booking me a pizza lunch with a talkative astrophysicist? That would be WAY cool.
One way that interested parties could prepare themselves would be to dust off a copy of Rudolph Carnap’s “Pseudoproblems in Philosophy”. Unlike hashing out the generalities and particulars of a scientific theory like evolution, this new tactic is going to take everyone involved in the argument straight to the existence of God and the origin of the universe. It will make life a lot easier if everyone is ready to simply dismiss questions like “Why is the universe here?” or “Ok, atheists, where did the universe come from, then?” as the meaningless nonsense they really are.
I guess I should be happy about this. If the creationists are getting ready to haul out the metaphysics, this could spark a revival of logical positivism (Eat my shorts, Popper!) since it’s really easier to simply deprive them of their questions than to wrangle around a bunch of vague and baseless metaphysical nonsense.
Interestingly, a number of months back I had a bit of a spat with a friend who holds a degree in astrophysics about just this subject.
No, I wasn’t on the side you might think…
I pointed out the logical flaws with the arguments regarding the nature of the cosmological constants being precisely what we need to survive and therefore implying a creator.
As I recall, my argument was something like: “We evolved in this environment, so of course it is perfectly suited for us. Why are you assuming the result preceeded the cause, and that the product in any other case wouldn’t be evolved for its own universe? The idea seems to be begging the question: because we exist, therefore we must exist.”
I believe my actual rebuttal was more coherent/elegant than that.
Regardless, this friend threw a hissy-fit — boasted about his credentials (and attacked my lack of such) — especially when I pointed out the argument regarding the fine-tuning of the universe being evidence for a creator of some sort wasn’t as accepted a theory as he was making it out to be (based on a quick perusal of Google and Wikipedia).
To me, it seems a great deal like asking the question: “If I married a different woman, would I have had the same children I do now?” And then saying, “Yes!” without any evidence whatsoever to back up that assertion, except for the idea that since my current children were the result, they have to be the result — or that I had to marry my current wife, or some other bizzare pre-destination paradox.
That’s just so mind-bendingly backwards a position I don’t even know how to approach it. It’s “*poof*, woo, magic! Let’s go read our daily horoscopes!”
That it was being held and espoused as “really good evidence” by someone with a sciences degree…sheesh, I don’t know. What the hell are they teaching you guys in college these days?
Well, for my part, I was never taught the anthropic principle in school. It’s doubtful that your friend was either since, in my experience, even the mention of the anthropic principle makes physicists wince. It’s one of those poisonous little memes that spread because they’re conceptually simple but packaged in a way that makes them sound sophisticated.
Also, science credentials do not a scientist make. There are highly credentialed fools out there, and I’ve met a fair share of graduate school dropouts who, nonetheless, produced high quality results that earned them a tenure track position.
Please don’t get the idea that I’m intending to defend the ID claptrap that’s being heaped onto this topic. I think that the environmental selection (e.g. “anthropic”) arguments I hear colleagues making are intriguing, but they tend not to be all that useful in practice. It’s also pretty arrogant to claim that we know enough about the universe to really feel confident in making these arguments yet. Calling this “proof” of God is dubious at best, and connecting it to any discussion of evolution is sheer dishonesty.
My point instead is that this is not in the same category with the usual ID/Creationist B.S., and shouldn’t be dismissed as such. Environmental arguments can have real content in principle, though we’re not there yet and they are often radically misused in practice.
There are highly credentialed fools out there, and I’ve met a fair share of graduate school dropouts who, nonetheless, produced high quality results that earned them a tenure track position.
Very true, and that is one of the reasons I’m skeptical of the claim, made by some, that an increase in the quality of science education will necessarily nix creationism and other forms of pseudoscience. I know of (and personally know, with varying degrees of familiarity) several science grad students who are sympathetic to ID, even if it doesn’t come through in their actual work.
The reason America is so in love with foolish nonsense like creationism is because of the social atmosphere involving superstition and anti-intellectualism. If we are to marginalize creationism and other nonsense to European levels, broader cultural changes need to happen. Unfortunately, I don’t see them happening anytime soon.
Although I was dimly aware of some of the anthropic principle/fine-tuning type reasoning from a quick conversational interchange in a college physics course, I hadn’t really thought about it too much until I saw this post. Having briefly looked at a recap of the fine-tuning argument, I have to say: how is it any different from the old, “Why are there beings at all rather than nothing?” pseudo-question?
I get that there’s a legitimate reason to marvel at the fact that physical constants of the universe are such as to make the universe a comparably interesting place, but as we know very well around here, incredulity is not a basis for belief-fixation of any kind. Moreover, while I grant that other constellations of physical constants are conceivable, do we have any further reason for believing they are physically possible? The probability argument only gets off the ground if other constellations of constants really could have been realized, and I don’t know how one would go about establishing that as a real possibility (as opposed to a merely conceivable possibility), other than showing that said constants could have been otherwise because (in some other universe or region of the universe) they are otherwise, or by having have some inkling of how they in fact came to be, and we can see how it might have turned out else. But in the one case, it seems as though one could say, “We just happen to be in an amenable [part of the] universe,” and in the other, the answer to the question presupposes some alternative (if partial) explanation, that presumably doesn’t involve positing a deity.
That’s probably a whole lot of armchair handwaving on my part, possibly incoherent, but I don’t know a lick about physics–especially not any physics that’s relevant to the question. But that reminds me why I might not mind the creationists pushing in on the physicists’ territory: perhaps just as the ID “controversy” has encouraged me to learn more about evolutionary biology, a fine-tuning argument “controversy” would encourage me to learn more about fundamental cosmology.
Nah. I enjoy learning about science (part of a philosopher’s balanced diet) quite a bit, but I’m not sadistic enough to wish the creationists on another undeserving discipline.
But JeffF, I don’t see why it is necessary to propose infinite (or even just multiple) universes to account for our universe allowing life as we know it. If the universe did not allow for life, yes, it would be a very dull place, but no one would notice. So what if it was a one in a trillion chance that the universal constants would allow life? We would have to be lucky in order to observe that we were lucky.
A couple of thoughts about Mr Caldaro’s issues. The “constants” debate, and all related pre-Big Bang questions, are rather in the same boat as abiogenesis – ie we don’t know, so the terrain is occupied by more or less informed speculation based on what we do know. The issues of the age of the universe, stellar origin of heavier elements, dating, etc are however the stuff of actual science, in the same way that natural selection is.
It seems to me we need to be precise in what we are defending. The creationist positions on abiogenesis and the physical constants (ie God) are unscientific not because they contradict an established theory but because they violate the presumption of naturalism. That doesn’t make them wrong (yet), but it does imply that science can never produce any answers, and therefore falls victim to the standard critique of “God of the gaps” (whatever Paul Davies may think).
So let’s not allow the enemy to confuse the question of the origins of life or the universe with the evolution of life and the cosmos (remembering akso that “evolution” has different meanings in the two disciplines). As of today, one set of questions is still philosophy, the other is science.
Dead on. So many of those attempts at finding a GUT are motivated by the hope that the seemingly arbitrary nature of those constants can be eliminated. Everyone seems to be uncomfortable by the fact that so many mass ratios and other things need to be experimentally determined and then introduced by hand into the theories we have now. And of course, if they aren’t arbitrarily determined, then there is not any good reason to think that they’re independent of one another either. So, while tweaking those constants in models to see what happens is perfectly fine, following the modeling up with lofty claims about the necessity of God is not.
While I do believe that God created this fine-tuned universe for His purposes, I also believe that it isn’t an argument for His existence. By such reasoning, any result of any random sequence of events would be proof that the sequence wasn’t random, which is absurd to me. No, I believe the universe is fine-tuned because I first believe there is a “tuner”. Any marveling I do at the details is just mind candy.
Not a priori. Though it turns out that many theories have a leeway that is hard to fix, ranging from a simple potential upwards. For example, string theory is a proposal for a fundamental theory that are such. The theory has still 10^100 different possible configurations or so.
Further it seems that such theories in tentative cosmological settings often lead to possible solutions with pocket and/or bubble universes with different properties. Perhaps this is what JeffF was referring to – it is a rather common property, perhaps inevitable in some fairly simple settings. (Not to mention interesting. Which is one reason for many speculations, of course.)
Not a priori. Though it turns out that many theories have a leeway that is hard to fix, ranging from a simple potential upwards. For example, string theory is a proposal for a fundamental theory that are such. The theory has still 10^100 different possible configurations or so.
Further it seems that such theories in tentative cosmological settings often lead to possible solutions with pocket and/or bubble universes with different properties. Perhaps this is what JeffF was referring to – it is a rather common property, perhaps inevitable in some fairly simple settings. (Not to mention interesting. Which is one reason for many speculations, of course.)
Any marveling I do at the details is just mind candy.
something tells me you should see a dentist.
As someone who has taught an introductory physics class on more than one occasion, I think this is a tempest in a teapot. There is at best only the weakest of pedagogical justifications to even discussing the anthropic principle in a high school physics course; I doubt very much that either the AP or cosmological constants figure explicitly in any state standards. If someone knows different, I’d be interested in hearing about how, and in which state.
I do agree that there are physics and chemistry teachers who are creationists and we should be leery of same, but the fact is the orientation of those courses is not anywhere near the topic of origins, typically. And, when physics and chem instructors (and for that matter, engineers and mathematicians) go bad, they typically go bad as they attempt to speak outside their area of expertise.
SH
A few more comments, for TL and Caledonian:
TL, when I looked at the link you dished for the IK argument (thanks, BTW) I’m afraid I missed the landing of the blow I expected. From reading the Wikipedia summation in the notes, it seemed one could easily insert ‘Petri dish’ for every appearance of the word ‘universe’ and come to the absurd conclusion that Petri dishes, by being life-sufficient, are naturally-occurring objects.
Since I know that your thought is quite a bit more sophisticated than that, I’m assuming that I misunderstood the summary and/or the summary was incomplete or otherwise faulty. I’d like to learn more about the argument, in other words, before performing a snap judgement.
Caledonian: one doesn’t have to be a creationist to recognize that twiddling with some of the parameters would render life impossible. Paul Davies is no creationist, but makes the same point. Change ‘G’ just a little and no hydrogen coalesces in the early universe, for example.
SH
I would have thought that the best argument against the stupid anthropic principle (and it is stupid) is Douglas Adams’ “puddle” in HitchHiker …..
As a Physicist/Engineer, I can tell you, that agreeing with previous posters, the reception will be very warm (like fusion temperatures) from the profession.
For example: The thermodynamical argument only works for a closed system, and Earth is not a closed system.
And why is hydrogen necessary for life?
Didn’t quite think that through, didya?
“Also, science credentials do not a scientist make.”
Sounds more like a case of science credentials do not a philosopher make. Well, it depends on the exact gap in question…
I think it quite likely that the standard model of particle physics is explainable, and will eventually be explained in terms of a model with greater scope, and maybe even with fewer than the 29 parameters of the (new, neutrino mass) standard model. Explaining why the standard model is the way it is is well within the scope of physics (though we can’t yet demonstrate that physics can explain it), the God that fixed the parameters of the Standard Model is the same God of the gaps we’ve undoubtedly all run across many times before.
In my limited experience Deists tend not to be so silly as to assert God fixed the parameters of the Standard Model. The I.D. crowd in contrast are that silly. That silly and more. I suspect Dustin is quite right that “they’ll try to throw around things like ground state energies of carbon as though they were arbitrarily set independently of the rest of physics.” They’re ignorant of biology, theology, metaphysics and the contents of their own holy book[1], why should physics be any different?
[1] Yup, despite all the citations from scripture, the ID/fundie crowd don’t know what’s in the Bible. This becomes clear fairly fast if someone who has actually read the thing starts asking questions.
“Well, it depends on the exact gap in question…”
To elaborate, the question of why this universe exists at all, and follows physical laws in the first place, is a different sort of gap from the usual “missing link” sort. It’s a philosophical question (or pseudo-question as the case may be) and science can’t answer it. So it’s not that surprising that a scientist would not be familiar with the long and sordid history of that question and its answers.
Whereas the question of why the parameters to the Standard Model have the values they do is very much a scientific question. One that so far has no answer, but that’s not a good reason for thinking there is no answer in science to be found.
There really *was* a fine tuning problem in big-bang cosmology, back in the 70’s. To get universe that is as ‘flat’ as observations, the density during the early stages had to be tuned to some absurd (one part in 10**30?) level.
But along came inflationary cosmology (and ‘new’ inflationary cosmology soon after), and the fine tuning problem was solved. Not that there aren’t open questions and problems with inflationary cosmology, but damn, it’s been wildly successful, so that the original fine-tuning problems is buried and forgotten.
I fully expect that these other fine-tuning issues meet the same fate. Would that they could take the DIers with them.
Torbjorn has it right here, as I understand it – I’ve heard Susskind and Linde give just this basic argument. The reason why environmental selection (anthropic) arguments have gotten so much traction recently is because this kind of thing is very generic in current theories. You get faced with an enormous number of ways the theory could have turned out, but no way of choosing among them. Things like the number of large dimensions of space or the cosmological constant are affected by the values certain fields take, but these values are really just random in the theory – they fluctuate quantum mechanically from place to place. Some values of constants will cause their regions to rapidly expand, others to quickly recollapse (similar to the way a gene pool composition varies with time).
If that basic fact is true, environmental selection becomes obvious in much the way evolution is. We have a source of variation (quantum fluctuations) and a sort of fitness selection – most observers will observe a universe that is very interesting, since many more observers will appear in those regions than in the more boring regions. Appearing to have “hit the jackpot” is a lot less surprising if you know you’ve been playing the game for a long time.
The debate in theoretical physics is over whether this is really testable, and surprisingly there are many attempts at producing actual predictions (though I personally think they fall short of being very interesting thus far).
this is a tempest in a teapot
orbiting Mars!
All this arguing about drawing the bullseye after you fire, multiverses and so on is interesting, but I think Blake nails why – even if the universe *is* unlikely – a god cannot possibly explain it in any meaningful sense:
It’s very similar to the point the IDists love to ignore: if all complex life had to be designed, who designed god? If complex lifeforms can only exist in a fine-tuned universe, what universe is god from and who fine-tuned it?
God as an uncaused first cause or an unmoved prime mover or an undesigned designer doesn’t explain anything any better than the universe itself as an uncaused cause or an unmoved mover (and much worse than the theory that complex beings don’t necessarily have to be designed). It’s just the same old fundamentally self-defeating cosmological arguments that have been around, not convincing anyone, for thousands of years.
Whenever there is a major disaster with few survivors, some of the living can generally be counted on to thank the god of their choice for preserving them. The opinion of the dead as to whether or not a god chose them to *not* preserve is rarely solicited and never obtained. Only the living can wonder why they are alive. Dead people, like dead universes, can’t even ask the question. Therefore, the fact that every person wondering why they are alive actually *is* alive despite the odds against them… isn’t remarkable at all when you look at it from the right perspective.
I understand that there may in fact be multiple universes, or that there may be regions with different constants, but I still don’t see why they are necessary to refute the anthropic argument. Even given a single universe with no regions of differing constants and an almost infinitesimal chance of being hospitable to any sort of life, in other words the best case scenario for the anthropic argument, I still don’t see how this could be logically seen as an argument for God. Yes, the probability of our being able to exist would be incredibly low, but the probability of our being able to exist given that we can observe the probability of existing would be 100%. We still wouldn’t have any need of divine intervention.
This casts “god” as being a Puckish or Pan-style trickster figure, an idea I rather like, since it’s more in league with some traditions’ ideas of “satan”.
What is worth remembering is that there isn’t even a real word for the supposed fine-tuning “creation event”. I have to put it in quotes because not even the “hypothesis”, let alone the evidence, points to a creation event behind the “fine-tuning”.
Contrast that to the propaganda value of “design”. You can tell people that everything “looks designed” and many will believe it since they know no more about design than they do about biology. Yet it sounds “scientific” to “detect design” in organisms. And even if they say the same thing about the universe and its “fine-tuning”, it just doesn’t have the same impact as saying that flesh and blood animals were designed. That the parameters of the universe are the responsibility of some “creator” that doesn’t really sound like the God they hear about on Sunday may in fact have them claiming fine-tuning for their God, but it will seem like “woo” even to them.
ID was supposed to provide “concrete evidence” for the creator (never mind the fact that they had no evidence at all, a bit of sciency jargon was enough to convince many that eliminativism (not that they could even accomplish that) was evidence for design), not the vague “God is behind it all” that some philosophers and many theistic evolutionists are content to accept. Creationists have used “fine-tuning” as long as it has existed as an “argument”, but it has never been their main stock in trade. They don’t understand it, they want proof of the flood and numbers that “disprove evolution”.
Well fine, but maybe fine-tuning is the backdoor to crackpot numbers and “proofs of the flood”? No, I doubt it, as long as any vigilance remains. Only the top guys are sophisticated, if not in science, at least in PR–and even they put the asinine biological ID nonsense in The Privileged Planet.” These guys can’t stop themselves from piling on the “evidences” in an attempt to win with sheer weight (they seem to know that some of their arguments might fail, yet they suppose that some will not). Remember Dover. The creationists who enact curricula and legislation can’t shut up about God, creationism, and their belief that the Bible is the source of all Truth.
We do need to remain awake, but if at least that, not terribly worried. Fine-tuning problems do exist, but there isn’t a seemingly plausible anthropocentric super “designer” to invoke as a “reasonable hypothesis” for fine-tuning the universe. The philosopher’s God might seem reasonable enough to the philosophers (Antony Flew, even), but the creationists/IDists want a God as an enhancement of their own image, a hyper-engineer. They cannot push for cosmic woo without demanding that the super-engineer is a plausible scientific theory for organisms as well.
Plus the DI morons will go around preaching in the churches about how the universe and life mean that Jesus and Yahweh got together one day and decided to create everything (Behe himself can’t even stick with the God who controls evolution, but had to “frontload” the genome to satisfy his creationistic leanings (I don’t know if it’s his current “theory”)). Of course their “science” has nothing to do with their religion, except that coincidentally they both agree, but we’ll be in a sad state when our courts are stupid enough to believe that (and even most of their religious brethren aren’t that stupid).
The fact is that Dembski’s metaphysics-based statistical “method” would work as well on proving God in the cosmos as it would with organisms–iow, not at all, but it fools many of the rubes re the latter. And yet no one really troubles to apply his “method” to fine-tuning (I’m not suggesting that it has never been done, only that it rarely if ever is put into the creationist PR) since it doesn’t seem to people like we’re dealing with concrete evidence in the matter of fine-tuning. Fine-tuning appears to them show up the smarty-ass scientists, but the real evidence for God is something they want to find closer to home, in themselves.
The whole point of the wars they start over evolution is to show that their beliefs, Bible, and sense of themselves, is correct. Evolution undermines every one of those three things, which is why it is the enemy par excellence. Thus they cannot hold their theology back long enough to make a plausible-seeming “scientific hypothesis”, or to push it into the schools as a scientific theory. They only care about “fine-tuning” because it harms evolution in their preachers’ scenarios, and most wouldn’t even understand how fine-tuning could be separated from (while we don’t even know how it could be directly connected to) the question of evolution.
This is why there will never be a mass movement to include fine-tuning as an argument for God in the schools, and it could only exist as a stealth maneuver by a few conspirators. We really ought to be capable of detecting and defanging the few who can shut up about ID and God long enough to flog another ersatz “science”.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
There are essentially two variants of this kind of argument. The notion that planets suitable for life are too rare to have arisen by chance collapses if the universe is very large or infinite, because in a large enough universe, even very improbable things will happen occasionally. In that case, the anthropic principle is an adequate explanation–i.e. if life exists at all, then any living observer will necessarily find himself in a place suitable for life. The problem for creationists is that nobody actually knows how big the universe is. They usually try to slip in the size of the visible universe, and hope that nobody catches on to the fact that what we can see isn’t necessarily all that there is, but a physicist won’t fall for that.
Alternatively, they can argue that the physical parameters that yield a universe hospitable for life are a tiny subset of all possible parameters, so God must have twiddled the dials in our favor. This requires them to all notions of multiple universes, as well as the idea that the universe might have subregions with different physical constants (because that once again opens the door to an anthropic principle explanation). Since of course there is no way to know whether the universe is singular or multiple, they end up arguing, essentially, that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Caledonian allegedly replied:
“And why is hydrogen necessary for life? Didn’t quite think that through, didya?”
I assume you’re joking, or went off your meds or something. No hydrogen, no water. In fact, no hydrogen, no stars, no photosynthesis. In fact, no stars, no stellar nucleosynthesis, no carbon or any other heavy elements.
But you knew that, right?….SH
SH: I don’t think you got his point. That’s why hydrogen is necessary for our form of life. To state that our form of life is the only possible form of life is argument from insufficient imagination. Heck, it may not even be the only form of life possible in this universe, let alone in universes so strange they don’t even have hydrogen.
At least, I think that’s what he meant.
quoth Caledonian: “[W]hy is hydrogen necessary for life?”
to which Scott Hatfield replied: “No hydrogen, no water. In fact, no hydrogen, no stars, no photosynthesis. In fact, no stars, no stellar nucleosynthesis, no carbon or any other heavy elements.”
Scott, you’re quite right that hydrogen is necessary for Life As We Know It. The thing is, what about Life As We Don’t Know It? You seem to be focused on what kind of universes would allow self-reproducing whatzits that depend on a particular mode of implementation (namely, the CHON-based stuff we know and love), but a better question would be, what kind of universes allow self-reproducing whatzits at all, by any mode of implementation whatsoever? I mean, for all we know, there might be a universe out there somewhere in which learned savants argue that life cannot exist in any Cosmos whose laws don’t allow free quarks, you know?
For discussion or just as a reference:
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2006/pr-45-06.html
6 December 2006
Do Galaxies Follow Darwinian Evolution?
VLT Survey Provides New Insight into Formation of Galaxies
Using VIMOS on ESO’s Very Large Telescope, a team of French and Italian astronomers have shown the strong influence the environment exerts on the way galaxies form and evolve. The scientists have for the first time charted remote parts of the Universe, showing that the distribution of galaxies has considerably evolved with time, depending on the galaxies’ immediate surroundings. This surprising discovery poses new challenges for theories of the formation and evolution of galaxies.
Caledonian.
Just in case you weren’t joking. The point is that with insufficient gravity, the hydrogen that accompanied the birth of the universe would never coalesce into stars. No stars means no supernovae, which are, in turn, required to generate heavier elements upon which life depends. With too much gravity, the hydrogen bonds prolifically and is exhausted too quickly. There’s a difference of approximately .001 percent between what is considered too much and too little.
(not a physicist, so am relying on various laymen’s guides for figures)
Cubist – I take your point, but it requires a universe without hydrogen as a basic element. You could make up all kinds of wild ‘what if’s but to my limited knowledge, a universe where hydrogen doesn’t eventuate has a lifespan of zip plus squat owing to various other factors frequently cited as part of the anthropic principle.
I haven’t done the math myself, though.
From godlessgeeks.com; quoted by Dawkins in TGD:
-Hundreds of Proofs of God’s Existence-
#37 — ARGUMENT FROM POSSIBLE WORLDS
(1) If things had been different, then things would be different.
(2) That would be bad.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Dustin writes:
“Now you’re just being disingenuous. You did not simply pose a question, and you did take a position. I’d blockquote your original post, but I trust you can scroll back and read it, C.”
I’ll quote it myself.
“What am I missing? Creationists/IDers are trying to knock out a central principle in natural science. This seems more like harmless Deism (however silly) in that it’s not trying to deny anything well-established. I would be delighted if students finished high school with enough comprehension of cosmological constants to even appreciate what these folks are talking about.”
Four sentences that draw a definitional distinction. Definitions are not positions. Definitions are fundamental to careful thinking. The logical point, which clearly escaped you, Dustin, though others had no trouble getting it, is that the kind of fire that has been appropriately directed at creationism does not directly transfer to the fine-tuning argument.
You might also want to study up on the term “relativist,” which you use ignorantly. Relativism denies a universal standard for truth. Nothing in my posts does that or depends on that. It is *not* relativist to try to figure out other people’s arguments and compare them on a single logical grid.
So Dustin, after you learn to spell, after you learn to write a coherent paragraph, learn to read carefully and take a class in logic. Don’t call folks disingenuous until you’ve acquired basic skills in thinking and reading.
While I find discussions of the origin of the universe incredibly interesting, it seems to me that the debate taking place throughout the course of these comments fails to address the real “problem” with the subversive attempts by creationists to exploit public schools as a vehicle for their pseudo-scientific propaganda. The “problem”, as I see it, has little to do with the scientific/logical merit (or lack thereof) of creationism. On the contrary, it has almost everything to do with the government monopoly on education.
PZ might think that the religious education classes at catholic schools are a silly waste of time, but I doubt that he feels any compelling interest in altering that curriculum, nor could he claim a right to if he did. Those parents are paying with their own money to populate their children’s minds with bogus myths and antiquated morals. It may be a mistake, but it is a mistake they have every right to make. If you want to get the controversy out of the classroom, you have to get the public out of the schools. Let us all pursue our education (or, more properly, our children’s education) privately, as we best see fit, and THEN let the ideas that develop from those educations compete with one another in the public forum. Let’s not put the cart before the horse by trying to reach a consensus on curriculum before the debate can even be set in motion.
Free public education is right many poor people, who would be excluded from private education, will still fight and die for.
It is too bad people, particularly scientists, pay so much attention to creationist pseudo.scientists. I wonder about this. Creationsims is the political agenda of a small god with a highly exaggerated sense of his own importance, and as far as science goes, will just peter out like an old fart. The politics, of course, is another matter.
But it is biologist reductionist materialism that leaves the gap open for these charlatans. The anthropic principle was not put forth by some mystic or wingnut christian, but by a rather well respected physicist. And his arguments had not to do with ‘fine-tuning’ but with the counter-intuitive results of the hard-nosed physics of his (and our) day.
Until biology takes consciousness seriously, instead of writing it off as some epiphenonmenon of computers-for-brains or an illusion due to an overdose of neurotransmitters, then people will be tempted to look elsewhere for a reasonable explanation of the most obvious fact of their experience.
Scott:
The blow, as you call it, is as you assumed more apparent in the original paper linked below, where they show that Ross’s and Sober’s bayesian reasoning is invalid because of selection bias and overlooked information. In essence, the usual argument is reversed:
“The “fine-tuning” argument then reasons that if P(F|N)< <1, then it follows that P(N|F)<<1. In ordinary English, this says that if the probability that a randomly-selected universe would be life-friendly (given naturalism) is very small, then the probability that naturalism is true, given the observed fact that the universe is "life-friendly," is also very small. This, however, is an elementary if common blunder in probability theory. One cannot simply exchange the two arguments in a probability like P(F|N) and get a valid result. A simple example will suffice to show this." ( http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html )
So when they do it correctly, it turns out that either one doesn’t assume design, and fine-tuning increases the probability that the universe is naturalistic, or one assumes an ad-hoc design, and there is no new information (equality in probabilities).
Scott:
The blow, as you call it, is as you assumed more apparent in the original paper linked below, where they show that Ross’s and Sober’s bayesian reasoning is invalid because of selection bias and overlooked information. In essence, the usual argument is reversed:
“The “fine-tuning” argument then reasons that if P(F|N)< <1, then it follows that P(N|F)<<1. In ordinary English, this says that if the probability that a randomly-selected universe would be life-friendly (given naturalism) is very small, then the probability that naturalism is true, given the observed fact that the universe is "life-friendly," is also very small. This, however, is an elementary if common blunder in probability theory. One cannot simply exchange the two arguments in a probability like P(F|N) and get a valid result. A simple example will suffice to show this." ( http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html )
So when they do it correctly, it turns out that either one doesn’t assume design, and fine-tuning increases the probability that the universe is naturalistic, or one assumes an ad-hoc design, and there is no new information (equality in probabilities).
For the record, I think that the anthropic principle is consonant with all sorts of worldviews and doesn’t “prove” that there’s a Fine Tuner to explain the fine tuning. Still, I’m afraid I’m going to have to take this thread to the woodshed.
If I were to propose in some other context the existence of some untestable non-natural entity as an explanation for natural phenomena I would be properly savaged as engaging in woo-woo hand-waving in a fashion not coherent with the practice of science. In fact, I predict that the more semantically-hidebound of you folk would propose that such an explanation is excluded by definition since (play that funky music) ‘the natural is all there is.’
Yet now, in order to avoid even so much as a whiff of the anthropic principle you savants expect me to seriously consider the possibility of a universe minus hydrogen spawning life? Get a grip. A universe where an altered value of ‘G’ leads to the absence of hydrogen doesn’t even spawn nuclei. It’s entropic from the get-go, unless (ahem) you twiddle with all the other parameters. As far as I can see, this is an appeal to some untestable entity outside our known universe. Hand waving, fellas….SH
TL:
Thanks for your reply, and the links. I will investigate further. You make me think and you make me smile…SH
It is too bad people, particularly scientists, pay so much attention to creationist pseudo.scientists. I wonder about this. Creationsims is the political agenda of a small god with a highly exaggerated sense of his own importance, and as far as science goes, will just peter out like an old fart. The politics, of course, is another matter.
you both posed and answered your question in the same paragraph:
Q: why do scientists pay so much attention to creationists?
A: politics.
before the creobots started trying to influence national teaching and spending policies, nobody did pay attention to them.
whether ignoring the creobots was the right or wrong thing to do remains to be determined in full, but it was an obvious mistake to think that the energizing of the religious right by the neocons as a political strategy would not have an innevitable negative fallout.
the issue of stem cell research serves as an example on point, if you wish to see why scientists are “paying attention” to the creobots now.
on the education front, did you already forget about Dover, or Kansas?
Until biology takes consciousness seriously, instead of writing it off as some epiphenonmenon of computers-for-brains or an illusion due to an overdose of neurotransmitters,
…and until you have a clue as to what the current theories are in cognitive pysch and evo psych on these issues, you are just as ignorant as any creobot you extol “scientists” for paying attention to.
so, uh, why should we be paying attention to you, exactly?
Until biology takes consciousness seriously, instead of writing it off as some epiphenonmenon of computers-for-brains or an illusion due to an overdose of neurotransmitters, then people will be tempted to look elsewhere for a reasonable explanation of the most obvious fact of their experience.
here, let me rewrite that for you so you can hopefully see what an idiot you’re being:
Until cosmologists take geocentrism seriously, instead of writing it off as some perceptual anomaly of the ignorant, then people will be tempted to look elsewhere for a reasonable explanation of the most obvious fact of their experience, the fact that the sun goes around the earth (duh).
there ya go. the logic is exactly the same as in your original post.
with that kind of logic, you should indeed be wondering why scientists pay attention to creobots.
fortunately for the field of cognitive psych, there are few enough ignorati on the subject (like yourself) that their livelihoods aren’t threatened by influence on politics and spending.
so yes, there is no logical reason to pay attention to you, political or otherwise; consider my response just my way of having fun poking holes in ridiculous arguments from ignorant folk.
Uuups! Sloppy rereading from my side. Sober was the one making a similar argument to I-J.
Likewise, in that order. But your last joke had me ROTFL. As you say, you don’t use fine-tuning in arguments, do you? And on my own expence too. You bastard! :-)
Uuups! Sloppy rereading from my side. Sober was the one making a similar argument to I-J.
Likewise, in that order. But your last joke had me ROTFL. As you say, you don’t use fine-tuning in arguments, do you? And on my own expence too. You bastard! :-)
Ichthyic,the piranna police. You seem to be much better at visceral insults than at something approaching reasoning. Your analogy to geocentrism is simply off the wall and does not address the issue. Just exactly what are your “logical reasons” for being so unconcerned about the livelihood of cognitive “pschys”? Is it that you are one, or are you merely a fish. O, i know. you are a fish scientist who believes that science is just collecting another fish, “data” right?
Look back at your post. Besides trying to descredit me through mere insult, it provides no substantive arguments about anything. It is just a strongarm move to ban the subject I raised from discussion. You are a fascist.
“about Susskind and the CC”
Another uuups; it was Weinberg who was first, of course.
“about Susskind and the CC”
Another uuups; it was Weinberg who was first, of course.
You are a fascist.
sieg heil, baby.
*looks around for fake moustache*
ya know, it’s hilarious how predictable it is that when someone presents an argument from ignorance, and is convinced of the veracity of it in their own mind, when called on it they inevitably play the victim, and usually end up invoking shades of nazi germany that they think somehow supports their victimhood.
“Help! Help!, I’m bein’ repressed!”
Go ahead, call me on it. I have yet to find something substantial to respond to in your posts, my fish friend, instead of just insults and vague references to evo psych drivel. Let’s see an argument beyond crying ‘ignorance'(you use that word or its variants 6 times in your posts. Me thinks the lady doth protest too much).
How ironic that Hatfield rejects the idea that we can think about alternate universes with wildly different physics because it involves appealing to ‘untestable’ entities that violate our physics, while just a few threads over fellow apologist Ramsey insists that ‘God’, like Santa Claus, cannot be criticized on the grounds that its behavior violates known physics.
I see no reason to presume that atomic nuclei are necessary for life. In a “Schild’s Ladder” scenario, there are no particles of any kind, just intersections of various kinds of graphs. Nevertheless the very structure of spacetime is ‘alive’, and complex organisms woven out of simpler structures are sentient.
Quite simply, any physics that has interactions between elements complex enough to emulate basic mathematics should be able to host life.
yak yak.
if you are so blind as to not be able to see that I HAVE adressed your arguments, I can’t help you further.
you put up an army of strawmen, and i simpy blew them down.
you can put up more if you want, and I’ll be sure to let somebody else blow them down.
or, you could go learn something about what represents the real theories of cognition currently extant in the literature, rather than your strawman versions that have no basis in reality.
say something based on actual fact, rather than setting up strawmen of research into cognition, and you might get treated with a modicum of respect.
when you prop up a strawman of the scientific research into cognition, and then follow it by saying something like this:
then people will be tempted to look elsewhere for a reasonable explanation of the most obvious fact of their experience.
do you seriously expect anyone who actually knows something about science, let alone the history of research into cognition, would give you the respect you wish?
nope. derisive laughter is the appropirate response.
the same kind of laughter we give to geocentrists, and there are more of them than you might think (or know).
Scott Hatfield wrote (very small snippet):
I’m going to need a lot more convincing of that. I certainly recognize that a small change to a fundamental parameter would make life as we know it at best unlikely, but how does it follow that life is necessarily impossible?
Let’s start with this: can you define what you mean by “life”?
C, you’re living proof that Romans 12:20 is bunk. Calling you on your crap seems to be much more effective. Now, I hope you’ve taken your Crestor today because this is probably going to destroy what’s left of your fragile little grip on composure: When you ask a rhetorical question (and an extremely snide one at that) and then try to pass it off later as an honest one, that’s disingenuous. When you suggest that teaching something that is unscientific at best is good pedagogical technique that produces people who know a few cute little constants, that’s intellectual relativism.
Now, those pains you’re having in your chest are probably not a good sign. I’d suggest calling an ambulance, rather than wasting your time composing another half-page of “OMG DUSTIN IS TEH STOOPID!”
Daephex wrote:
as has already been pointed out, I don’t see how biology can be considered “easy to understand”, but in any case, I don’t think that’s really the point: creationists like subject matter that most people don’t understand, because it makes it so much easier to confuse them as to what the science really says.
That’s why they’re so fond of 2nd law of thermodynamics based arguments; they actually rely on the fact that their target audience doesn’t understand 2LT.
Terminology laden fields are to creationists what the woodpile in my backyard is to rodentia. If Dembski’s incomprehensible un-math is any indication, there is going to be some weird mangling of physics in the near future.
It’s too bad my analogy isn’t a little better. I can’t really set fire to physics to rid it of the creationists. Well, I can’t really set fire to the woodpile either, or the Fire Marshall will call and say scary things to me.
Chris Hyland: More to the point, the universe was not created (contradictions about with non-temporal determination) though in principle our Hubble volume might have been. The issue is rather more fundamental: even if the constants could vary (which we don’t know either way), what makes one think that one was thereby selected, regardless of how improbable we are? We could just be lucky. Until that’s ruled out, then the “fine tuners” are making a mistake even by their own dubious premisses.
RBH: Vic Stenger (who Sarkar mentioned) is a good resource, as is Taner Edis, Phil Plait and a few others, though I am not sure if there is anything like the talk.origins “index to creationist claims” yet. Perhaps “we” should get started, as you suggest. (I’m not a physicist, so putting “we” in quotation marks seems appropriate.)
Perhaps a more general clearinghouse will be needed, as I imagine there will be crap coming out in neuroscience, psychology, the social sciences, and probably even eventually chemistry.
JeffF: You’re overlooking another possibility, viz. that we are just massively unlikely. The universe could have “rolled the dice” and produced “all aces” (or however you want to look at it) despite its initial unliklihood.
Caledonian: You’ve mistaken my position. I don’t reject the use of thought experiments regarding imaginary universes. I’m sure such things are useful tools for the armchair philosopher. I just don’t think they pass muster in science unless the line of reasoning they invoke leads to testable conclusions in this universe.
Does your ‘zero-hydrogen alternate universe’ or (for that matter) the ‘Schild’s Ladder’ scenario lead to testable conclusions? Or are they just exercises in personal cleverness? I’m baffled how anyone could believe that they could reliably model the emergence of sentience absent particles when we don’t know what makes certain objects sentient in the first place.
“Fellow apologist?” That would be a clever characterization (not to mention a very subtle ad hominem)if I or Ramsey were making arguments toward the same end, but from reading him I really doubt that I share the gentleman’s interests/motivations. You’re projecting there, frankly.
Anyway, the problem with an argument appealing to imaginary universes is that there are no constraints on the fantasy engendered. “…the structure of space-time is ‘alive'”? Gasp! Let’s get that newsflash to the SciFi Channel now, Caledonian. If I didn’t know better, I would think that *you* and Deepak Chopra were ‘fellow apologists’. You have to admit that saying things like ‘space-time is alive’ sounds like New Age quantum quackery of the first order. Try reading it out loud in your best Colin Clive voice and you’ll see what I mean.
At any rate, we can imagine all sorts of objects with mathematics, but that doesn’t make them real, much less useful. In fact (as I’m sure you know) all sorts of mathematical objects are unreal (at least in this universe). Is the set of possible alternate universes based upon alien physics real? Who knows? One thing is certain: such an object is much greater than the one universe we know anything about, and at present impossible to investigate scientifically.
There’s nothing inherently mystical about fine-tuning. Trying to explain why the parameters of the universe, particularly the dimensionless constants, have the values they do and whether or not any of the parameters are in fact free to vary in this universe is a scientific problem.
Why, then, do some folks suddently find themselves craving a metaphysical deus ex machina to rid themselves of the anthropic principle?
Unapologetically….SH
Millimeter Wave: You ask good questions. First, I would define life as self-replicating objects able to respond to changes in the environment both as individuals (adaptation) and as a population (evolution).
Now, as I pointed out earlier (and Caledonian, to his credit, knows this) a universe with a weaker value for ‘G’ will not only fail to produce life, it will fail to produce atoms. The entire universe is entropic, and that seems to undercut the possibility of life at all.
Caledonian seems to think that as long as some sort of math can be realized, life is possible. But that’s just wrong. The reason why we have life in the first place is because that local conditions (heavy metals from first-generation supernovae, a main-sequence star, liquid water, etc.) have favored the accumulation of order (what Schrodinger quaintly called ‘negentropy’).
The odds are not in favor of such local conditions, but it’s a big universe, and so it seems probable that life emerged not only here, but elsewhere in the universe where the same conditions are approximated. It may even be, as some have suggested, that radically different forms of life are possible elsewhere in other conditions.
But, if so, these life forms will still require the improbable local accumulation of order, and this in turn is absolutely dependent upon a surplus of available energy.
I submit such a surplus is impossible in the severely entropic universe in which ‘G’ is too weak to form matter. In such a universe, all the particles quickly (probably in the first few minutes) become equidistant from one another, a quark fog of exacting (albeit lifeless) symmetry. Ignore the problem of storing information in such a universe for a moment: there would be precious little information to store in the first place! How could anything like natural selection even work, with every particle essentially identical and equally far apart from every other particle?
Fortunately, as Sagan once remarked, we live in an ‘in-between universe’ where not just information, but science is possible. And the structure of the universe is a scientific problem, that should be addressed in terms of testable natural causes, not “explained” (ha) with appeals to the supernatural or other non-testable claims, I think!
SH
Scott,
first, thanks for responding to my question. Your definition of life is probably as good as any, but also strikes me as somewhat broad. Could we not consider stars and galaxies to be alive under your defintion (accepting that that would require a rather broad construction of the term “self-replicate”). By the way, I don’t have a better answer; it’s an extremely awkward question, but one I think needs to be posed at the outset.
Apart from that, I disagree with a couple of things here (although, as always, I’m willing to be persuaded):
First, I think the sense of evidence is being reversed: the fine tuning argument states that if the funamental parameters of the universe were different, life would not be possible. I say hogwash; as you say, that doesn’t present a (readily) testable hypothesis, and I honestly don’t see how that can be drawn as a positive conclusion. It isn’t necessary to be able to arrive at an alternate positive conclusion that life is possible in any alternate scenario, however, in order to toss out the fine tuning argument as unfounded.
Second, I’m not convinced by your statement about the necessity of G being as large as it is for the existence of atoms (if you have some data to the contrary, though, I’d be very interested). Certainly at least hydrogen atoms would exist in a lower gravity universe, and I presume you’re referring to the manufacture of heavier elements in stars. Wouldn’t a lower value of G just require a greater accretion of mass to form fusing stars? Most stars are way beyond the lower mass limit for fusion to occur in the core in any case, surely?
Invalid argument. Consequent is not known to proceed from the antecedent – and basic logic strongly indicates that the consequent is wrong.
Hatfield seems to believe that “life” can only refer to biological organisms as we know them – silicon-based life, or waterless-life, or life existing in computer code or electron plasmas, don’t seem to be dreamt of in his philosophy.
Fortunately, Heaven and Earth are not limited to what he is willing to conceptualize.
Millimeter Wave: Let me preface my comments by noting that anthropic fine-tuning arguments, while they might be consonant with theism, are not ‘proof’ of God. I think part of the reluctance of some on this thread to give fine tuning a fair shake is their sense that it will inevitably be mustered as a new version of either the cosmological or teleological argument for God. I understand their concern, but the fact is the various anthropic principles are part of the mainstream in astrophysics, routinely taught to undergrads, and while presented as an important perspective with certain implications, are not offered as succedaneum for deity.
With respect to your first point, since we can at present only demonstrate the existence of a single universe, the properties of that universe are of great interest. If the fine tuning argument *was* being presented as *proof* of God, then I concur, that duck won’t hunt in science. However, if we are simply asking whether or not there are multiple independent parameters whose values seem extraordinarily sensitive and wondering what relationship these values have with one another, then we are asking a scientific question that we can attempt to pursue in a variety of ways.
For example, in ‘The Constants of Nature’ John Barrow and his associates discuss a method that they hope will allow them to test whether the fine structure constant has in fact varied over the life of the universe.
To put it another way, fine tuning as an argument for deity doesn’t deserve scientific consideration, but fine tuning as a phenomena that must be accounted for and which may hold clues to the universe’s deeper structure must be attended to, I think.
One answer that the physics community has been toying with are multiverse scenarios that say, in effect, that we happen to be living in one of the ‘lucky’ universes. I’m not too enthusiastic about that prospect, partly because there is no experimental evidence in support of a multiverse at the present time; the physicists who are pushing multiverses do so because they need it to make some version of string theory work. Forgive my skepticism, but any theory that needs seven additional dimensions and an infinite number of additional universes in order to function may not yet be ready for prime time.
Anyway, that briefly sums up my views on the import and possible usefulness of investigating apparent ‘fine tuning’ in this universe.
Now, as to your second point regarding a lower-gravity hydrogen universe. I think in my post I specifically required that ‘G’ be sufficiently altered so that hydrogen doesn’t form, so that would attend to that objection. However, you might well ask, just how much would ‘G’ have to be perturbed to produce this effect, and if it requires severe perturbation, why would we be justified in characterizing the value of ‘G’ as “fine-tuned”?
Let me get back to you on that. I know that the likelihood of a certain mass (the Jeans mass, after Sir James Jeans) is inversely proportional to the 3/2th power of ‘G’, whether one is talking about the collapse of an interstellar cloud or simply the likelihood of protons and neutrons colliding to form a hydrogen nucleus. I’ll be revisiting Steven Weinberg’s ‘The First Three Minutes’ and other sources. In the meantime, you might want to check out Paul Davies, who has a lot of very sensible things (I think) to say about the anthropic principle.
Cordially…SH
The discussion seems to have hit one of the current research problems (as I understand it) with anthropic reasoning in multiverses, the criteria for life. As MW notes this is different from discussing the fine-tuning argument. Different papers have used different criteria (and criticized the choices). But AFAIK one used in absence of more natural criteria has been the possibility for stars with enough long life.
The reasoning, such as it is, seems to be that they discuss probabilities anyway, and this gives the highest probabilities for life similar to known life. This goes back to the problems of testability as I understand it. Anthropic reasoning will probe these assumptions. Absent testing it will be related to data fitting with model assumptions. The debate could become if it any of it should be accepted if both assumptions and outcome looks reasonable. It will be a difficult debate.
The discussion seems to have hit one of the current research problems (as I understand it) with anthropic reasoning in multiverses, the criteria for life. As MW notes this is different from discussing the fine-tuning argument. Different papers have used different criteria (and criticized the choices). But AFAIK one used in absence of more natural criteria has been the possibility for stars with enough long life.
The reasoning, such as it is, seems to be that they discuss probabilities anyway, and this gives the highest probabilities for life similar to known life. This goes back to the problems of testability as I understand it. Anthropic reasoning will probe these assumptions. Absent testing it will be related to data fitting with model assumptions. The debate could become if it any of it should be accepted if both assumptions and outcome looks reasonable. It will be a difficult debate.
Caledonian is concerned that my definition of life excludes exotic possibilities when he writes:
“Hatfield seems to believe that “life” can only refer to biological organisms as we know them – silicon-based life, or waterless-life, or life existing in computer code or electron plasmas, don’t seem to be dreamt of in his philosophy.”
However, since Millimeter Wave asked, I had previously provided a definition of life as “self-replicating objects able to respond to changes in the environment both as individuals (adaptation) and as a population (evolution).”
Obviously, the definition I provided is not restrictive. Millimeter Wave even remarks that my definition strikes him as “somewhat broad.” A moment’s thought will realize that my definition does not in fact exclude life from any of the possibilities mentioned by Caledonian.
I have to believe the gentleman is actually smart enough to realize that. At issue is not the possible forms life can take if life is possible, but whether or not life of any kind is possible in certain universes with parameters different from our own.
If he investigates the matter, he will find (with John Barrow) that “there are a number of unusual apparent coincidences between superficially unrelated constants of Nature that appear to be crucial for the existence of ourselves or any other conceivable form of life.” I welcome any response that actually addresses this claim…SH
TL, as always, talks sensibly. Even if one doesn’t care for multiverses, as I don’t, one senses the importance of investigating the fine tuning paradox as part of any research program aimed at evaluating the likelihood of certain universes existing.
Besides, while the apparent coincidences might suggest a (gasp) Designer to some, they might also point to hidden symmetries whose recognition could revolutionize physics.
one basic point I’ve never understood about the “fine tuning” argument.
someone will claim an apparently small range a value can take to allow for some cosmological phenomenon (say, the value of gravity needed to create a stable star).
then they claim the “small” range of values actually means something in terms of probability.
… but how does that make sense, when nobody has the slightest clue what the actual probabilities are?
moreover, just how small a range is it, really?
a difference of .001 on cosmologic scales seems HUGE to me, there is an awful lot of room within that range on the scales we are talking about.
it seems arbitrary to call the range “small”
..and what about constraints? there might be any number of unknown constraints on the range that any given value can take.
I just seems the same mindset that produces “irreducible complexity” produces “fine tuning”.
IOW, it boils down to mostly an anthropocentric subjective interpretation of what the range of values “means”, rather than an objective assesment.
what evidence of objectivity does the idea of “fine tuning” have to support it?
Icthyic writes: “….a difference of .001 on cosmologic scales seems HUGE to me, there is an awful lot of room within that range on the scales we are talking about.”
I understand what you are saying, but it depends on what cosmological scale we are talking about. If we are talking about the present universe, perhaps a variance =.001 of the present value is not that impressive compared to 10 ^80 particles.
But what about the scale one-trillionth of a second after the Big Bang, when the universe’s size was the Planck length and there were no particles as such? At that point, a .001 variance of the gravitational constant would represent a huge change relative to the dimensions of the universe at that time.
This sounds like one of those half empty / half full deals, doesn’t it? Besides, there are constants whose values whose permitted anthropic variance is many orders of magnitude greater…at some point our feelings or intutions about what is ‘big’ relevant to the universe are no longer critical to the question of why it appears ‘fine tuned.’
SH
at some point our feelings or intutions about what is ‘big’ relevant to the universe are no longer critical to the question of why it appears ‘fine tuned.’
which is exactly why I am still requesting objective evidence to support the fine tuning argument.
Charlie Wagner, this being his favorite argument, failed to actually do so in weeks of argument a couple of years back on PT.
I’m still very skeptical that the fine tuning argument relies on anything more THAN the very “feelings and intuitions” you mention.
Ichthyic: Torjborn Larsson has tried to couch these things in the propositional calculus and he has on more than one occasion referred threads to the Ikeda-Jeffreys argument, which purports to counter-intuitively lead to the rejection of ‘fine tuning’ while still admitting the weak anthropic principle. I confess I had some trouble following the argument, but when TL talks, I pay attention. He’s smart and fair-minded.
So, Wikipedia has an article on that, you might want to check that out. Also, consider reading Paul Davies acceptance speech for the 1995 Templeton Prize, which (despite the circumstances) makes a case for the importance of studying fine tuning which in no way is a manifesto for religion….SH
Templeton Prize? As in the one rewarded for bringing together science and religion?
Hatfield, when it all comes down to bare truth, you’re just another talking head making endless apologetics for religion. You’re just a bit better at it than Wagner, Ramsey, or Ham.
(cheerfully) Better than Wagner? Really? Since we’re passing out the holiday compliments, let me be the first to tell you that you build a mean scarecrow!
Let’s not scare the kids, though. There’s a real difference between raising questions out of a context that includes religious experience and actively trolling for any particular religious viewpoint, and (rhetoric aside) I think you know that.
I try to avoid the latter like the plague for three reasons:
a) It’s not why I read Pharyngula
b) It would be rude and inappropriate in this forum
c) I find the idea personally distasteful
You see, I’m actually interested in learning things from people even if I might not agree with them. Wouldn’t it be great if we could exchange views on ths basis? I really don’t have another agenda, and (frankly) I think it’s a bit much for a disembodied anonymous commenter to refer to me as a ‘talking head’ since I actually use my real name and periodically provide links to my own email and web site, etc.
I’ll tell you what, here’s a friendly little challenge for you: why don’t you actually read Davies acceptance speech for the Templeton Prize, and tell me what (if anything) you find acceptable/unacceptable, and why?
Alternatively, continuely tell anyone who is listening that Hatfield is some sort of stealth apologist…SH
makes a case for the importance of studying fine tuning which in no way is a manifesto for religion
to be clear, I’m not saying that the fine tuning argument is BASED on a religious belief set, rather I’m saying i see similar logic applied to the idea of fine tuning and that of irreducible complexity.
“Fine tuning” has a nasty tendency to lead to assertions about a “Fine Tuner” – the implication is usually that life is too improbable to have existed unless some nebulous thing intervened and caused an improbable event to occur.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the physical constants can take on different values in the first place, there are two important conclusions we can draw about the supposed ‘tuning’ of those constants:
1) If life becomes much more likely when the constants take on particular values, then the anthropic principle adequately explains why we find those values to be present in our universe. If our universe didn’t have those values, we wouldn’t be there to notice the fact.
2) If life does not become much more likely when the constants take on particular values, then the fact that our universe has any particular set of values doesn’t really mean much. It has to have some, and observing that life in this universe is constrained by the fitness space defined by those constants is trivial.
It’s only really brought up by people who wish to take the religious arguments against biological evolution and apply them on a cosmological scale.
I dunno about Caledonian, but what I find unacceptable is right here:
“You might be tempted to suppose that any old rag-bag of laws would produce a complex universe of some sort, with attendant inhabitants convinced of their own specialness. Not so. It turns out that randomly selected laws lead almost inevitably either to unrelieved chaos or boring and uneventful simplicity.”
Just as Ichthyic says, unless you’ve got a meaningful probability measure over your space of all possible natural laws, talking about “randomly selected laws” and “almost inevitable” is simply gibberish. It doesn’t matter if the life-friendly range of values of some constant has a width of .000001 or 100000, in whatever units you’re using. Without a probability measure, there’s no difference between the two. Particularly when the range of all conceivable values is infinite.
(As I understand it, Roger Penrose tried to do such a probability calculation. But his figures necessarily depend on the cosmological model he’s using, and if the universe was supernaturally created his model’s wrong anyway, so his argument is self-contradictory.)
It might have helped if Hatfield had actually read “Schild’s Ladder”, or at least knew what the hell I was talking about.
Unfortunately, knowing what the hell other people are talking about isn’t one of his strengths.
Scott,
I should be clear as to what I was referring by “fine tuning arguments”. I was referring to the argument that if the fundamental parameters were only slightly different, then life would be impossible. I wasn’t going any further than that and talking about whether there are any theological implications of that conclusion, and I don’t have an aversion as such to the argument on that basis; I just don’t buy it in the abstract sense.
I am prepared to accept that life as we know it would not occur under different conditions, for the simple reason that life as we know it is adapted to the specific conditions we encounter.
I just don’t see any basis for dismissing the possibiity of any form of life under a different set of conditions. As I remarked earlier, this is not a positive assertion that life is necessarily possible under a different set of conditions, rather an assertion that the conclusion of the fine tuning argument as I stated it has no merit. This is most certainly not the same thing…
Icthyic notes (correctly) that the mindset of those who invoke ‘irreducible complexity’ is akin to to those who invoke ‘fine tuning.’ Couldn’t agree more: often, they’re the same people, which is to say people who prefer a supernatural explanation.
Those of us who know something about evolution, though, realize that the supposedly IC features of living things are almost certainly the products of many rounds of selection. The appearance of IC in the minds of IDevotees is in part due to a failure of imagination: they fail to see how existing structures can be coopted for new functions, or how changes could be facilitated by ‘scaffolding’ or other now long-vanished intermediate.
In the same way, apparent fine tuning could be (as Suskind has suggested) the result of selection, but perceived as a cosmic version of IC due to a general failure of imagination. So, I am open to the idea that apparent fine tuning is as illusory as the apparent design seen by creationists in living things, and for similar reasons. But the best way to dispel this illusion is to research the apparent fine tuning and look for natural causes, rather than attempt to rule it out a priori by appealing to imaginary universes where there are no particles.
Caledonian observes (correctly) that “fine tuning” has a nasty tendency to lead to assertions about a “Fine Tuner”.
I agree, but it shouldn’t have any bearing on the question of whether or not the apparent fine tuning should be the subject of scientific investigation. Obviously I think it should, as does Davies. Don’t you?
I think any other resopnse is selling science short, guys. There is a formidable host of astrophysicists, past and present, who would like some explanation for these dimensionless constants. We should prefer natural explanations based upon investigations in the only universe that we have any reasonable expectation of actually existing, our own. That’s all I’m saying. Davies says pretty much the same thing: read his works if you don’t believe me.
Anton Mates point is well taken: we have no idea of what the initial probability distribution should actually ‘be’, which casts a jaundiced eye as to whether or not the constants are really fine-tuned. Again, I agree, but again, let’s not sell science short. That door swings both ways and we can’t rule out the possibility that fine tuning has occurred, so it makes sense not to rule out their scientific investigation, which could easily happen if we place too much confidence in imaginary universes, right?
SH
For the record, the “Schild’s Law” Caledonian refers to is a work of science fiction. The protagonist of that work triggers the existence of a ever-expanding field of ‘novo vacuum’, which is more stable than ‘ordinary vacuum.’ During the course of the novel, the former grows at the expense of the latter, and it is revealed that something like life is perigrinating along the edge of the growing sphere of ‘novo vacuum’.
In the novel, this ‘novo vacuum’ life is realized without particles, which are seen as a limiting case of a more general theory of everything. It’s an interesting conceit, Caledonian, but I have to wonder how the novelist satisfies thermodynamic constraints? After all, there has to be surplus available energy to drive a local decrease in entropy. Where is the energy coming from, to build this emerging aparticular life? If it is coming from the consumption of the ‘normal’ vacuum, then what happens to this life once the original universe is consumed?
Puckishly….SH
Indeed. The physical sense of fine-tuning is that parameters in theories often (“naturally”) is O(1). So whenever a parameter must be adjusted precisely to agree with observation it is a fine-tuning problem. The most famous is the CC which is O(10^-120).
Here we are discussing conditions that allow life, which has some often tight constraints, and is another sense of fine-tuning.
As I commented on earlier, it is the weak anthropic principle (WAP) that claims that values in this range are likely to have been probable since life exist, at the same time introducing and explaining “apparent fine-tuning” from probabilities. The tautological AP (TAP) is only the observation that the parameters must be compatible with our existence.
The TAP famously helped Fred Hoyle to ad hoc predict the carbon-12 resonance that makes the triple-alpha process possible to make heavy nuclei in stars. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process )
Both TAP and WAP is used by some current physicists to explore if they can make predictions from string theory and/or multiverse cosmology. The crux in this work may be testability.
Barrow, and IMO Davies, have another agenda than to explain parameters and test theories. But such efforts are as futile as ID as I see it, since analyses like I-J, or Caledonians here on WAP (1) and TAP (2), show that they have it backwards. They are bound to not find anything of value for their ulterior motives.
Indeed. The physical sense of fine-tuning is that parameters in theories often (“naturally”) is O(1). So whenever a parameter must be adjusted precisely to agree with observation it is a fine-tuning problem. The most famous is the CC which is O(10^-120).
Here we are discussing conditions that allow life, which has some often tight constraints, and is another sense of fine-tuning.
As I commented on earlier, it is the weak anthropic principle (WAP) that claims that values in this range are likely to have been probable since life exist, at the same time introducing and explaining “apparent fine-tuning” from probabilities. The tautological AP (TAP) is only the observation that the parameters must be compatible with our existence.
The TAP famously helped Fred Hoyle to ad hoc predict the carbon-12 resonance that makes the triple-alpha process possible to make heavy nuclei in stars. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process )
Both TAP and WAP is used by some current physicists to explore if they can make predictions from string theory and/or multiverse cosmology. The crux in this work may be testability.
Barrow, and IMO Davies, have another agenda than to explain parameters and test theories. But such efforts are as futile as ID as I see it, since analyses like I-J, or Caledonians here on WAP (1) and TAP (2), show that they have it backwards. They are bound to not find anything of value for their ulterior motives.
There were many, many ways my mother’s and father’s genomes could have been spliced together. The chances of the particular combination that lead to me are ridiculously small – one in several hundred million. If the genes had been different, either the fetus would not have been viable, or I would have been a different person. Clearly there must have been a Great Sperm Driver ensuring that my specified genome arose. Oh, and there’s nothing else we can determine about the Great Sperm Driver, not even through rudimentary logic, because it doesn’t necessarily follow human logic and is outside the bounds of time and space.
There were many, many ways my mother’s and father’s genomes could have been spliced together. The chances of the particular combination that lead to me are ridiculously small – one in several hundred million.
i realize this as a bit of parody, but it still is a good example of exactly what I was talking about wrt thinking in terms of “large and small probabilities”.
what in particular give this particular combination a “ridiculously small” chance of occuring…
the overall large number of humans on the planet? The possible number of recombinants given your parent’s genomes?
both of those numbers are entirely dependent on time generating variability, and lots and lots of sex.
if we went back say even 20000 years ago, what would the probabilities be then?
In this specific case, even though we really don’t have a good grasp of what the real probabilities are, we at least could make educated guesses (which would still likely be incorrect, as we simply don’t have the information necessary to pin it down).
in the case of “fine tuning”? we really aren’t even close to be able to make realistic guesses, let alone educated, about what those probabilities are objectively.
we have a very good understanding about meiosis, recombination, and even a complete map of our genome, and still nailing down the exact probability of a specific genotype isn’t terribly realistic.
compare that with our knowledge of cosmology at this point.
we have a very good understanding about meiosis, recombination, and even a complete map of our genome, and still nailing down the exact probability of a specific genotype isn’t terribly realistic
not saying, of course, that rough estimates aren’t good enough for judges
;)
TL: I appreciate your comments re: Davies and Barrow. I presume you think they have some theological agenda. Though, when I read Barrow, I think the idea that animates him is the notion that some dimensionless number like the fine structure constant might vary over time, which potentially would (as I understand it) provide some clue as to the necessity of cosmic inflation. I *think* Davies is some sort of deist, but I have no idea what Barrow’s view are on that.
Caledonian (joshingly): I always suspected your Sperm was Great, if not (like Monty Python’s) Sacred.
Seriously, though, your analogy is poor. Given sufficient time, all sorts of improbable things can happen in a complex system like biological evolution. But we aren’t talking about the improbability of things happening within a system; we’re talking about the probability of there being a system in the first place…right?
Anyway, I don’t endorse fine tuning or the anthropic principle as any sort of demonstration of religion. That’s not science, and trying to turn this discussion into some sort of religious debate (yawn) is not helpful.
Does it tickle my fancy, privately, to consider in what ways this or that cosmological scenario might be more or less consonant with different ideas about origins? Sure! But at the end of the day it doesn’t make a whit of difference to me or anyone else whether they are consonant, or no.
My real interest is akin to Einstein’s: the degree of chance or necessity in the initial conditions. And all I’m really saying here is let’s not exclude the possibility of fine tuning a priori, just because its consideration might provide cannon fodder for creationists. Let’s take the apparent coincidences seriously, and investigate them, because they may provide powerful clues for future modeling…..SH
The trouble comes, as in the “cosmological landscape” branch of string theory, when the anthropic principle is used as an excuse for not expecting your theories to actually explain why things are the way they are. Definitively giving up the quest for such explanations is only a small step from giving up on science altogether.
we aren’t talking about the improbability of things happening within a system; we’re talking about the probability of there being a system in the first place…right?
and how do you know we aren’t really talking about a subset of another system?
And all I’m really saying here is let’s not exclude the possibility of fine tuning a priori
nobody is, it’s just…
occam, dude.
Icthyic:
Do you see the irony between your first (“…a subset of a system”) and second (“Occam”)posts above? I don’t discount the possibility that there might be other dimensions or multiple universes, as in the most popular versions of string theory right now.
The problem is none of those ideas have an experimental support at present; until such support is unequivocally known to exist, I think the *parsimonious* approach is to assume one universe.
Perhaps, as TL has suggested, when the LHC goes on-line we’ll have something that would warrant a different approach. Until then, if there’s only one universe known to exist, then the set of parameters in that universe warrants investigation, especially with regard to any apparent coincidences between their values….SH
Steve LeBonne: Well said.
Do you see the irony between your first (“…a subset of a system”) and second (“Occam”)posts above?
no.
when there is so little information, the idea that something is fine tuned requires more than the hypothesis that it isn’t.
just that simple.
as to this:
we’re talking about the probability of there being a system in the first place…right?
my point was, how do you know that that’s what we are talking about, there is just as much information available to suggest that there was another “system” of some kind that spawned the current one (didn’t come from nuttin’ right?), so it takes equal amounts of information for one hypothesis as the other. It has nothing to do with “multiverses”.
so, no, you’re wrong here, the two statements do not contradict.
Well, OK, I see what you’re saying but it seems to me that we are talking past one another here. If in fact we were only talking about one apparent instance of ‘fine tuning’ I wouldn’t give it any more thought than the coincidence of the Earth and moon’s orbital period.
But the situation is that there are multiple parameters, wherein (to use Davies’ expression) the ‘twiddling’ of over a dozen dials must be set to several orders of magnitude. And we do have a lot of information about what the dials are, and how they must be set, in order to achieve our present universe.
For another perspective on Davies views, the skeptic Victor Stenger has a nice discussion here:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/ThirdWay.htm
Hope you find this interesting…SH
It just seems pointless to say that the universe is fine-tuned for our existence, because any possible observer would likewise see a fine-tuned universe.
Not only pointless, but pretty egotistical, especially when ‘fine tuning’ is appropriated by those Christians (Hugh Ross comes to mind) who build ever more elaborate ad hoc arguments to ‘prove’ the Fine Tuner is the God of the Bible.
SH
I think the cosmological constants could be related, so they couldn’t vary independently in ways that would cause the universe not to be able to exist; we probably just haven’t worked out how yet. We still have different sets of laws for small things and big things, despite the supposition that the laws of nature are universal.
If you take Einstein’s equations of motion, assume that everything is moving very much slower than c, then simplify taking account of the assumption, you get Newton’s equations exactly. This suggests that both the “small stuff” laws and the “large stuff” laws are approximations to some set of more complex equations, with terms that vanish under different circumstances.
There’s a horrendously complex way (which I’m not going even to attempt to mention here) to prove the Inverse Square Law, and you get the exponent to be pretty close to 2. The simpler way to prove it is to assume that the energy carried by a wave is distributed evenly over the area illuminated (and there’s no reason why it should be any other way), which is proportional to the square of the distance from the source.
The cosmological constants could very well be dependent upon one another, and if there really is a Grand Unifying Theory then it will almost certainly include an explanation of how they are connected.
With respect to the last remark, in his book ‘The Constants of Nature’ Barrow has this to say:
“The more simultaneous variations of other constants one includes in these considerations, the more restrictive is the region where life, as we know it, can exist. It is very likely that if variations can be made then they are not all independent. Rather, making a small change in one constant might alter one or more of the others as well. This would tend to make the restrictions on most variations become even more tightly constrained.”
So this is another of those ‘glass half empty/half full’ deals. From one perspective, the possibility of the interrelatedness of some of the constants could be comforting, as those related might be produced by a single underlying cause, presumably natural. From another perspective, however, this would make the ‘fine tuning’ apparently all the finer, providing ammunition for more ad hoc creationist-style arguments.
Perhaps, once the LHC is on-line in earnest, we can decide which of these perspectives is likely to be more fruitful. My hunch is that the improved resolution will ratchet up the level of constraints on some of the constants but not provide any experimental evidence of a revolutionary character.
It would be nice to be wrong about that, though….SH
Scott, I haven’t read Barrow myself, but as the Templeton prize page says “His later works have explored a huge range of subjects on the science and religion interface at a level that speaks to lay readers and specialists alike.” ( http://www.templetonprize.org/bios.html ) According to his wikipedia page he seems to be a deist.
Scott, I haven’t read Barrow myself, but as the Templeton prize page says “His later works have explored a huge range of subjects on the science and religion interface at a level that speaks to lay readers and specialists alike.” ( http://www.templetonprize.org/bios.html ) According to his wikipedia page he seems to be a deist.
Oops! Well, it should be readable.
Worse is that I realize, and remember, that my speculation on Weinberg is wrong. Because as Polchinski says, he doesn’t need a probability measure. But of course it is a variant of WAP.
Oops! Well, it should be readable.
Worse is that I realize, and remember, that my speculation on Weinberg is wrong. Because as Polchinski says, he doesn’t need a probability measure. But of course it is a variant of WAP.
With respect to different measures leading to different results, it would be interesting if anyone has compared what sort of measures lead to what sort of results, and if there is any discernible pattern. This would seem to be a hard thing for a non-specialist to research, though. Any links/suggestions?….SH
Scott:
That would be interesting indeed. I have not found a review, but I would appreciate any links.
What I have seen thus far is in multiverses theory. Due to the difference in the two main models there seems to be two schools. (But both looks mainly at following world lines to enable their constructions.)
One is the semiclassical eternal inflation (Vilenkin, Linde et al). A recent review, including a background on how their model works, is http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602264.pdf and a good description how they construct typical proposals, and more background, is http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0509/0509184.pdf .
The other is the quantum (causal patch) eternal inflation (Susskind, Boussou et al). A a good description on how they construct typical proposals is http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0605/0605263.pdf and a background description on how their multiverse works is http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0606/0606114.pdf .
To see how they pick their environmental (or anthropic) choices one has to look on actual predictions. Vilenkin’s review mentions some for their model and Boussou’s proposal has some more.
Unfortunately, all of this is research, so we non-specialists has to look at the big picture. It also means that one has to defer judging to experts. I mean, the causal patch model is by its nature a criticism on the semiclassical model, et cetera.
Scott:
That would be interesting indeed. I have not found a review, but I would appreciate any links.
What I have seen thus far is in multiverses theory. Due to the difference in the two main models there seems to be two schools. (But both looks mainly at following world lines to enable their constructions.)
One is the semiclassical eternal inflation (Vilenkin, Linde et al). A recent review, including a background on how their model works, is http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602264.pdf and a good description how they construct typical proposals, and more background, is http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0509/0509184.pdf .
The other is the quantum (causal patch) eternal inflation (Susskind, Boussou et al). A a good description on how they construct typical proposals is http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0605/0605263.pdf and a background description on how their multiverse works is http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0606/0606114.pdf .
To see how they pick their environmental (or anthropic) choices one has to look on actual predictions. Vilenkin’s review mentions some for their model and Boussou’s proposal has some more.
Unfortunately, all of this is research, so we non-specialists has to look at the big picture. It also means that one has to defer judging to experts. I mean, the causal patch model is by its nature a criticism on the semiclassical model, et cetera.
TL: It’s like the Gospels: ‘ask TL, and ye shall receive.’
Thanks!
SH