Douglas Adams Puddle Analogy And Fine-Tuning

RogueAI

Douglas Adams had this to say:

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!”

However, what if the puddle explores the boundaries of the hole and find's it's a perfect square. Then, the puddle is going to wonder if the hole happened by accident or not. Or, what if the hole has the shape "2 + 2 = 4" (picture some little canals connecting the symbols). Then, the puddle would know for sure the hole is artificial.

So, what epistemic position are we in in this universe? I would argue we're looking at a universe that's the equivalent of finding yourself in a hole that spells out the first ten digits of Pi. It's just too finely balanced for anything complex to exist, let alone life, and there's no evidence there's anything fundamental to the values the physical constants have. The only two moves the materialist can make to avoid the inevitable conclusion the universe was designed is to assert the existence of an unproveable unfalsifiable immensely large multiverse full of universes with different physical constants, and we're just one of the lucky ones, or it's all a simulation (which is also saying it's designed).

DingoJones

↪RogueAI

You missed his point completely. The water fits perfectly into the hole not because the hole was designed for it but because the water naturally shapes to conform to its little puddleverse.
Our universe wasn’t designed for us to live in, we are the natural result of it’s traits just like the puddle is a natural result of the holes traits (specifically, it’s shape). If our universe was much different and there was life in it then that life would be much different as well, as dictated by the “shape” of the different universe.

javi2541997

The only two moves the materialist can make to avoid the inevitable conclusion the universe was designed is to assert the existence of an unproveable unfalsifiable immensely large multiverse full of universes with different physical constants, and we're just one of the lucky ones, or it's all a simulation. — RogueAI

It is one of the most beautiful topics to debate about. Do we live in a simulated universe/world? Well I guess in this point it is all about of how we are perceived by others and sadly we do not have it yet. I mean, being seen from other communities or intellectuals citizens of how they see the Earth and also the individuals living there (we the humans).
As you pointed out we have to assert unprovable large multiverse full with physical constants. Here I have to say that I go for the path of lucky ones. It can happen for just a chain of clever “accidents” which lead us in how we perceive the universe we live in as “square”, “Pi number” “hole” and other physical criteria we the humans established as our order.

RogueAI

↪javi2541997

Eventually, the luck hypothesis becomes too ridiculous to believe. Suppose you join a poker game and the dealer deals himself a royal flush. Suspicious, but it happens. But then he deals himself another royal flush. And another. And it's all explainable by luck, of course. A million royal flushes in a row are statistically possible. But you would have left the game long before that, because while luck is an explanation, after x number of royal flushes, luck stops being a good explanation. It's trumped by "the dealer is cheating" explanation, which in this discussion is "someone designed it".

Are we in a universe that's beaten those kinds of odds for any complex things to exist? That's what a lot of cosmologists say. The flatness of the universe we observe requires an incredibly precise density of matter and energy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatness_problem

RogueAI

↪DingoJones

Dingo, even if you find yourself in an environment that has to be a certain way in order for you to exist, you can still question whether that environment came about by design or not. If lifeform x explores environment y and discovers environment y is shaped in a way that spells out the first ten digits of Pi (in a form x is familiar with), x will correctly conclude environment y is artificial. Or there's a random process and a whole lot of other environments...(the multiverse, in other words).

javi2541997

luck hypothesis becomes too ridiculous to believe. — RogueAI

But you would have left the game long before that, because while luck is an explanation, after x number of royal flushes, luck stops being a good explanation. — RogueAI

Exactly! This is why is so beautiful and interesting this topic. How many x in a row have we to consider as the player is cheating? Probably this is due (as you well said) of how difficult is to believe something or someone is “perfectly” lucky. But somehow the human specie is so lucky itself. We have to remember here how our ancestors had evolved until we are here without any lethal fatality (I.e what happened with dinosaurs and its deceased).

Also it is interesting because it reflects what cosmologists explain as you share in the link. It is ridiculously perfect the density of matter and energy.

DingoJones

↪RogueAI

You can question it sure, but you cannot draw a conclusion based on how well suited you are to the environment. It doesnt imply design just because one is well suited to it, in fact one should expect to be well suited to an environment one has adapted for.
You referencing the complexity of a universe that’s the first 10 digits of Pi is essentially an argument from ignorance fallacy. You do not understand the complexities so you insert “design” to fill in the gap and draw a false conclusion. Thats logically fallacious.

RogueAI

↪DingoJones

but you cannot draw a conclusion based on how well suited you are to the environment.

In the puddle analogy, that's not what's going on. The conclusion is based on the hole having a mathematically significant shape that implies a designer.

This universe also has a mathematically significant shape in that it is flat (or as flat as we can tell) and the odds of it being flat by chance are so vanishingly small, it's called the "flatness problem". So, is being flat a significant fact about the universe, like a hole shaped like Pi? I will grant you that in the case of the universe, it's not so clear. I think you can make a good argument that since flatness is necessary for complexity, and complexity is what you would expect from a designer, the existence of a highly improbable attribute (flatness) that is exactly what we would expect to see had the universe been designed is strong evidence for either a designer or a sufficiently large and variable multiverse.

DingoJones

In the puddle analogy, that's not what's going on. The conclusion is based on the hole having a mathematically significant shape that implies a designer. — RogueAI

No, the opposite. Maybe we are talking about different puddle analogies? There must be some miscommunication here because we literally have opposite ideas of what the puddle analogy is saying.

his universe also has a mathematically significant shape in that it is flat (or as flat as we can tell) and the odds of it being flat by chance are so vanishingly small, it's called the "flatness problem". So, is being flat a significant fact about the universe, like a hole shaped like Pi? I will grant you that in the case of the universe, it's not so clear. I think you can make a good argument that since flatness is necessary for complexity, and complexity is what you would expect from a designer, the existence of a highly improbable attribute (flatness) that is exactly what we would expect to see had the universe been designed is strong evidence for either a designer or a sufficiently larg — RogueAI

Well I would say flatness is necessary for a specific complexity but it’s more accurate to recognise that complexity can arise from more than just flatness (in the context of the universe of course).
That something is improbable doesnt make the negative conclusion correct.
Also, complexity requires no designer. Things can be complex and not designed at all. I think your argument still falls short I’m afraid.

RogueAI

↪DingoJones

Did you not read the second paragraph of my OP?

"However, what if the puddle explores the boundaries of the hole and find's it's a perfect square. Then, the puddle is going to wonder if the hole happened by accident or not. Or, what if the hole has the shape "2 + 2 = 4" (picture some little canals connecting the symbols). Then, the puddle would know for sure the hole is artificial."

Also, "This tiny value is the crux of the flatness problem. If the initial density of the universe could take any value, it would seem extremely surprising to find it so 'finely tuned' to the critical value {\displaystyle \rho _{c}}\rho _{c}. Indeed, a very small departure of Ω from 1 in the early universe would have been magnified during billions of years of expansion to create a current density very far from critical. In the case of an overdensity ({\displaystyle \rho >\rho _{c}}\rho > \rho_c) this would lead to a universe so dense it would cease expanding and collapse into a Big Crunch (an opposite to the Big Bang in which all matter and energy falls back into an extremely dense state) in a few years or less; in the case of an underdensity ({\displaystyle \rho <\rho _{c}}\rho < \rho_c) it would expand so quickly and become so sparse it would soon seem essentially empty, and gravity would not be strong enough by comparison to cause matter to collapse and form galaxies. In either case the universe would contain no complex structures such as galaxies, stars, planets and any form of life."

From Wiki

DingoJones

"However, what if the puddle explores the boundaries of the hole and find's it's a perfect square. Then, the puddle is going to wonder if the hole happened by accident or not. Or, what if the hole has the shape "2 + 2 = 4" (picture some little canals connecting the symbols). Then, the puddle would know for sure the hole is artificial." — RogueAI

I did read it yes, maybe I’ve misunderstood your purpose. Did you intend to describe a fictional universe or the actual one? I thought you were claiming that the actual universe was like this fictional one you presented. Also, you haven’t actually addressed my arguments.

Enrique

I will grant you that in the case of the universe, it's not so clear. I think you can make a good argument that since flatness is necessary for complexity, and complexity is what you would expect from a designer, the existence of a highly improbable attribute (flatness) that is exactly what we would expect to see had the universe been designed is strong evidence for either a designer or a sufficiently large and variable multiverse. — RogueAI

Why can't the flatness of the universe simply be a consequence of its rotation? When we toss pizza dough it flattens. The planets vertically compress by a small amount as they rotate at a relatively slow speed.

Douglas Adams Puddle Analogy And Fine-Tuning

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions