Please see my reply to Devans99 above, to save me having to write it out again. Basically, one cannot simply presume the sample space, it's context dependant and so requires no less justification than the statistical technique applied to it. I've yet to read any justification in the Fine-Tuning arguments for selecting {all the values I can imagine this variable having} as the correct sample space from which to extrapolate the probability of a variable having some particular value. To take Devans' examples. — Isaac

Read your reply to Devans99. What is the correct sample space in your opinion?

It could however be any conceivable value from 0 to ∞ and we would still have a universe; just without life. — Devans99

Repeating things doesn't make them any more true. Why could it be any conceivable value from 0 to infinity? Why couldn't it be some inconceivable value, for example? Why can it not be, as with the card trick, that the number of possible values has nothing to do with the sample space and we're looking at the wrong variable? Maybe gravity's value is inextricably linked to all the other variables in the universe, all linked to one factor which can only be in one five states.

And "infinity can be a useful concept" is not going to wash as an argument in a mathematical calculation. You're claiming to have some idea of the probability, that is event/sample space. The sample space you're using is infinity, so what maths are you doing?

Read your reply to Devans99. What is the correct sample space in your opinion? — TheMadFool

I haven't the faintest idea. That's the point.

It is fallacious to claim the universe is fine tuned for life. Life is a consequence of the universe being the way it is. Only if one assumes that there was a design objective for life can one infer that the universe had to be finely-tuned to produce it.

The "Fine Tuning Argument" leads one to believe there is some "coincidence" that demands explanation, but a coincidence entails two or more facts that unexpectedly "coincide." A set of constant values does not constitute a coincidence, nor does a consequence of the values being what they are: If A causes B, B causes C, and C causes D - it is not an unexplained coincidence that A is "D permitting."

Richard Feynman once said, “You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight... I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!”

Any particular set of values for the "fundamental constants" is low probability. As Feyman implies: low probability things happen all the time.

The anthropic principle is simply a specific version of this general truth;

For all x, in order for x to obtain, the universe must meet the range of preconditions required to enable x.

The "Fine Tuning Argument" leads one to believe there is some "coincidence" that demands explanation, but a coincidence entails two or more facts that unexpectedly "coincide." A set of constant values does not constitute a coincidence, nor does a consequence of the values being what they are: If A causes B, B causes C, and C causes D - it is not an unexplained coincidence that A is "D permitting." — Relativist

Why does 'a set of constant values does not constitute a coincidence'? Over 20 independent physical constants had to be the way they are for life to be possible. Surely the mother of all coincidence.

Richard Feynman once said, “You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight... I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!” — Relativist

The license plate ARW 357 has nothing special about it Feynman's analogy falls wide of the mark. Our universe does however have many things special about it, starting with stars (energy sources for life) and planets (living surfaces for life). Even just the formation of these is an incredible coincident. Even the formation of atoms is a minor miracle.

Any particular set of values for the "fundamental constants" is low probability. As Feyman implies: low probability things happen all the time. — Relativist

Yes but we have one instance of the universe being created to discuss. Did it come about by:

1. A billion in one shot coming off and we just happen to get lucky
2. The universe was fine tuned for life

The first is incredibly unlikely so we can discount it in comparison to the much more likely second option.

The "Fine Tuning Argument" leads one to believe there is some "coincidence" that demands explanation, — Relativist

The conceptual mistake that people make is that they think about it as "starting from us," where they think of us as a goal. And then they think, "Well, things had to be made just so in order to achieve us as a goal."

But that's not what's going on. It's rather than we're the way we are because the universe is such that we're something that can develop in it. And that's the case for every single other thing that exists, too.

And if the universe were different, the same thing would be the case for every single thing in that alternate universe, as well.

Why does 'a set of constant values does not constitute a coincidence'? Over 20 independent physical constants had to be the way they are for life to be possible. Surely the mother of all coincidence. — Devans99

See what you just said: "for life to be possible." You are treating life as the objective. I am pointing out that life is a consequence of the constants being what they are. A consequence does not constitute a coincidence in need of explanation.

The license plate ARW 357 has nothing special about it Feynman's analogy falls wide of the mark.

You are treating life as special, just is Feynman is facetiously treating this license plate as special.

Yes but we have one instance of the universe being created to discuss. Did it come about by:

1. A billion in one shot coming off and we just happen to get lucky
2. The universe was fine tuned for life — Devans99

The winner of a lottery is "lucky" because his previously purchased ticket is drawn. We didn't have a ticket prior to the "universe lottery." Winning the universe lottery just means some set of constants is actual.

The consequence of random chance does not constitute evidence of non-randomness.

Consider a lottery on which a billion people have exactly one ticket. A ticket is drawn, and there is a winner. His chances of winning were 1 in a billion, and yet he won. Does his low probability of winning imply the lottery was rigged?

Exactly.

What would you think of a Universe that is made up of questions? Questions are not as dusty or unreliable as we deem them. We do rely on questions... we do rely on thought.
It is already solid to us.
Why would we deny this question-Universe as our Universe? Because it is not seen as one of our own. So we deny it, just because it is not seen?! But it is seen to you and is all that can ever be seen by you. So you gather the strength to change so that you may pick a different Universe, because you don´t want to recognize the Universe you are in, is the Universe in you.

I forgot to tell you that I am a stage magician, doing a trick, and you are a member of the audience.

Still think the sample space is 1:52? — Isaac

Isn't this just the fine-tuning argument? You're positing a being (magician) who has meddled with the probabilities and caused the universe into existence.

This is unacceptable because that's exactly what I think is an erroneous conclusion because, as I said, in chaos we may see order.

Consider a lottery on which a billion people have exactly one ticket. A ticket is drawn, and there is a winner. His chances of winning were 1 in a billion, and yet he won. Does his low probability of winning imply the lottery was rigged? — Relativist

We know lotteries tend not to be rigged. We do not know if universes are 'rigged'. It could be that universes are not rigged and we just got lucky, but thats very unlikely.

We know lotteries tend not to be rigged. We do not know if universes are 'rigged'. It could be that universes are not rigged and we just got lucky, but thats very unlikely. — Devans99

Show how this set's winning is more unlikely than all other possibilities. Do so without assuming life is a design objective.

Show how this set's winning is more unlikely than all other possibilities. Do so without assuming life is a design objective. — Relativist

Not sure I understand the question. All possibilities in the lottery are a billion to one - all equally unlikely. So losing is almost 100% certain. So winning is clearly more unlikely than all other possibilities.

If you see a face in the sand on the beach, do you assume it is a random arrangement of molecules or that someone drew it?

Isn't this just the fine-tuning argument? You're positing a being (magician) who has meddled with the probabilities and caused the universe into existence.

This is unacceptable because that's exactly what I think is an erroneous conclusion because, as I said, in chaos we may see order. — TheMadFool

It needn't be a 'magician'. The point of the example wasn't to indicate what the alternative sample space might be, it was to point out that hidden information can completely change what the correct sample space is. To simply presume the sample space is the number of values for the variable is an error. The correct sample space is contextual and needs to be justified. If we cannot justify it, then nothing can be said of probabilities resulting from it.

It needn't be a 'magician'. The point of the example wasn't to indicate what the alternative sample space might be, it was to point out that hidden information can completely change what the correct sample space is. To simply presume the sample space is the number of values for the variable is an error. The correct sample space is contextual and needs to be justified. If we cannot justify it, then nothing can be said of probabilities resulting from it. — Isaac

Oh ok. Thanks but don't you think the whole of epistemology/knowledge has been constructed under the condition that ''hidden information'' is a possibility. Show me how @Devans99's argument deserves special consideration. Why is his argument undermined by ''hidden information'' more than, say, the knowledge of heliocentrism?

We can surely know and in fact ALL knowledge has the unstated premise that there could be ''hidden information'' out there that could refute it. I think you're undervaluing the information we have and overvaluing the information we don't have.

The difference is that Devans is trying to do maths with the numbers and using the resulting probability as an argument for the unliklihood of the circumstances. With scientific models, we do indeed make presumptions about the exhaystiveness of the data set, but we do do only in saying that the result produces a usefully predictive model. The solar system may well not be described by the laws we think, our model may well be incorrect ultimately because of hidden data, but one thing is undeniable, on which the whole endeavour is based, and that's that the model works, it had utility.

Claiming a mathematical result from unknown variables is not like this. It is the equivalent of saying "1+x=8 (oh, I just presumed x is seven, but hey, we have to go with the knowledge we've got!)". It's totally wrong. 1+x is 1+x. If we don't know what x is, then that's the end of the discussion about it.

Devans99
1.7k

Consider a lottery on which a billion people have exactly one ticket. A ticket is drawn, and there is a winner. His chances of winning were 1 in a billion, and yet he won. Does his low probability of winning imply the lottery was rigged? — Relativist


We know lotteries tend not to be rigged. We do not know if universes are 'rigged'. It could be that universes are not rigged and we just got lucky, but thats very unlikely. — Devans99

There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to know or estimate what you are considering to be "unlikely."

That estimate is a result of your bias of wanting the universe to be a creation.

You really have to get away from that if you want to be logical.

Not sure I understand the question. All possibilities in the lottery are a billion to one - all equally unlikely. So losing is almost 100% certain. So winning is clearly more unlikely than all other possibilities. — Devans99

You're overlooking that every one of the billion possibilities had an equal chance of being drawn (1 in a billion), and therefore it's not remarkable that the winner was a 1 in a billion shot.

If you see a face in the sand on the beach, do you assume it is a random arrangement of molecules or that someone drew it?

It's random. Now map out the exact shape of the grain and consider how improbable it was that the grain would happen to have this exact shape. See the problem? It seems remarkable only if you treat the actual shape as a goal, or design objective.

You're overlooking that every one of the billion possibilities had an equal chance of being drawn (1 in a billion), and therefore it's not remarkable that the winner was a 1 in a billion shot. — Relativist

But it is still remarkable that we won at a billion to one - there was only one lucky ticket (the one life supporting universe). Suspiciously remarkable. Fine tuning is a much more likely explanation that a billion to one shot coming off.

it is still remarkable that we won at a billion to one — Devans99

No it isn't. We are here to remark on it, which means we must have won, which means the fact that we did is not remarkable at all.

Fine tuning is a much more likely explanation that a billion to one shot coming off. — Devans99

A billion to one shot did not 'come off' because no one was aiming to get this particular universe.

You're overlooking that every one of the billion possibilities had an equal chance of being drawn (1 in a billion), and therefore it's not remarkable that the winner was a 1 in a billion shot. — Relativist


But it is still remarkable that we won at a billion to one - there was only one lucky ticket (the one life supporting universe). Suspiciously remarkable. Fine tuning is a much more likely explanation that a billion to one shot coming off. — Devans99

The universe lottery randomly selects a set of constants, and each set of constants will result in a universe with consequences that are unique to that universe. Life is unique to this universe, but how is this specific uniqueness relevant to assessing whether or not the selection of constants was actually random?

By analogy, consider a real-world lottery in which every person in the U.S. has exactly one chance to win. A name is drawn, and the winner is a one-eyed, hemophiliac dwarf. Consider the odds against a one-eyed, hemophiliac dwarf winning the lottery! Does the improbability of such a person winning give us reason to think the lottery was rigged to favor one-eyed hemophiliac dwarves? The existence of life in this universe is no different: There's no basis for assuming any lottery is rigged based on the post-hoc observation that the winner has some rare or unique attributes, because every possible winner has something rare or unique about it.

But in this lottery there is only one participant - only one of the billion tickets was bought - as represented by our universe. So it is remarkable that we won.

But in this lottery there is only one participant - only one of the billion tickets was bought - as represented by our universe. — Devans99

Not true. You are assuming the fundamental constants could have been different, so each combination of constants participates in the lottery. Let n be the number of combinations. The probability of any specific combination "winnng" is 1/n. Therefore there's nothing remarkable about a 1/n probability participant winning.

You seem to be blind to the fact that you are treating life as a design objective. If you do not treat life as special, your argument falls apart. If you do treat life as special, your argument is circular.

You are assuming the fundamental constants could have been different, so each combination of constants participates in the lottery. — Relativist

The fundamental constants could of all been very different:

- The strength of the 4 forces
- The masses and charges of the subatomic particles
- The rate of expansion of the universe

That gives a huge possibility space - and we have only one shot at winning. We won, so it is much more likely it was due to the lottery being rigged (=the universe being fine tuned).

You seem to be blind to the fact that you are treating life as a design objective. If you do not treat life as special, your argument falls apart. If you do treat life as special, your argument is circular. — Relativist

If there was a God (lets say there is a 25% chance of that just for arguments sake), life would be a design objective. So we have:

- 25% chance of God * 100% chance of fine tuning
- 1 in a billion chance that we 'get lucky' and have a life supporting universe without God

Which of the above is a more likely explanation?

I'll get back to you later.

we have only one shot at winning. We won, — Devans99

No. We did not 'win' because we were not playing. The lottery was played, the variables set, and then we evolved directly because the universe was that way. Afterwards. Nobody won.

If the universe had not been that way, we would not have evolved, so we wouldn't be here to wonder about it. We are here to wonder about it so it is not in the least bit surprising that the universe is supportive of life. In fact, it's an absolute pre-requisite for us being able to ask the question.

If I met you on the moon would you be surprised to learn I own a space rocket on account of the fact that very few people have space rockets? No. Its bloody obvious I've got a space rocket because I'm on the bloody moon.

The equivalent to a lottery would not be the chances of us having the winning ticket, it would be...

1. A billion to one lottery is played. No surprises yet.

2. One of the tickets (2, 14, 12, 8, 6 and 10) is the winning one. Still no surprises, one of the tickets has to win.

3. The winning ticket uses its particular numbers to spawn a religion based on 2, 14, 12, 8, 6 and 10. Still no surprises, they're the only numbers available.

If the people of that religion start saying "Woah, what are the chances the winning ticket would have the exact same numbers our religion is based on", they're clearly talking crap.

We are here to wonder about it so it is not in the least bit surprising that the universe is supportive of life. In fact, it's an absolute pre-requisite for us being able to ask the question. — Isaac

That the universe must be live supporting is a given; the real question is why is the universe life supporting?

1. A billion to one fluke comes of (that all 20 odd constants came out in the life supporting range)
2. Or the universe was fine tuned to be life supporting

2 is much more like that 1.

the real question is why is the universe life supporting?

1. A billion to one fluke comes of (that all 20 odd constants came out in the life supporting range) — Devans99

It's not a billion to one fluke, for fucks sake man. It's like talking to me brick wall. It's not a fluke, a win, a gamble, a lucky break, a surprise or anything like that. It is one of a billion possible options. That's all, because no one was intending or hoping to get this particular outcome, and this outcome was no less likely than any other.

Take the strength of gravity for example; it could have been set to anything between 0 and ∞. It's set precisely so that stars and planets can form and so that nuclear fusion in stars takes place at the correct rate (and we don't get too many black holes).

That is just one of 20 or so constants that all have to be within given ranges. It is much more than a billion to one shot I would guess.