A Regressive Fine Tuning Argument

Devans99

1. The universe is fine tuned for life so there must be a fine tuner
2. The fine tuner’s environment must be fine tuned for life so that implies another fine tuner
3. An infinite regress of fine tuner’s is impossible*
4. So there must exist an uncaused fine tuner who’s environment is in itself not fine tuned
5. This fine tuner must be very special (to be uncaused and to not need a fine tuned environment)

*All infinite causal regresses are impossible:

A. Assume an infinite causal regress exists
B. Then it has no first element
C. If it has no nth element, it has no nth+1 element
D. So it cannot exist

A Note On Fine Tuning

The atom is a prime example of the fine tuning of our universe for life. The strengths of the forces (strong nuclear force and electromagnetic) and masses/charges of sub-atomic particles all have to be set to close to their current values in order for atoms to hold together; if the forces were different, atoms would not form or be stable, or if they would form, it would only be the simpler elements (no carbon so no life).

The fine-tuning of the atom allows the wonderful range of matter we experience in the world today (the elements all 100+ of them). Then we have the remarkable chemical bonding process that give rise to the hugely diverse range of chemical compounds in the world, many of which are essential for life (water, amino acids, RNA. DNA).

The atom seems like a toolkit for construction of advanced matter and life. Contrast our universe to the vast majority of hypothetical universes; particles would just bounce off each other endlessly without any cohesion because the forces and particles where not fine-tuned such that atoms and compounds would form. Or there would be too much cohesion and everything would end up in a single black hole. We have a very fine balancing act between these two extremes.

The Weak Anthropic Principle

The weak anthropic principle states that it is necessary for the universe to be life supporting (because we are here). It does not address why the universe is life supporting. The two possible reasons are: a massive fluke or a fine tuner. The second is much more probable than the first IMO.

The Strong Anthropic Principle

The strong anthropic principle proposes a multiverse of universes all with differing physical constants such that the vast majority of universes would not support life (but we get lucky and ours does support life).

But in any reasonable form of reality, all of the universes in the multiverse are probably be made from similar stuff and go probably through a similar evolutionary processes - so they should all end up life supporting.

Pantagruel

Systems theory eliminates all the teleological confusion by simply establishing that it is a normal feature of some systems (complex adaptive systems) to generate adaptive-complexity along with emergent properties. Systems theory is extremely well-founded empirically, is amenable to mathematical representation (via non-linear equations) and has proven applicable in every known domain that I have read about. So fine-tuning may be just an inherent tendency of the universe to resolve itself into states of adaptive-equilibria.

Devans99

So fine-tuning may be just an inherent tendency of the universe to resolve itself into states of adaptive-equilibria. — Pantagruel

I think if you were to write a computer program that generated universes at random, with random forces, random standard model, random initial conditions, you'd fine that the vast, vast majority of universes generated were not life supporting. The vast majority of universes generated would simply not support complex matter (like the atom).

Another example is the fine balance we have between gravity and the expansion of the universe. Gravity is required at its current strength / direction of action / range for life (nuclear fusion, planets) but leads to equilibrium. That tendency is counteracted by the expansion of the universe. Both gravity and the expansion of the universe are therefore likely fine-tuned.

Pantagruel

I think if you were to write a computer program that generated universes at random, with random forces, random standard model, random initial conditions, you'd fine that the vast, vast majority of universes generated were not life supporting. The vast majority of universes generated would simply not support complex matter (like the atom). — Devans99

I think if you coded it using non-linear equations tuned to the proper set of fractal attractors iit probably would work...

Devans99

↪Pantagruel

Take for example just the strong nuclear force. It must have the strength, direction and range it currently has for atomic nuclei to hold together. Quarks must have the right properties to interact with the strong nuclear force. Change any of these properties and we have no atomic nuclei, so no life.

Pantagruel

↪Devans99

Right, which is all consistent with those entities emerging as a result of systemic evolution, as documented and tested through systems theory.

RegularGuy

Right, which is all consistent with those entities emerging as a result of systemic evolution, as documented and tested through systems theory. — Pantagruel

Yeah, okay. I may grant you that... but what is not a miracle about consciousness and what is it exactly? I'm not giving an argument here. I'm asking an honest question that has no satisfactory answers to date.

Devans99

Right, which is al consistent with those entities emerging as a result of systemic evolution, as documented and tested through systems theory. — Pantagruel

Those properties do not evolve; they are effectively set in stone by the initial rules and conditions of the universe.

Pantagruel

Those properties do not evolve; they are effectively set in stone by the initial rules and conditions of the universe — Devans99

I'm pretty sure that is an open question, and not an established fact as you are suggesting. In any case, the property could still emerge by the process I describe, up to the point at which (as you suggest) it is set in stone. There were definitely no chemical processes going on in the early universe, the conditions simply wouldn't allow it.

Devans99

↪Pantagruel

OK maybe science has not reached a judgement, but initial conditions of the universe + initial laws of the universe -> determine the four forces and standard model completely, seems reasonable to me.

180 Proof

Systems theory eliminates all the teleological confusion by simply establishing that it is a normal feature of some systems (complex adaptive systems) to generate adaptive-complexity along with emergent properties. Systems theory is extremely well-founded empirically, is amenable to mathematical representation (via non-linear equations) and has proven applicable in every known domain that I have read about. So fine-tuning may be just an inherent tendency of the universe to resolve itself into states of adaptive-equilibria. — Pantagruel

:clap: :100:

'Logic & facts' do not persuade either
woo-bots or trolls; nonetheless I applaud the effort, especially when it's succinctly lucid and scientific.

Devans99

↪180 Proof

Your logic is at fault as I already pointed out.

RegularGuy

↪180 Proof

Are you a materialist?

Pantagruel

No one asked me, but I'm personally leaning towards Scientific Realism lately, all of the substance of science with none of the clutter of materialism...

RegularGuy

Emergent properties as explanation is nothing more than invoking magic.

Pantagruel

Emergent properties as explanation is nothing more than invoking magic. — Noah Te Stroete

Emergent properties are not explanations, they are facts. Trying to explain them away reductively is the mistake.

RegularGuy

Emergent properties are not explanations, they are facts. Trying to explain them away reductively is the mistake. — Pantagruel

Calling them "emergent" and not fundamental is the mistake.

Pantagruel

Calling them "emergent" and not fundamental is the mistake. — Noah Te Stroete

Quibbling. If you don't disagree that the property is a holistic feature and more than the sum of component elements.

RegularGuy

↪Pantagruel

I agree that there are intangible, fundamental "elements" and "features" of reality if that's what you mean. Mind doesn't "arise" from the brain, or at least it has not been shown to be a feature solely attributable to beings with brains.

180 Proof

Emergent properties as explanation is nothing more than invoking magic.
— Noah Te Stroete

Emergent properties are not explanations, they are facts. Trying to explain them away reductively is the mistake. — Pantagruel

:up:

Mind doesn't "arise" from the brain — Noah Te Stroete

I see. Like ... 'walking doesn't arise from legs' or 'singing doesn't arise from lungs', etc.

:roll:

↪180 Proof Your logic is at fault as I already pointed out. — Devans99

Of course you have. :yawn:

↪180 Proof

Are you a materialist? — Noah Te Stroete

Before all else I'm a freethinker; and to paraphrase:

Many speculative paradigms have been proposed, and no one pretends that materialism is perfect or ultimately true. Just that it's been said that materialism is the worst 'metaphysics' - begs the most questions with the least intelligible grounds - except for all those others that have been perennially proposed ...

... and favored by atavistic cognitve biases.

:death: :flower:

RegularGuy

I see. Like ... 'walking doesn't arise from legs' or 'songs don't arise from lungs', etc. — 180 Proof

Walking is what legs can do. Singing is what a conscious person with a body can do. They do not "arise". Consciousness is a phenomena not akin to walking or singing. A dead corpse cannot walk or sing. It takes consciousness which is fundamental to reality. Conscious experience "arising" from brains is invoking magic.

180 Proof

↪Noah Te Stroete

Minding is what a living (human) brain does.

Consciousness is a phenomena not akin to walking or singing. — Noah Te Stroete

:chin:

Explain how you know this to be the case.
.

RegularGuy

↪180 Proof

Because my conscious experience involves sensations of walking and singing. It is prior to the doing.

180 Proof

↪Noah Te Stroete

How do you know this?

RegularGuy

↪180 Proof

It's a necessary a posteriori truth knowable through experience.

180 Proof

It's a necessary a posteriori truth knowable through experience. — Noah Te Stroete

In other words, it's an induction (i.e. cognitive bias, or as Hume says "habit of thought"), and as such, begs the question how do you know this? (to wit: 'I know X because X is known through (my) experience ...) :confused:

RegularGuy

↪180 Proof

Nope. I would venture you know it through your experience, too, if you’re being intellectually honest. Truths are known either through experience (a posteriori, and as all experience is private, all a posteriori truths are privately known and communicated consciously by a thinking agent) or they are known by the meanings of the definitions of the terms used (a priori). This is Saul Kripke stuff. It is a necessary truth because experience cannot be conceived to exist without consciousness.

180 Proof

↪Noah Te Stroete

Kripke is, at most, (sort of) interesting (e.g. Quine, Goodman, Sellars, Haack, Lewis ... make much more sense). Definitions, btw, lack truth-value; that's why formal arguments distinguish between definitions & axioms. Consider, rather, Witty's "private language argument" as a corrective (or qualifier) to that folk empiricism of yours. Also, 'transcendental' double-talk won't get you very far if we threadcap into a ramble about cognitive neuroscience, etc. Whatever 'consciousness' is objectively, it clearly isn't what it subjectively seems to be (Metzinger et al).

tim wood

↪Devans99

Why do you do this, Devans99. All these premises/propositions that you adduce have been dealt with by members of this community multiple times. What is your actual purpose?

For substance's sake,

1. The universe is fine tuned for life so there must be a fine tuner — Devans99

This is quite a claim. Support it. With evidence. You've been at this for so long that I have no compunctions telling you to put up or desist. And no "maybe" or "could be" or if - no hypotheticals - because all that ground has already been exhaustively covered.

That is, if you've got anything new, go ahead. Otherwise, please spare us.

RegularGuy

Kripke is, at most, (sort of) interesting (e.g. Quine, Goodman, Sellars, Haack, Lewis ... make much more sense). Definitions, btw, lack truth-value; — 180 Proof

Kripke is a rockstar. Why do you think NYU where he taught was the number one ranked graduate school for philosophy? Kripke makes a lot of sense.

So the premise, “A bachelor is an unmarried man” is untrue? That’s strange.

180 Proof

↪tim wood

:up:

1. The universe is fine tuned for life so there must be a fine tuner — Devans99

Life (e.g. human being) fine-tunes her models of the universe - otherwise known as reflective equilibrium, a rarefied, special (cognitive) mode of adaptive behavior. And nothing that purportedly 'transcends' the universe, however, logically follows from life's fine-tuned, or anthropic, models of the universe (Hume, Kant ... Stenger, et al).

2. The fine tuner’s environment must be fine tuned for life so that implies another fine tuner

Question begging non sequitur.

3. An infinite regress of fine tuner’s is impossible*
4. So there must exist an uncaused fine tuner who’s environment is in itself not fine tuned

Explain why this "uncaused fine tuner" is not its own environment aka "the universe" (or nature itself).

Why multiply inexplicable (thereby question begging) entities needlessly? (Occam) All this 'kalam' amounts to is just a(nother) Woo-of-the-Gaps emotional crutch. :point: :fear:

5. This fine tuner must be very special (to be uncaused and to not need a fine tuned environment)

No more "special" than any formal object or (other) fictional construct.

:roll:

↪180 Proof Your logic is at fault as I already pointed out. — Devans99

:yawn:

Kripke is a rockstar. — Noah Te Stroete

Goooooood luck with that ... and your Ark.

A Regressive Fine Tuning Argument

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions