• Zelebg
    333
    1. Chances of a very special universe that is life supporting by accident: billion to one
    2. Chance of a fine tuner who exists in a non fined tuned environment: considerably higher

    1. chance that A just so happens to exist and has property B
    2. chance that X just so happens to exist and has property Y which is to create A that has property B
  • tim wood
    3.6k
    1) What is your definition then?
    2) I am thinking of everything in 4d spacetime mode. So space is analogous to time. So like every object has a spacial starting point(s), it also has a temporal starting point.
    3) How about the physical pre-conditions that result in an event happening.
    4) -
    5) What is your definition then?
    Devans99

    1) Time. Sometimes language is the problem. In definitions there's usually an "is." To define time, it seems natural to start with, "time is...". But that doesn't work. Better to start with a phenomenological approach. E.g., what is time when it is functioning as time? This of course is clumsy, but it bends the path of thought to what it is in use - and who is using it, and how and why. And that's about the best that can be done, so far as I know. Sometimes this kind of "definition" is expressed in an "is when" proposition. E.g., time is when that happened then, this is happening now, and something else will happen in the future. Past, present, future, before, same time, after. And so forth. In short, I think time is defined by how we observe it, use it, and understand it in use. If you know of anything better, please cite it here. A consequence is that if anyone does say that, "time is," that is immediately suspect until and unless it be more fully explicated, usually as, "time is when," which is to say, phenomenologically. And this all means that a person has to take some care with what they say about time.

    2)
    So space is analogous to time. So like every object has a spacial starting point(s), it also has a temporal starting point.Devans99
    Until you account for the "starting" point on any surface, like the surface of a sphere, you got nothing here, either spatially or temporally. You could make it all a hypothetical, as in, "if" x then y, but that gets you exactly nowhere in your thinking.

    3) Cause.
    3) How about the physical pre-conditions that result in an event happening.Devans99
    Like the great chain of causation? Chains, of course, are made of links - that's the idea, yes? - but links don't make the chain. The missing ingredient is the linking of the links to make a chain, and never mind the phenomenology here. If you want to argue in terms of causes, then you have to have a good grasp of linking. Perhaps the difficulty of this question, or at least it's problematic nature, is why formal science thinks in terms of fields, and leaves "causes" for informal and descriptive exposition. This, btw, having been explicitly expressed to you by several people several times.

    4) Big bang. Care even with this blunt object of a concept. But no complaints here, yet, with yours.

    5) First. Coherent in ordinary usage, Not coherent in your usage. For you it stands as a presupposition. But even in your usage it won't serve. You want your designer/g/God, even at the cost of rationality. But all you've done is pushed the can - the question - down the road. As a presupposition, you would have it that it works in your argument. But then it poisons your whole argument. "If frogs had wings...". Great, but at the moment frogs don't have wings. Your argument becomes one of flying frogs. That is, even if you had your g/God, then where (when, why, how) did it come from? Always there? Turtles all the way down? I call this argument the fallacious appeal to the greater nonsense.

    Ignorance is the general and greater condition of us all. We do know a thing or two, but expanding on that is result, ultimately, of work, not fantasy.
  • 180 Proof
    616
    So you think that a greater than any finite number of days (or Planck intervals if you prefer) has passed?Devans99
    Non sequitur.

    The length of a circumference can be measured with a finite (natural) number of [units-of-choice] and yet it's unbounded.

    I don't see how anything at Planck-scale could possibly be responsible for something like the BBDevans99
    Of course you don't. :yawn:

    There is nothing without a first cause; it determines and defines everything else in existence.Devans99
    Repeating this uncorroborated and unsound assertion (i.e. g/G of the gaps) doesn't make it so. Besides, "first cause" is jabberwocky like first integer ... or north of the north pole.
  • jorndoe
    809
    You are not able to give a satisfactory reason why the argument does not work, so I will keep posting it; it is a sound argument.Devans99

    A. assume infinite past moments
    B. then there's no 1st moment
    C. or 2nd ... or nth moment
    D. so A can't be numbered with a 1st ... nth moment
    E. ?

    You allege yours to be a purely deductive proof, yes?
    So, show your E (or F) deductively.

    Whether A or not, we can (and do) put up a temporal flag pole (say, at 1970-01-01 00:00 UTC) and take it from there. Works fine either way, whether A or not, past and future. In fact, we have to, because we don't know of any definite 1st moment that we can adjust all our clocks to.
  • Devans99
    2.5k
    Then it must have tuned itself while it was beyond space and time. Of course it’s possible, you should know, it’s simply a special kind of universe.Zelebg

    What possible motive would there be for spacetime to fine-tune itself for life? There is no such motive; the motive for fine tuning is the generation of a spacetime that supports life must be linked to an intelligent agent that desires spacetime to support life.

    God is superfluous proposition that does not answer any questions -- god is fine tuned to create life, so there must be a god-tuner. Do you see?Zelebg

    God is not fine tuned to create life; it is a natural instinct for all intelligent beings to desire information and life is information. God created spacetime because he was bored. Put yourself in God's shoes; what else would you do apart from create spacetime?

    To express the argument in the OP an bit more succinctly:

    1. The universe is fine-tuned for life so there must be a fine tuner (99.999% probability)
    2. Can’t be an infinite regress of fine tuners (100% probability)
    3. So there must be an uncaused fine tuner in a non-fine tuned environment (99.999% probability)
  • Devans99
    2.5k
    The length of a circumference can be measured with a finite (natural) number of [units-of-choice] and yet it's unbounded.180 Proof

    So you are proposing that time is circular? Even in that case, it still has a start.

    I don't see how anything at Planck-scale could possibly be responsible for something like the BB
    — Devans99
    Of course you don't. :yawn:
    180 Proof

    And you can't explain how it could happen either.

    Repeating this uncorroborated and unsound assertion (i.e. g/G of the gaps) doesn't make it so. Besides, "first cause" is jabberwocky like first integer ... or north of the north pole.180 Proof

    It is corroborated and sound; it is simply impossible for causality to exist without a first cause. Imagine a perfect, frictionless, pool table. The ball are wizzing around, they will go on wizzing around for a potential infinity of time. Your claim is like saying there was never any break-off shot by the player; utter nonsense.
  • Devans99
    2.5k
    A. assume infinite past moments
    B. then there's no 1st moment
    C. or 2nd ... or nth moment
    D. so A can't be numbered with a 1st ... nth moment
    jorndoe

    But D is just plain wrong - we can run down the list of moments numbering them all.
  • Devans99
    2.5k
    In short, I think time is defined by how we observe it, use it, and understand it in use.tim wood

    What about the speed of light speed limit? Speed is distance/time, so something in the universe (the laws of the universe) are intimately aware of time. Hence I say time is a component of spacetime, a dimension - it is not just a human measurement tool - it is part of the universe.

    Until you account for the "starting" point on any surface, like the surface of a sphere, you got nothing here, either spatially or temporally. You could make it all a hypothetical, as in, "if" x then y, but that gets you exactly nowhere in your thinking.tim wood

    We can use arbitrary imposed coordinate system on space to judge what is the spacial start of each object. With time the coordinate system is less arbitrary as time has a definite direction.

    Perhaps the difficulty of this question, or at least it's problematic nature, is why formal science thinks in terms of fields, and leaves "causes" for informal and descriptive exposition. This, btw, having been explicitly expressed to you by several people several times.tim wood

    Science still uses cause and effect; a photon collides of a proton; the proton is deflected; the photon causes the proton to deflect. You cannot get away from cause and effect being a totally fundamental concept in science. Does or does not cause and effect rule everything you do or experience?

    You want your designer/g/God, even at the cost of rationality. But all you've done is pushed the can - the question - down the road. As a presupposition, you would have it that it works in your argument. But then it poisons your whole argument. "If frogs had wings...". Great, but at the moment frogs don't have wings. Your argument becomes one of flying frogs. That is, even if you had your g/God, then where (when, why, how) did it come from? Always there? Turtles all the way down? I call this argument the fallacious appeal to the greater nonsense.tim wood

    I am using rational arguments. I merely think God is the most probable explanation. God did not come from anywhere and there is no question of why God exists. God exists timelessly and permanently; there is no 'before' God so there can be no reason for his existence. Everything in time has a cause. God is beyond time and the required cause of everything.
  • Zelebg
    333
    God is not fine tuned to create life; it is a natural instinct for all intelligent beings to desire information and life is information.

    Obviously then god must be fine-tuned to have information deficit, natural instincts and desire to create life, therefore there must be god-tuner.
  • Zelebg
    333
    To express the argument in the OP an bit more succinctly:

    1. The universe is fine-tuned for life so there must be a fine tuner (99.999% probability)
    2. Can’t be an infinite regress of fine tuners (100% probability)
    3. So there must be an uncaused fine tuner in a non-fine tuned environment (99.999% probability)

    You are confusing yourself with unnecessary information. The choice boils down to this:

    1. A just so happens to exist and has property B
    2. X just so happens to exist and has property Y which is to create A that has property B


    Do you understand that postulating god, even if it explained the existence of the universe, does not explain god’s existence nor any of its properties, and that you are left with bigger mystery than before?
  • tim wood
    3.6k
    It's clear that either you do not or will not or cannot understand. One last attempt: tell us in your own words exactly what you think time is.
  • 180 Proof
    616
    ↪Devans99 It's clear that either you do not or will not or cannot understand.tim wood
    The charitable bet's on "cannot".
156789Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.