and needs an explanation. — RogueAI
Taking off the blindfold, you do not observe that you are dead. No surprise there: you could not observe that you are dead. Nonetheless, you should be astonished to observe that you are alive. The entire firing squad missed you altogether! Surprise at that extremely improbable fact is wholly justified - and that calls for an explanation. You would immediately suspect that they missed you on purpose, by design." — RogueAI
To my knowledge, this matter was settled a long time ago with the aid of the ubiquitous game of chance - lotteries.
The chance of winning the jackpot in an average game of lottery maybe arounf 1/10,000,000. You have a better chance of getting hit by lightning I guess. Anyway, the point is someone always wins.
It's shocking for the winner for the simple reason that the odds of winning are near-zero. However, given the number of players, a winner is assured.
Let's take the lottery example. Suppose someone wins the lottery. No big deal. Suppose that same person wins again next week. Big deal, but it happens sometimes. Suppose they win again. And again. Eventually, you're going to conclude they're cheating or the game is rigged.
Here's another interesting example: suppose a new lottery is rolled out. On the first draw, the lottery numbers spell out the first 10 digits of Pi. That lottery would immediately be shut down because it would be obvious someone rigged it, even though a Pi result in a lottery is perfectly within the realm of chance. The reason you would shut the lottery down in the Pi example is because
Probability("fair lottery") <! Probability("rigged lottery").
The point is, the longer the odds get, the more the "cheating" hypothesis becomes viable. Another example: suppose someone shows you (what they call) a "fair coin". And they proceed to get 20 heads in a row when they flip it. That outcome COULD be chance. But nobody would believe it. — RogueAI
Failed at what? Was the universe required to produce life?The values of a bunch of physical constants are "balanced" on a knife-edge for life to exist in the universe. If they had been just a little bit different, the universe would have failed in some spectacular way. — RogueAI
Suppose you are to be executed by a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen — RogueAI
Failed at what? Was the universe required to produce life?
If we assume those fundamental constants could have differed, then this universe (which happens to be life permitting) is low probability - but the exact same low probability as every alternative. Each of the n possible universes had a 1/n chance of winning, so it was a certainty that the winner would be that low 1/n probability.
Every lottery winner is surprised when he wins, but it's not the sort of surprise that should lead anyone to think the lottery was rigged for that outcome.
The problem with the firing squad analogy is that it treats life as a target.
So if you assume God wanted to create life, it implies he had to finely tune the constants to meet that goal. So as an argument for God's existence, it's circular.
If there is a multiverse, with a universe for each possible set of values, then it is a certainty that there will be at least one that is life-permitting. Obviously, we would find ourselves in such a universe, so there's no relevant implications.Setting aside issues of infinity, the set of non life-permitting universes is vastly larger than the set of life-permitting universes, so if we were surveying the multiverse (and it contained universes where the constants were different), we would very very rarely see any universes with life. Therefore, the odds of a universe being life-permitting are not the same as the alternative, as you claim. — RogueAI
OK, but this is the same sort of surprise that a lottery winner has when he wins: the odds were against it, but it has no relevant implications.The firing-squad analogy isn't an argument for God. It's argument that you can, in certain situations, be surprised by discovering you're alive. — RogueAI
Surprise at that extremely improbable fact is wholly justified - and that calls for an explanation. You would immediately suspect that they missed you on purpose, by design."
Anyone want to argue that, in the above scenario, they wouldn't be surprised to find themselves still alive? Or that you wouldn't immediately conclude you survived by design? — RogueAI
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.