I don't follow. One can favor Croations without favoring individual Croations. — Relativist

How?

America Croatia first.

Who says life can't adopt as many different forms as existent universes? Maybe life can exist in many possible universes. The "laws" of physics are based on models of our universe, not every possible universe. — Enrique

Life is "fine-tuned" in the sense that

small changes in the parameters of physics produce catastrophic changes in the evolved universe. In particular the complexity of the evolved universe, and hence its ability to support life, would be undermined by small changes in the universal constants... Thus, parameter sensitivity is the claim that the target in parameter space which is compatible with a complex universe is small in some sense. — RAW Bradford, The inevitability of fine tuning in a complex universe, 2011

But here is the rub: as the paper above argues, this parameter sensitivity of complex structures is a mathematical inevitability. It will be true in any parametric system that is at all capable of producing complex structures (and most systems would not produce complex structures, no matter how you tune them).

America Croatia first. — Relativist

To say Croatia isn't the same as Croatians is a distinction without a difference.

One of my hobbies (or obsessions) is to debate theists on their Fine Tuning Argument for God — Relativist

I've been "guilty" of this in my younger years, but eventually I lost the appetite for arguing just for the sake of arguing. Apologists are often too quick to accept the desired conclusion, and lacking the motivation they fail to put up a strong argument.

Awhile back, someone on this forum posted a link to this paper: The Fine Tuning Argument. The author (Klaas Landsman) argues that the existence of life is not a good reason to infer either a designer OR a multiverse. — Relativist

Yes, I've come across this paper before. It continues a long series of debates (as can be seen from its references), of which I think the more interesting ones aren't even about God/designer (that one seems to be pretty hopeless). Selection bias, on the other hand, poses challenging epistemological problems in the same line as Sleeping Beauty, Doomsday, etc.

Selection bias, on the other hand, poses challenging epistemological problems in the same line as Sleeping Beauty, Doomsday, etc. — SophistiCat

Though debates about these frequently seem just as intractable as those around theism. Answers to these problems rely so heavily on your basic epistemological stance that it's hard to make a convincing case to someone who doesn't have the same background.

One of my hobbies (or obsessions) is to debate theists on their Fine Tuning Argument for God (here's my current one - I'm called, "Fred"). I've read a number of papers, including the SEP article, and I've read debates and seen videos where its defended. I have observed that the most common rebuttal to it is the multiverse hypothesis. I don't think that's the best approach because it concedes too much - in particular, it concedes that life needs to be explained. — Relativist

The real context here is not theist vs. non-theist, but one group of physicists (and not a group of theists) arguing with others. FT came out of non-theist physicist concerns that the chance of a universe right for life seemed so radically small it bothered them. Right or wrong it seriously bothered a group of non-theist physicists. And it bothered other physicists enough to try to find a rebuttal, some of these along with some of the first group thinking that a multiverse offered an elegant solution. Later theists heard about FT and used it also.

But this is not a theists came up with FT and then non-theists took up the fight. The cognitive dissonance was within physics and with the scientific community first.

I think it’s more that the whole idea of ‘chance’ is pretty specious in this context. The idea of ‘chance’ arose in the first place as an alternative to ‘God’s will’; so with the decline of religious belief and doctrine, which attributed creation to the divine will, then the obvious alternative seemed to be the opposite of an ‘intentional act’, which is, the outcome of what Russell described as ‘the accidental collocation of atoms’. This is best articulated in a 1970 book by French biochemist (and Nobel laureate) Jacques Monod, called Chance and Necessity.

But the problem is that science assumes that there’s a lawful regularity in the cosmos. But it doesn’t, and probably can’t, explain why there’s such an order. It’s simply given. And Big Bang theory, the current model, is as much like a scientific account of ‘creation from nothing’ as you’re likely to see, as was noted by many of its opponents when it first began to circulate in the 1930’s. (It was actually seized upon by the Pope in the 1950’s which embarrassed LeMaitre, who had devised the theory.) And the counter-argument that there are countless ‘other universes’ that don’t exhibit natural order of the kind science observes seems to me one of the most inane ideas in current culture.

My point is that science itself doesn’t (and probably never will) explain the order of nature. And it doesn’t have to do that. The thought that it can do so is a product of historical circumstance as much as science - it is an aspect of the Enlightenment rationalism which sought to supplant religion with science. There’s an immense amount of work to be done, without even getting into the argument.

And the counter-argument that there are countless ‘other universes’ that don’t exhibit natural order of the kind science observes seems to me one of the most inane ideas in current culture. — Wayfarer

The thing about the multiverse is it is one way to eliminate the seeming problem with FT AND to maintain determinism. It could also deal with the oddness (seeming or otherwise) of there being something specific rather than all possible things.

There might be a universe in which it impresses me, but this ain’t it. :-)

Well, we even have diversity in this one. With other less fine tuning the universe would be 6 foot cube of neutrinos, and the cube wouldn't able to be impressed by this either.

Seriously, I do wonder what would happen if some breakthrough discovery was made which showed that multiverse theories, and the Everett theory, were for once and for all considered to be beyond the pale, out of respectable bounds. That henceforth, there would be no more grants, and no more tenures, for advocates of same. I think it would introduce an air of austerity to scientific speculation which it badly needs, instead of being able to exploit the infinite elbow room that such theories provide.

I’ve been following the debates over string theory/multiverse in the blogosphere - principally Sabine Hossenfelder, Peter Woit, and Lee Smolin’s attacks on the vacuity of string theory. I don’t believe it will ever be resolved. Glad I’m not in physics.

Sleeping Beauty, Doomsday, etc. — SophistiCat

Though debates about these frequently seem just as intractable as those around theism. Answers to these problems rely so heavily on your basic epistemological stance that it's hard to make a convincing case to someone who doesn't have the same background. — Echarmion

I don't actually take a strong position on these puzzles. I suspect that there may not be a good answer to them, or what's worse, there may not be a good question...

Seriously, I do wonder what would happen if some breakthrough discovery was made which showed that multiverse theories, and the Everett theory, were for once and for all considered to be beyond the pale, out of respectable bounds. — Wayfarer

If you showed physicists evidence that put multiverse theories beyond the pale then advocates in nearly all cases would stop being advocates.

That henceforth, there would be no more grants, and no more tenures, for advocates of same. — Wayfarer

Right, though I am sure there could be other kinds of speculative physics that people can and would turn to. And I would guess that many of the current advocates are just as likely to be good teachers and other physicists, so I am not sure why anyone should worry about it.

string theory/multiverse — Wayfarer

These two need not be conflated.

Physics has made great advances through contemplation and thought experiments. I don't see any reason to worry about this. Of course like anything it can go too far or if the hypothesis itself cannot produce, ever, observable results, as far as they know, they perhaps other lines are better followed. It is unclear whether one might be able to find evidence of a multiverse. Some say yes. But trying to resolve inconsistancies and anomolies in current models is a good thing to do, hence the idea of the multiverse to maintain determinism.

I'd need to see evidence and not just deductive arguments, that having the current levels of speculation in physics is a problem. IOW if we accept deduction, rather than empirically based criticisms of the amount of speculation, the complaints themselves start to fall into the very category they are complaining about. Demonstate (through God knows what kind of experiments with control groups) that if we shift to punishing speculative physics more, physics and we will be better off.

Before we have that experiment carried out a few times, then the criticism is just speculation based on what seems to be true on paper.

You seem to be claiming there was an objective to "increase awareness, connection, and collaberation." Why think that? — Relativist

Not so much an objective as an impetus, but why not think that? There is a tendency to misconstrue creativity as motivation to design or produce something purposeful. But that’s only an external justification for the creative process itself, because without this justification it looks just like random trial-and-error, or luck. Any creative worth his salt would attest that it isn’t randomness, regardless of whether or not anything ‘purposeful’ comes from the process at the time.

It seems it's possible to favor Croatians even if the Croatians are at each other's throats. :chin: (no offense to Croatians and anyway it isn't true). Nonetheless, the fact that, hypothetically speaking, Croatians are killing each other negates the very generous offer of assistance from an interested party. God fine-tuned the universe for life only so that life could devise ingenious ways of snuffing itself out. Intriguing!

Not so much an objective as an impetus, but why not think that? — Possibility

Because there can only be an objective if an intelligence is behind it. I'm open to this possibility, but the case mist be made. The FTA purports to make such a case, but obviously if it depends on the assumption of an intelligence the argument is circular.

hypothetically speaking, Croatians are killing each other negates the very generous offer of assistance from an interested party. God fine-tuned the universe for life only so that life could devise ingenious ways of snuffing itself out. Intriguing! — TheMadFool

You're assuming too much. The FTA, if it were successful, would only entail a creator who wanted life. It does not entail a creator who gives a damn what they do to each other.

There are non-religious versions of the "rare earth hypothesis" based on the accumulation of unlikely events that had to conspire to result in the evolutionary apex we apparently enjoy. Life, especially highly-evolved conscious life, appears to be fantastically rare. I don't espouse the belief that we are somehow a unique and significant manifestation of the universe, but I don't discount the possibility either.

You're assuming too much. The FTA, if it were successful, would only entail a creator who wanted life. It does not entail a creator who gives a damn what they do to each other. — Relativist

It might not even entail a creator, just some kind of universal desire for life. Like entropy is something you observe in microsystems and perhaps in the whole thing. But here instead of entropy would be a strong built in tendency to make life. Life being built in, rather than the randomly created perhaps it might not have been of how science is somehow taken to indicate.

I don't espouse the belief that we are somehow a unique and significant manifestation of the universe, but I don't discount the possibility either. — Pantagruel

I mean, I think we are significant, but not on the basis of rarity or some cosmic teleology.

Because there can only be an objective if an intelligence is behind it. I'm open to this possibility, but the case mist be made. The FTA purports to make such a case, but obviously if it depends on the assumption of an intelligence the argument is circular. — Relativist

I agree that an objective may imply a prior intelligence, but an underlying creative impetus does not - and neither does it imply ‘luck’, despite the unlikely arrangement of conditions. This is the point I’d like to make.

I flipped a coin, it came out heads.

But what're the chances of a human flipping the coin and coming out heads? Tiny! Almost impossible!

Therefore, there has to be some explanation for why it came out heads. What appears almost impossible only seems that way under inappropriate assumptions or lack of knowledge regarding its cause.

Universes where God made it come out heads make the coin coming out heads more probable. So they explain it.

Therefore God exists.

------------

There are at least 7 catastrophic errors in that argument. I'll give a brownie point to anyone who can point one out.

I agree that an objective may imply a prior intelligence, but an underlying creative impetus does not - and neither does it imply ‘luck’, despite the unlikely arrangement of conditions. This is the point I’d like to make. — Possibility

Please explain what you mean by a "creative impetus." What are it's identifiable characteristics?

I'd like to get back to the issue I raised in the Op, because I think I have a solution.

Intuitively, Mary's luck needs to be explained, but John's luck doesn't. Can we make sense of this intuition? I'd like to propose what the relevant difference is.

In Mary's case, there were two possibilities: either she would live (be lucky) or die (be unlucky). We need to explain why she fell on the side of the dichotomy that she did. Similarly for the unlucky who died.

In John's case, there is no such dichotomy. A non-existent John isn't unlucky, because luck (whether good or bad) applies only to things that exist.

So I propose the relevant difference is this dichotomy. A person 's good luck only needs to be explained if he could have had bad luck.

might not even entail a creator, just some kind of universal desire for life. — Coben

That's a minimal definition of a creator: having a desire, and the ability to act on that desire. This is the sort of deism Antony Flew ultimately embraced.

Please explain what you mean by a "creative impetus." What are it's identifiable characteristics? — Relativist

It doesn’t really have any - it’s a formula for existential possibility.

We can be certain only that ‘something’ exists, and that ‘something’ is aware of existence. All other information or intelligence attempts to build on this basic certainty, as what matters. Now consider ‘increase awareness, connection and collaboration’ as a basic, open-ended formula for existence. Beginning with ‘nothing’ but this relation of existential possibility to a formula - no space or time, no information, no intelligence and no external ‘creator’ - this is all that is required for the eventual existence and awareness of our universe as it is.

[

We can be certain only that ‘something’ exists, and that ‘something’ is aware of existence. All other information or intelligence attempts to build on this basic certainty, as what matters. — Possibility

I'm certain I exist, and I'm aware of my existence. However, I'm also certain the universe was around before me to be aware of it. What makes you think there was awareness 5 seconds after the big bang?

That's a minimal definition of a creator: having a desire, and the ability to act on that desire. This is the sort of deism Antony Flew ultimately embraced. — Relativist

Which was an aristotilian deity, outside the chain of being and some sort of pure intellect. I don't think we need either the implied dualism or this kind of pure intellect. Perhaps we do, perhaps it would entail a separate creator, but I can't see how this could be demonstrated. (given my own beliefs, which are theist, I don't have a problem with the conclusion, I just think whatever the argument would be speculative and likely carry assumptions out of our everyday lives into cosmological issues.) I don't think Hawking's cosmology which is FT based is theistic or even deistic. (though I will concede in advance I am not sure I truly get it. But I see no diety in there.)

I'm certain I exist, and I'm aware of my existence. — Relativist

What is it that you refer to as ‘I’? What information are you basing that ‘certainty’ on? And how are you certain of that information?

What makes you think there was awareness 5 seconds after the big bang? — Relativist

Because we can trace evidence of informing interaction back as far as the Big Bang. This is not conscious awareness, but it is a basic (one-dimensional) level of awareness, nonetheless.