Fine Tuning, Arguments For and Against

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Fine tuning advocates have to explain one thing. Defecation.

[nellikin]

As a keen botanist, I take exception to your "no weeds" criterium! Wild plants are far more interesting than the forced hybrids that fill our gardens.

(Hehe - first time I've used this smiley). Why are you assuming that weeds are wild plants? My native garden is full of the fucking blow-ins that other idiots have planted in their "cultured" gardens (not to mention bloody onion weed, grrr, don't get me started on onion weed). I spend hours pulling weeds that don't belong because they aren't native! Agapanthuses are garden escapes that have become a full-blown weed yet people still plant them thinking "ooh, they're pretty"

[Coito ergo sum]

I am playing the devil's advocate with this thread, I was interested in the most convincing arguments for, and the best ones against. We aren't getting many 'for', so I'm doing that bit as best I can.
I'm not too bothered what conclusions people draw from fine tuning, just whether there is anything about the universe that actually is fine tuned.

I would try to put the argument like this.
Imagine one million people bought a one-pound lottery ticket. They all congregate in a vast stadium. A huge hat in the middle has one million pieces of paper, folded, with a number inside, the numbers run from one to one million.
The winning number between one and a million is chosen by a random machine.

Now the first person walks up, picks a piece of paper out of the hat at random, opens it, and it's THE WINNING TICKET!! Would you say, well, someone has to win, or would you harbour a suspicion that it was more than mere chance?

Someone had to win. That's just a fact. If the facts are as you say, and there was no cheating, then the chance of the winning ticket being chosen was the same as the chance of any other ticket being chosen. Your fact scenario happens all the time: Man goes to store and buys lottery ticket consisting of a random four numbers. That night he sits at home in front of television and it turns out that he had picked the winning ticket. Should we conclude that he won the luck of the draw? Or, should we conclude that it was "more than mere chance?"

That's what they are saying. As far as we know, this universe is the only ticket drawn, and there were millions of possible losing tickets, and only one winner.

Maybe only one winner. We don't know.

Should we be looking for a reason?

Of course. It's called science. Cosmologists are trying to figure out how the universe came to be.

It doesn't have to be a religious one. But was it really millions to one against a Universe that could produce stars and planets.
.

Why do you conclude that it was "millions to one?" We don't have any idea what the odds were. It's as likely it was a fait accompli, or 1 in 5, or 1 in 100. Who knows? There is no basis to determine any odds.

[Coito ergo sum]

You'll have to ignore the fact that I don't believe you are "impartial" here. I have too frequently seen an opening gambit like this from the wooistas.

I am biased. I declared that in the opening post. But I'm interested in the arguments for and against, so I'm acting as an advocate FOR fine tuning, to balance the debate. I would prefer it if someone else helped me out, but it's an interesting subject to me. I don't support the fine-tuning argument, but I still haven't seen top physicists shouting that there is NO apparent fine-tuning.
.

There is no top physicist who has claimed that there is any apparent "fine tuning." Fine tuning is a silly, baseless argument made only, as far as I can see, by those who already think there is a god that created the universe.

The universe isn't "fine tuned." The universe just "is" the way it is. To say it is "fine tuned" requires that one ask "fine tuned for what?" Life? Surely it isn't fine tuned for that. You seem to be big on "odds." Do you see how small a portion of the universe has any life in it, as far as we can tell? Only a small portion of the Earth is fit for life, and we're the only planet in this whole solar system that has any life on it. How in the world is that "fine tuning" for life? If a universe was "fine tuned for life" then it would not be nearly so hostile to it. Life on Earth hangs on a razor's edge, and it's quite possible - no, likely - that in a mere few million years, the Earth will be barren. Compared to the age of the solar system, and the age of the galaxy, and the age of the universe, the time period that life has existed on Earth is infinitessimally small (and most of that time life was only microscopic). Some fine tuning..... don't ask this god to tune you're radio for you - you'll get mostly static.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Good luck, C.E.S. What we have here is another fundy trying to back-door his views.

"Well, I do believe all this, of course, but just for the sake of argument. . . (insert BLAH, BLAH, BLAH here.)"

Honestly, they think we've never seen this before?

[Coito ergo sum]

Good luck, C.E.S. What we have here is another fundy trying to back-door his views.

"Well, I do believe all this, of course, but just for the sake of argument. . . (insert BLAH, BLAH, BLAH here.)"

Honestly, they think we've never seen this before?

That's all right. I don't think his motive means anything. Either he presents a good argument, whether as Devi's Advocate or sincerely, or he doesn't.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Good luck, C.E.S. What we have here is another fundy trying to back-door his views.

"Well, I do believe all this, of course, but just for the sake of argument. . . (insert BLAH, BLAH, BLAH here.)"

Honestly, they think we've never seen this before?

That's all right. I don't think his motive means anything. Either he presents a good argument, whether as Devi's Advocate or sincerely, or he doesn't.

Meh, if you feel like practicing.

[mistermack]

There is no top physicist who has claimed that there is any apparent "fine tuning." Fine tuning is a silly, baseless argument made only, as far as I can see, by those who already think there is a god that created the universe.

The premise of the fine-tuned universe assertion is that a small change in several of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the universe radically different. As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[4]

Whatever you might think of Stephen Hawking, he is one of the best phyicists alive, and I certainly take what he says seriously. And he's not the only one, and he hasn't got a religious agenda. (as far as I know ).
.

[Coito ergo sum]

There is no top physicist who has claimed that there is any apparent "fine tuning." Fine tuning is a silly, baseless argument made only, as far as I can see, by those who already think there is a god that created the universe.

The premise of the fine-tuned universe assertion is that a small change in several of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the universe radically different. As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[4]

Whatever you might think of Stephen Hawking, he is one of the best phyicists alive, and I certainly take what he says seriously. And he's not the only one, and he hasn't got a religious agenda. (as far as I know ).
.

You are quote mining, and the key word is "seem."

Hawking discusses the origins of life several times, and has never suggested that some deity being "fine tuned" the basic forces of the universe. Check this piece by Hawking out: http://www.rationalvedanta.net/node/131 - the key aspect here is the Anthropic principle, which he uses to illustrate that the fine tuning he talks about is NOT fine tuning BY something or someone.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Fine tuning is proof god exists.
God exists, therefore fine tuning is true.

Nice tight spiral.

[Feck]

Found it .. universe is fine tuned to make BLACK HOLES !

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ed3_1216586842


As I said before fine tuning is to physics what ID is too evolution At best it's confirmation bias but I think it's much more likely that it's a deliberate lie .

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why is the Universe 99.99999999999999% empty space if it's "fine tuned"?

[mistermack]

You are quote mining, and the key word is "seem."

Hawking discusses the origins of life several times, and has never suggested that some deity being "fine tuned" the basic forces of the universe. Check this piece by Hawking out: http://www.rationalvedanta.net/node/131 - the key aspect here is the Anthropic principle, which he uses to illustrate that the fine tuning he talks about is NOT fine tuning BY something or someone.

It's hardly quote mining, its there in Wikipedia directly under fine tuned universe.
And it's directly contrary to what you said.
Of course neither Hawking nor I personally think there is someone, or some intelligent thing, at work.
But if someone spouts the fine tuning argument at me, I would like to answer with facts, not bullshit.
If Hawking and other physicists think the Universe displays fine tuning, I'm interested as to why, and how that could come about without direction. Otherwise you have no answer but bluster to someone who actually knows his stuff.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

Why is the Universe 99.99999999999999% empty space if it's "fine tuned"?

A problem with the fine tuning argument is that it's always bandied about as "half an argument." Or, even just a 1/3 of an argument.

Fine tuned FOR WHAT?

Fine tuned BY WHOM?

Hawking shouldn't use the words "finely tuned" anymore precisely because the intelligent design folks are, naturally, using it to make the bogus claim that Hawking supports their argument when he, in fact, absolutely, positively does not.

The intelligent designer folks automatically assume that when someone says "it seems finely tuned..." that the reference is directed at us and god. It's finely tuned FOR LIFE and BY GOD. Those are additional hurdles to get over - that's additional work that they need to get done to prove their case. One can't just go "oh, look the universe seems finely tuned, because we're here and if the fundamental forces were different, then we wouldn't be - and therefore god exists and tuned the universe for us."

Yes, the universe exists in a certain way that allows us to exist. That's axiomatic, because we're in the universe and we exist. However, that fact doesn't mean that there is a god or an entity that made it exist this way for some purpose or reason, or with life in mind.

Mistermack - do you see that distinction? Do you get that?

[Coito ergo sum]

You are quote mining, and the key word is "seem."

Hawking discusses the origins of life several times, and has never suggested that some deity being "fine tuned" the basic forces of the universe. Check this piece by Hawking out: http://www.rationalvedanta.net/node/131 - the key aspect here is the Anthropic principle, which he uses to illustrate that the fine tuning he talks about is NOT fine tuning BY something or someone.

It's hardly quote mining, its there in Wikipedia directly under fine tuned universe.
And it's directly contrary to what you said.

No it isn't. Hawking does not believe that fine tuning is an indication of the existence of god or any "creator." He simply doesn't believe that. He says the exact opposite of what you advance this for if you read him in context. The fine tuning argument is the "anthropic principle." Read the link I posted, and tell me where he claims that a creator entity "fine tuned" the universe.

Of course neither Hawking nor I personally think there is someone, or some intelligent thing, at work.

Then by "fine tuned" you agree with Hawking that the universe exists in such a state that life can exist here. That's the anthropic principle. And, of course it exists that way. If it didn't, we wouldn't be here.

But if someone spouts the fine tuning argument at me, I would like to answer with facts, not bullshit.

Then answer with Hawkings own words.

If Hawking and other physicists think the Universe displays fine tuning, I'm interested as to why,

He didn't say "it displays fine tuning." And, I gave you a link to Hawkings own words, and he explains EXACTLY why he said what he said.

and how that could come about without direction. Otherwise you have no answer but bluster to someone who actually knows his stuff.
.

I've explained it. I am not sure what you're missing.

Edit: see the following summary of the "anthropic principle" and note the uses of the term "fine tuned" or "finely tuned" therein. If you get a handle on this, you will know where Hawking is coming from, and be able to respond to the intelligent design proponents who stand the anthropic principle on its head and/or make it mean something it doesn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle