The anthropic principle
There are two possible universes: Those where there are intelligent creatures who ask questions about the universe, and those where there are no such creatures.
In universes without intelligent creatures who ask questions, there are no requirements to its nature. The universe is only constrained by what's physically possible. That is to say, the universe could behave in any way possible without anybody asking about its nature.
On the other hand, if there are human-like creatures who ask questions like, "why is the universe this way and not another way?", the universe has to be conducive to intelligent-like creatures who are capable to ask such questions.
Another way to look at it is as it's an answer to the question, "why is the universe conducive to intelligent life?" The answer is because if it weren't conducive to intelligent life, we wouldn't be here to ask that question. And that answer is the anthropic principle in a nutshell. Or at least that is how I understand the anthropic principle.
Does that make any sense to you? Am I missing or misunderstanding anything?
Care to add your thoughts about the anthropic principle?
In universes without intelligent creatures who ask questions, there are no requirements to its nature. The universe is only constrained by what's physically possible. That is to say, the universe could behave in any way possible without anybody asking about its nature.
On the other hand, if there are human-like creatures who ask questions like, "why is the universe this way and not another way?", the universe has to be conducive to intelligent-like creatures who are capable to ask such questions.
Another way to look at it is as it's an answer to the question, "why is the universe conducive to intelligent life?" The answer is because if it weren't conducive to intelligent life, we wouldn't be here to ask that question. And that answer is the anthropic principle in a nutshell. Or at least that is how I understand the anthropic principle.
Does that make any sense to you? Am I missing or misunderstanding anything?
Care to add your thoughts about the anthropic principle?
Comments (103)
The problem with the WAP is that it says that the universe must support life, it does not say why the universe supports life:
[1] By random coincident we got lucky and a billion to 1 shot came off
[2] Universe was fine tuned to support life
[2] is much more likely than [1]. So IMO the WAP does not put a dent in the fine tuning argument. Neither does the strong anthropic principle (SAP).
A side note: I personally don't believe in the multiverse theory. I believe that the universe naturally fine tunes itself into a stable condition, and stable conditions (big surprise) happen to support life. (But hey, what do I know.)
In the book "a brief history of time" Stephen Hawking attests to this. If you roll a billion sided piece of dice one billion times there is a very high chance you'll roll a specific number. When you factor in that the universe we currently experience is possibly the umpteenth (1st or 1000th iteration) version of a universe that has simliarities but might not be exactly the same as previous versions, there is a chance sustainable life may be a product of chance. I do believe in a God but that could be a product of the dna i got by chance and not the product of rationality.
There has to be some mechanism by which the very constants/laws of nature change - the standard model has to 'evolve' some how for example. The mechanism usually touted to do this is multi-universes and the SAP. I don't see how the WAP alone can account for this; the laws of nature appear to have been fixed since the Big Bang. The SAP can't account for it either IMO.
Quoting TheMadFool
Suppose you where watching a random stream of characters on a computer screen. Its all random jumble then you see the string 'I know you are watching me!' come up. The chances of that happening are 1/128^27 (assuming 128 possible characters). Would you assume you 'just got lucky' or would you assume a computer programmer was having a joke with you? Which is the more likely explanation?
If the time involved was 13.8 billion years (current estimated age of the universe) I'd be very cautious about inferring a better chance for it being a joke over just plain simple luck.
But it looks like the laws of physics and the standard model have been constant since the singularity. The Big Bang theory predicts things back to a few fractions of a second before the singularity. It is supported by the evidence of the CMB radiation.
We can still observe photons emitted 400,000 years after the Big Bang as the CMB radiation. These photons are the same photons as we see today, same properties, nothing seems to have changed with the standard model.
I'm not sure either of you understand probability at all.
If I shuffle a deck of cards, you pick one at random, I shuffle the deck again. What is the probability that the top one is your card, and what sample space do you use to determine the likelihood?
I forgot to tell you that I am a stage magician, doing a trick, and you are a member of the audience.
Still think the sample space is 1:52?
Obviously not, no stage magician would ever be able to make a living out of the probabilities such a sample space would generate using your frequentist methodology (probability=event/sample space). The probability that the top card is your card must somehow be virtually 100%, otherwise the magician would not be able to make a living would they?
So, try again. What's sample space, using frequentist probability, would lead to the almost 100% probability we know must be the case that the top card is yours?
You have no idea if [2] is more likely than [1]. You are merely expressing a personal prejudice. If the odds were a gazillion to 1...and it happened, here we would be. And you would be claiming the odds against it were too large for it to have happened.
I not saying that the universe is definitely fine tuned for life; merely it is incredibly likely that the universe is fine tuned for life.
Right. So one salient piece of information can not just alter the probability space, but make it entirely redundant. In the case of a card trick, we do not simply adjust our 1/52 to take account of new information, we abandon it altogether. It makes no difference at all to your new estimate whether the deck is of 52 cards or a million cards, we've realised the number of cards was irrelevant.
You're committing the same fallacy with fine-tuning. You're presuming that the sample space for the event {the universe being fine-tuned for life} must be {all the values you can imagine these variables could have}. Just like at first glance you presume that the sample space for the event {the top card is mine} was all the cards it could be.
But one piece of data showed you, in the card example, that the number of cards it could be was irrelevant. 52,100, a million, it didn't matter at all because those turned out not to be the variables. The skill of the magician was the relevant variable. The correct sample space would be something like how many card tricks have you ever seen that have gone right/wrong.
So with the universe. How are you justifying you selection of the sample space {all the values I can imagine these variables having}?
Quoting Devans99
And I am NOT saying that the universe is fine tuned for life...rather than simply a manifestation of what is.
I AM saying that there is no way to calculate the odds either way.
And that even if the odds were 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to one against it being mere chance....
...if it happened that way, you would be here saying the odds are too great.
Put another way...a more truthful way...
...there may be gods involved in existence or there may be no gods involved.
Lets take an example; the universe's expansion rate is set such that matter can still cluster into stars and planets yet it is expanding fast enough that the whole thing does not collapse back into one big black hole. The expansion rate could be set at any conceivable value - it is not derived from some underlying determinant- so it contributes to the large sample space of possible/feasible universes.
Quoting Isaac
There are 20 or so constants that appear to have been fine tuned. If any of these constants turn out to be derivable from underlying processes, then I would argue that it is the underlying processes that have been fined tuned.
The card could be any one of 52 cards, so this contributes to the sample space of possible cards. Only it turns out, it doesn't,because you were looking at the wrong variables all along.
1/52 I believe. If wrong please correct. Thanks. Quoting Devans99
Yes I understand. A particular phase in the chaos could last billions of years. Just think of it in terms of human history. There are periods of peace (order) but actually these are just intervals between war (chaos) which I'm suggesting as the true nature of reality.
So we imagine countless billions of years throughout which the physical laws and constants are evolving. Eventually, by sheer luck, they hit a configuration that supports life. What mechanism then 'fixes' the universe in that life supporting configuration? Surely something would change to produce a non-life supporting universe again?
Another billion years may be required or, god forbid, the physics that support life may break down in the next instant. I don't know. All I'm saying is that it's possible to find order in chaos just as it's possible to find chaos in order. We're just in an ordered state at the moment. Think of life. It begins by ordering matter but only for a limited time and then the order is destroyed and we die.
Please see my reply to Devans99 above, to save me having to write it out again. Basically, one cannot simply presume the sample space, it's context dependant and so requires no less justification than the statistical technique applied to it. I've yet to read any justification in the Fine-Tuning arguments for selecting {all the values I can imagine this variable having} as the correct sample space from which to extrapolate the probability of a variable having some particular value. To take Devans' examples.
Quoting Devans99
We have no reason at his stage to think that {the number of conceivable values} is the sample space from which to extraplote the probability of it being the value it is.
Like with the cards example. It turns out it was a magic trick, the number of cards in the deck was not the correct sample space from which to extrapolate the probability of my card being on top. The number of cards in the deck turned out to be entirely irrelevant.
You have given no justification as to why this card trick analogy applies; the universe is not tricking use; it could very easily have come out different.
Quoting Isaac
It doesn't apply right here. There's no reason at all to think that the correct sample space is the number of possible values you can think of. Why would it be? Why would it have anything at all to do with what you're capable of thinking of?
How do you know that it is possible for the expansion rate to be any other value? Certainly it's not because the laws of physics allow it, they obviously don't. It's not because maths allows it, maths allows it to be an infinite amount of values, which would mean any value is infinitesimally unlikely, which, by your own definition of infinity, is the same as undefined. So what is your reason for choosing some very large number (but not actually infinity) for the sample space of all the possible values the expansion rate could have?
So for example the strength gravity has to be strong enough for stars and planets to form, but not so strong that we get too fast nuclear fusion or too much black hole formation. It could however be any conceivable value from 0 to ? and we would still have a universe; just without life.
Quoting Isaac
Actual infinity exists only in our minds, but it is still a useful concept sometimes. The expansion rate of the universe is a mystery; we know of no laws that govern it.
The expansion rate of the universe has varied greatly in the past. During the inflationary epoch, the universe expanded to several light years in size in the first few fractions of a second. So we know the expansion rate can take on a large range of values. So a large sample space seems appropriate.
Quoting Purple Pond
Simplicity. Our earth is conducive to both intelligent creatures who ask questions about the universe and also maintains where there are no such creatures. Couldn't there also be just one universe with multiple capacities and potentialities?
Also, I don't believe in randomness/chance because I believe reality works in intelligent mechanisms. For me, intelligence is definite and therefore negates randomness/chance. Also, if this were a random universe, it would lack the constancy of the laws of nature.
Read your reply to Devans99. What is the correct sample space in your opinion?
Repeating things doesn't make them any more true. Why could it be any conceivable value from 0 to infinity? Why couldn't it be some inconceivable value, for example? Why can it not be, as with the card trick, that the number of possible values has nothing to do with the sample space and we're looking at the wrong variable? Maybe gravity's value is inextricably linked to all the other variables in the universe, all linked to one factor which can only be in one five states.
And "infinity can be a useful concept" is not going to wash as an argument in a mathematical calculation. You're claiming to have some idea of the probability, that is event/sample space. The sample space you're using is infinity, so what maths are you doing?
I haven't the faintest idea. That's the point.
The "Fine Tuning Argument" leads one to believe there is some "coincidence" that demands explanation, but a coincidence entails two or more facts that unexpectedly "coincide." A set of constant values does not constitute a coincidence, nor does a consequence of the values being what they are: If A causes B, B causes C, and C causes D - it is not an unexplained coincidence that A is "D permitting."
Richard Feynman once said, “You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight... I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!”
Any particular set of values for the "fundamental constants" is low probability. As Feyman implies: low probability things happen all the time.
For all x, in order for x to obtain, the universe must meet the range of preconditions required to enable x.
Why does 'a set of constant values does not constitute a coincidence'? Over 20 independent physical constants had to be the way they are for life to be possible. Surely the mother of all coincidence.
Quoting Relativist
The license plate ARW 357 has nothing special about it Feynman's analogy falls wide of the mark. Our universe does however have many things special about it, starting with stars (energy sources for life) and planets (living surfaces for life). Even just the formation of these is an incredible coincident. Even the formation of atoms is a minor miracle.
Quoting Relativist
Yes but we have one instance of the universe being created to discuss. Did it come about by:
1. A billion in one shot coming off and we just happen to get lucky
2. The universe was fine tuned for life
The first is incredibly unlikely so we can discount it in comparison to the much more likely second option.
The conceptual mistake that people make is that they think about it as "starting from us," where they think of us as a goal. And then they think, "Well, things had to be made just so in order to achieve us as a goal."
But that's not what's going on. It's rather than we're the way we are because the universe is such that we're something that can develop in it. And that's the case for every single other thing that exists, too.
And if the universe were different, the same thing would be the case for every single thing in that alternate universe, as well.
See what you just said: "for life to be possible." You are treating life as the objective. I am pointing out that life is a consequence of the constants being what they are. A consequence does not constitute a coincidence in need of explanation.
[Quote]The license plate ARW 357 has nothing special about it Feynman's analogy falls wide of the mark. [/quote]
You are treating life as special, just is Feynman is facetiously treating this license plate as special.
Quoting Devans99
The winner of a lottery is "lucky" because his previously purchased ticket is drawn. We didn't have a ticket prior to the "universe lottery." Winning the universe lottery just means some set of constants is actual.
The consequence of random chance does not constitute evidence of non-randomness.
Consider a lottery on which a billion people have exactly one ticket. A ticket is drawn, and there is a winner. His chances of winning were 1 in a billion, and yet he won. Does his low probability of winning imply the lottery was rigged?
It is already solid to us.
Why would we deny this question-Universe as our Universe? Because it is not seen as one of our own. So we deny it, just because it is not seen?! But it is seen to you and is all that can ever be seen by you. So you gather the strength to change so that you may pick a different Universe, because you don´t want to recognize the Universe you are in, is the Universe in you.
Isn't this just the fine-tuning argument? You're positing a being (magician) who has meddled with the probabilities and caused the universe into existence.
This is unacceptable because that's exactly what I think is an erroneous conclusion because, as I said, in chaos we may see order.
We know lotteries tend not to be rigged. We do not know if universes are 'rigged'. It could be that universes are not rigged and we just got lucky, but thats very unlikely.
Show how this set's winning is more unlikely than all other possibilities. Do so without assuming life is a design objective.
Not sure I understand the question. All possibilities in the lottery are a billion to one - all equally unlikely. So losing is almost 100% certain. So winning is clearly more unlikely than all other possibilities.
If you see a face in the sand on the beach, do you assume it is a random arrangement of molecules or that someone drew it?
It needn't be a 'magician'. The point of the example wasn't to indicate what the alternative sample space might be, it was to point out that hidden information can completely change what the correct sample space is. To simply presume the sample space is the number of values for the variable is an error. The correct sample space is contextual and needs to be justified. If we cannot justify it, then nothing can be said of probabilities resulting from it.
Oh ok. Thanks but don't you think the whole of epistemology/knowledge has been constructed under the condition that ''hidden information'' is a possibility. Show me how @Devans99's argument deserves special consideration. Why is his argument undermined by ''hidden information'' more than, say, the knowledge of heliocentrism?
We can surely know and in fact ALL knowledge has the unstated premise that there could be ''hidden information'' out there that could refute it. I think you're undervaluing the information we have and overvaluing the information we don't have.
The difference is that Devans is trying to do maths with the numbers and using the resulting probability as an argument for the unliklihood of the circumstances. With scientific models, we do indeed make presumptions about the exhaystiveness of the data set, but we do do only in saying that the result produces a usefully predictive model. The solar system may well not be described by the laws we think, our model may well be incorrect ultimately because of hidden data, but one thing is undeniable, on which the whole endeavour is based, and that's that the model works, it had utility.
Claiming a mathematical result from unknown variables is not like this. It is the equivalent of saying "1+x=8 (oh, I just presumed x is seven, but hey, we have to go with the knowledge we've got!)". It's totally wrong. 1+x is 1+x. If we don't know what x is, then that's the end of the discussion about it.
Quoting Devans99
There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to know or estimate what you are considering to be "unlikely."
That estimate is a result of your bias of wanting the universe to be a creation.
You really have to get away from that if you want to be logical.
You're overlooking that every one of the billion possibilities had an equal chance of being drawn (1 in a billion), and therefore it's not remarkable that the winner was a 1 in a billion shot.
It's random. Now map out the exact shape of the grain and consider how improbable it was that the grain would happen to have this exact shape. See the problem? It seems remarkable only if you treat the actual shape as a goal, or design objective.
But it is still remarkable that we won at a billion to one - there was only one lucky ticket (the one life supporting universe). Suspiciously remarkable. Fine tuning is a much more likely explanation that a billion to one shot coming off.
No it isn't. We are here to remark on it, which means we must have won, which means the fact that we did is not remarkable at all.
Quoting Devans99
A billion to one shot did not 'come off' because no one was aiming to get this particular universe.
The universe lottery randomly selects a set of constants, and each set of constants will result in a universe with consequences that are unique to that universe. Life is unique to this universe, but how is this specific uniqueness relevant to assessing whether or not the selection of constants was actually random?
By analogy, consider a real-world lottery in which every person in the U.S. has exactly one chance to win. A name is drawn, and the winner is a one-eyed, hemophiliac dwarf. Consider the odds against a one-eyed, hemophiliac dwarf winning the lottery! Does the improbability of such a person winning give us reason to think the lottery was rigged to favor one-eyed hemophiliac dwarves? The existence of life in this universe is no different: There's no basis for assuming any lottery is rigged based on the post-hoc observation that the winner has some rare or unique attributes, because every possible winner has something rare or unique about it.
Not true. You are assuming the fundamental constants could have been different, so each combination of constants participates in the lottery. Let n be the number of combinations. The probability of any specific combination "winnng" is 1/n. Therefore there's nothing remarkable about a 1/n probability participant winning.
You seem to be blind to the fact that you are treating life as a design objective. If you do not treat life as special, your argument falls apart. If you do treat life as special, your argument is circular.
The fundamental constants could of all been very different:
- The strength of the 4 forces
- The masses and charges of the subatomic particles
- The rate of expansion of the universe
That gives a huge possibility space - and we have only one shot at winning. We won, so it is much more likely it was due to the lottery being rigged (=the universe being fine tuned).
Quoting Relativist
If there was a God (lets say there is a 25% chance of that just for arguments sake), life would be a design objective. So we have:
- 25% chance of God * 100% chance of fine tuning
- 1 in a billion chance that we 'get lucky' and have a life supporting universe without God
Which of the above is a more likely explanation?
No. We did not 'win' because we were not playing. The lottery was played, the variables set, and then we evolved directly because the universe was that way. Afterwards. Nobody won.
If the universe had not been that way, we would not have evolved, so we wouldn't be here to wonder about it. We are here to wonder about it so it is not in the least bit surprising that the universe is supportive of life. In fact, it's an absolute pre-requisite for us being able to ask the question.
If I met you on the moon would you be surprised to learn I own a space rocket on account of the fact that very few people have space rockets? No. Its bloody obvious I've got a space rocket because I'm on the bloody moon.
The equivalent to a lottery would not be the chances of us having the winning ticket, it would be...
1. A billion to one lottery is played. No surprises yet.
2. One of the tickets (2, 14, 12, 8, 6 and 10) is the winning one. Still no surprises, one of the tickets has to win.
3. The winning ticket uses its particular numbers to spawn a religion based on 2, 14, 12, 8, 6 and 10. Still no surprises, they're the only numbers available.
If the people of that religion start saying "Woah, what are the chances the winning ticket would have the exact same numbers our religion is based on", they're clearly talking crap.
That the universe must be live supporting is a given; the real question is why is the universe life supporting?
1. A billion to one fluke comes of (that all 20 odd constants came out in the life supporting range)
2. Or the universe was fine tuned to be life supporting
2 is much more like that 1.
It's not a billion to one fluke, for fucks sake man. It's like talking to me brick wall. It's not a fluke, a win, a gamble, a lucky break, a surprise or anything like that. It is one of a billion possible options. That's all, because no one was intending or hoping to get this particular outcome, and this outcome was no less likely than any other.
That is just one of 20 or so constants that all have to be within given ranges. It is much more than a billion to one shot I would guess.
Yes. So there are perhaps more than a billion ways the universe could be (or could have tried to be). So what?
If ask you to pick a number between 1 and 10 billion, there are more than a billion different numbers you could pick. So you pick 3,453,786,453. Am I surprised you picked that number? Is it some bizarre fluke in need of explanation? No. Because you had to pick one number.
So why is it surprising that the universe 'picked' one of the options it had available to pick from?
If there was a God he would certainly want a life supporting universe.
In this case, 2+2 does indeed equal 4 - the universe is fine tuned for life.
Even if you think there is a very low probability of God existing, it is still a much more likely explanation than a billion to one shot coming.
The chances of Devans reading the exact words he is reading right at this moment at exactly this instant of time...
...are probably about a quadrillion, quadrillion to one against.
Almost everything he does today...have those same odds against it happening at exactly the moment it happens.
BUT IT HAPPENS.
The chances of an shuffled deck of cards ending up in the array it arrives at after every shuffle...are millions to one against (high enough so that any shuffled deck will probably not repeat itself in billions of shuffles)...but IT HAPPENS.
We are here...the universe is here.
Whatever the odds are...we defied them and arrived here.
Yes but the question is why did it happen? Has a gigantic fluke come off? Or was it not a fluke at all? Its quite clear to me that the second is vastly more likely.
It doesn't 'happen to be' it is the only number it could ever possibly have been because had it been any other number we wouldn't be here. We are here, so it is completely unsurprising that it is that number.
Quoting Devans99
Coincidence? @Relativist has already explained that to you and you completely ignored it. The two are inextricably linked, one directly causes the other. That is just not what a coincidence is.
You are not asking the right question. We already know it had to be that number else we'd not be here to talk about it. The question should be 'Why was it that number?'
By massive fluke or by design. A simple choice.
You do tend to suppose your guesses about things are correct.
Whether the universe happened as the result of some design...or just happened...
...the chances of it happening are the same.
There honestly is no "more likely."
But it's neither, because it's not a massive fluke if it wasn't by design. If no one was aiming for or wanted a life-supporting universe, then it wasn't a massive fluke that one turned up. It's only a massive fluke if you presume it was the objective, or desirable at the time.
And the non-zero probability of the existence of God is much larger than a billion to one shot of it happening by a fluke .
So the only possible conclusion is: the universe is probably fine-tuned for life.
..and we're back to arguments which you have already had countered.
There is not a 'probability' of the existence of God. You have misunderstood how probability works and you have already had this repeatedly explained to you.
If you're not even going to listen to anything people here are saying, there's no point in continuing to post.
Quoting Isaac
So you are 100% certain God does not exist? How did you arrive at such a conclusion? I'm sure the world would like to know... there has been some debate on the issue.
Sure, it's a huge possibility space, but you incorrectly treating "we" as participants. Let's be explicit about this universe lottery:
Where ci = a set of values for the constants (e.g. the set of values the constants have in THIS universe)
C = the set of all ci.
n =the number members of C (i.e. the number of possible combinations of constant values)
The possibility space = the participants in the lottery = C. "We" are not participants, so it's invalid to say "we won." Rather, some ci is the winner. We (life) is a consequence of ci having won. We can consider "life permitting" as a characteristic of the winner. In the real-world lottery analogy I gave, this is like identifying the characteristics of the winner (a one-eyed, hemophiliac dwarf) and noting how improbable it is that such a person would win.
Quoting Devans99
Erroneous. The issue should be: does the FTA increase the epistemic probability of God's existence. Your 25% assumption refers to the prior probability of a God (one who wants to create life). The FTA does result in an increase to this prior probability. That's because we have knowledge of only one universe (this one), and the existence of life is consistent with both possibilities (God existing and God's not existing).
Back to my analogy, a one-eyed hemophiliac dwarf winning is consistent with a lottery that is rigged for one-eyed hemophiliac dwarves, and also consistent with an honest lottery in which everyone has an equal chance. You're treating the mere fact that such a person won as evidence of a dishonest lottery.
Quoting Devans99
A coincidence consists of two facts. The only two facts you can be referring two are:
1) life is a design objective
2) there is life.
If you do not treat life as a design objective, there is no relevant coincidence. In my analogy, it's not "coincidental" that one-eyed hemophiliac dwarf won the lottery UNLESS we treat such a person's winning as an objective of the lottery (i.e. the lottery was rigged).
Quoting Devans99
Would you ask, "why did a one-eyed, hemophiliac dwarf win?" There is a reason for this sort of person winning a lottery only if the lottery was rigged. Similarly, there's only a reason for the universe being life supporting if life was a design objective.
If you only entered one lottery in you life and you won at a billion to 1, would you not find it suspicious? This is the situation with the universe; there was only one lottery for life supporting attributes, our universe won the jackpot; it seems highly suspicious.
Quoting Relativist
But God independently of fine tuning has a non-zero chance to exist. So there is a non-zero chance of a design objective which dwarves the chance of a fine tuned universe happening by accident.
There you go gain, treating the "universe lottery" as a lottery "for life supporting attributes" - i.e.treating life as a design objective.
The starting point of the analysis should be a consideration of the two possibilities: design or chance. If the world is a product of chance, this simply means there's nothing special about life - life is just an unintended consequence of the universe being what it is. If the world was a product of design, then perhaps life was a design objective. The fact is that we have exactly one data point (the actual universe), and this one data point is equally consistent with both these possibilities - it doesn't make design more probable than chance.
Quoting Devans99
The phrase "the chance of a fine tuned universe happening by accident" is self contradictory. If the world happened by chance, then it is not finely tuned - it just happens to have the characteristics that it has (including the fact that it can produce life). This illogical thinking seems to be at the heart of your position.
Regarding the epistemic probability of God: bear in mind that you're referring specifically to a God that would choose to create life. What evidence is there for such a God? Cosmological arguments only point to a first cause; contingency arguments only point to there being a creative force that exists out of metaphysical necessity. What objective basis do you propose for assigning a probability to a God that wants to create life, over a God that just wants to create complex universes and is indifferent to life.
1. Causality absolutely requires a first cause (else nothing would exist)
2. The first cause must be able to effect something without in itself being effected
3. So the first cause must be self-driven, IE intelligent
4. An intelligent first cause would want a universe with intelligent creatures in it.
So on the basis of the above argument, I can assign a non-zero probability to God's existence which is much higher than the chances of the universe being life supporting by accident.
It is a certainty that an undesigned universe whose parameters are a product of chance would have some unique characterisitcs. If the universe is not designed, then clearly life is just a unique characteristic that results from the universe being what it is.
You have avoided responding to my analogy of a one-eyed, hemophiliac dwarf (I'll abbreviate as OEHD) winning a lottery. There are far more Hispanic girls, or men of European ancestry, than OEHDs, so should we suspect the lottery was rigged just because we identified a set of characteristics that make the winner unique? The point is that a post hoc analysis of ANY winner could identify characteristics that make him unique, and therefore uniqueness does not comprise evidence of rigging. This is similarly true for the existence of life: it is merely a unique characteristic of the universe, identified post hoc. So just like a OEHD- it doesn't imply rigging.
Regarding your case for a creator - Try again. You didn't show that the creator would be likely to desire life to exist.
My point on the dwarf is that his unique set of characteristics happen to correspond to what the lottery organiser wants to win the lottery (is the closest analogy I can think of).
Or that the unique set of characteristics required for a universe to be life creating happen to correspond to what God would want from a universe - for it to be live supporting.
Quoting Relativist
If you were God, the first cause, would you not be lonely/bored? If you had the means and opportunity, maybe you'd create something to keep you occupied. Inanimate matter is boring, so something living. On the basis that life is good, you'd make it as large as possible (larger=more good). IE you'd create a life supporting universe.
This is probably the most amusing thing you've come up with yet, well done.
God really wanted some intelligent life to entertain him so he created some (14 billion years into the whole project, for some reason), stuck it one one tiny planet in the middle of empty space, populated the rest of the entire universe with lifeless rocks and then buggered off (minus one brief showing to set fire to a bush and hand down some instructions about neighbour's oxen).
1. God is timeless so 14 billion years in not relevant
2. The whole universe is teeming with life. Most star systems will turn out life supporting like ours.
3. There are 10^23 star systems in the observable universe. By comparison, there are only 10^10 years since the Big Bang. That means God could not have found us even if he wanted to - there is plenty of life to choose from in the universe so why would he be looking for us? There is no reason we should have 'heard' from God.
That's correct, but my point is that the mere fact that the dwarf won does not serve as evidence that the organiser wanted the dwarf to win. It's POSSIBLE that he did, but there's no basis for considering it probable. If the lottery was fair, the dwarf had exactly the same probability of winning as every other individual. Being a OEHD doesn't change the probability of his winning. This can be depicted with conditional probabilities:
P(W) = 1/327M --- the probability of any individual winning, given there are 327M people in the population.
P(W|OEHD) = the probability of an individual winning, given that the individual is a OEHD
The fact is that P(W|OEHD) = P(W); this just means a OEHD has the same chance of winning as does everyone else.
Now let's say you are a person of average height, not hemophiliac, and with 2 working eyes. You know that almost everyone in the US is like you in those respects. Should this make you suspicious that the lottery was rigged? Clearly P(W|~OEHD) > P(W|OEHD) -- i.e. it was far more likely that the winner would not be a OEHD. But does that imply the lottery was rigged for OEHD?
I would say if you only enter one lottery in your life and you know nothing about lotteries except it is a billion to one shot and you win, then it is only natural to suspect the lottery was rigged.
So there is only one universe (=only one lottery) and we know nothing about what kind of lottery it is except:
- Its a billion to one shot
- There is a non-zero probability of a God (who would want us to win the lottery)
The probability of a God existing is greater than the probability of winning the lottery / getting a life supporting universe by sheer luck and God would want a life supporting universe.
So we can conclude the chances God fine tuned the universe for life are much higher than its life supporting by a fluke. So we should go with the most probable explanation.
Saying "it is only natural" does not constitute objective evidence. Consider that in a fair lottery, some random person will win - and yet (per your admission) every possible winner will suspect the lottery was rigged for him, but he will be wrong
To be honest, I think you've hit on the source of the fallacious thinking: it's based on the unsupported belief that there "must be a reason" for all subjectively significant events. .
We don't know if its a fixed lottery or not - we know nothing about it so we have to assume a high probability that it is rigged.
- If its a fair lottery we have 1 in a billion chance
- If its a rigged lottery we have 100% chance
If you really knew nothing about the lottery and you won, you'd have to conclude it was very probably rigged.
Quoting Relativist
Life is objectively significant if you factor in the possible existence of God (who would want intelligent life).
We might be going around in circles here. Maybe we just have to agree to disagree on this one?
God's existence wouldn't make life "objectively significant" because significance is always subjective. I could agree that being significant to God is relevant. But you are not considering each of the two possibilities on their own terms. The two possibilities are: 1) the universe is designed for life OR 2) life is the result of the chance characteristics of the universe. Analyze each:
Alternative 1: the universe is designed for life
Implication 1: Life is significant to the designer
Alternative 2: life is the result of the chance characteristics of the universe
Implication 2: Life has no significance to the designer or there is no designer
The question should be: is there more evidence for one alternative vs the other?
The only fact in evidence is: there is life in the universe. But this fact is consistent with both alternatives, so it doesn't make your preferred alternative any more likely.
Now let's "factor in the possible of existence of God (who would want to create intelligent life)." Let's consider epistemic probability:
A. P(God) = p (the probability of this sort of God is some value, p)
B P(Alt 1)= p (the probability that Alt1 is true is equivalent to the probability this God exists)
C. P(~God)= 1-p (the probability that this sort of God does not exist)
D. P(Alt 2) = 1-p (the probability that Alt 2 is true is equivalent to the probability this sort of God does not exist).
In other words, the alternatives inherit the prior probability that God exists (or does not). There is nothing about the alternatives that increases or decreases God's probability. i.e. consideration of "fine-tuning" has zero relevance to the epistemic analysis of God's existence.
If it's subjective for God, its objective for everyone else.
Quoting Relativist
But the two alternatives are not equally likely:
1. By chance is a billion to one
2. By design is chance of God existing (say 10%) * chance of God being interested in life (say 10%) giving a hundred to one
So the chance purposeful fine tuning are 10 million times higher than the chance of a fluke.
You've been discussing probability informally and drawing a false conclusion because your getting lost in the non-rigorous analysis. Let's clean it up.
You're basically saying that if naturalism is true, then it is extremely unlikely that a universe would be friendly to life. In probability terms, this can be stated as:
P(F|N) <<1 where F="the universe is Friendly to life, N= "naturalism is true", and "P(F|N)<<1" means "the probability of the universe being friendly to life given naturalism is a very small number (consistent with your informal claim that the chances are 1 in a billion).
This seems a plausible assumption, given the analysis by physicists about the implications of small changes to any of the fundamental constants. However, the relevant issue is: is naturalism plausible given the totality of evidence available to us. The totality of evidence includes the fact that our universe actually is life-friendly. So we need to consider the following:
P(N|F)....which means the probability that naturalism is true given the fact of a universe that is life-friendly. This is not a "billion to one".
You claimed we needed to factor in the background probability of God (the life-wanting kind). That's fine, but we also need to factor in the probabiliity of ~God, and that is equivalent to P(N)=1-P(G)
So let's use your assumption that the probability of God is 10%. This means:
[b]
P(G)=.1
P(N)=.9[/b]
So the going-in assumption (before considering fine-tuning considerations) is that naturalism is probably true. Now let's factor in the one additional bit of knowledge that we have: this universe is life-friendly. Now let's factor in our background knowledge that this universe is life-friendly. This means the key thing to compare is:
P(G|F) vs P(N|F) ......Key Comparison
You seem to believe P(G|F) is higher than P(N|F), but I see no reason to think so. The probability that THIS universe is life-frienndly is 1, so this means:
[b]
P(G|F) = P(G)
and P(N|F) = P(N)[/b]
This implies the key comparison:
P(G|F) vs P(N|F)
is equivalent to:
P(G) vs P(N)
and you gave us the assumption P(G) = .1, so you should conclude naturalism is true. Of course, the real issue is that the analysis doesn't result in giving us a reason to change our prior epistemic probability about God's existence - as I showed previously, and you have ignored.
Why is it not billion to one?
Quoting Relativist
Afraid you have lost me here. You can't do the above; the probability of naturalism is a billion to one.
Just because I say there is a 10% chance of God, you cannot assume that implies a 90% chance of naturalism - we already know the chances of naturalism are a billion to one - that evidence stands irrespective of any probability estimates we make for God. You are mixing up two separate probability calculations.
For purposes of this discussion at least, what is relevant is whether or not there is a God that wants to create life. Label the converse of that to be "naturalism".
Quoting Devans99
Because P(G) + P(N) =1 ; i.e. EITHER there is a God, or naturalism is true.
You proposed using P(G) = .1, so it follows that P(N) = .9
If P(N) is .9, the existence of a life-friendly universe doesn't DECREASE the probability of naturalism.
Quoting Devans99
I think you're overlooking that P(G)+P(N) =1. To claim there's a billion to one chance of naturalism being true implies you believe the probability of God is 999,999,999/1,000,000,000
The anthropic principle says we the universe must be live supporting, the question we are trying to answer is: is why is it live supporting?
There are two separate probability calculations for the two possible reasons it is live supporting:
[1] The first is probability that the universe supports life by accident. The evidence we have here (from science) is that it is a billion to one shot that it happened by accident.
[2] The second is the probability that a willing fine tuner exists to explain the fine tuning. This is derived from an independent set of evidence/arguments (first cause argument etc...). Say this is 1%.
To answer why the universe is fine tuned, we have to choose the mostly likely explanation from the above two.
1 and 2 are not related in anyway. They are different calculations based on different evidence.
Quoting Devans99
That is a loaded question: it assumes there is a reason. The neutral question is: is the universe designed for life, or is life an unintended consequence of the way the universe happen to be?
Quoting Devans99
This does not correctly capture the naturalist position. If naturalism (i.e. there is no God that wants to create life) is true, life is nothing special - it is nothing more than a unique or rare characteristic of a universe whose properties are the product of randomness. By wording it as you did, you are treating life as a design objective.
The one-eyed hemophiliac dwarf (OEHD) analogy captures the error
There is however a distinct chance that there is a reason - because God may exist.
Every possible winner of the lottery is not unique in God's eyes; he is only interested in life supporting universe, so that means only a life supporting universe is unique for God - God does not care about the other attributes of the universe, he only cares about if it is life supporting.
So there is a chance of God's existence and he wants a life supporting universe. That chance is much larger than the universe being life supporting by accident.
Indeed there is, just as there's a distinct chance the lottery was rigged for the specific characteristics of the winner. But the mere fact that someone with those characteristics has won doesn't make it any more likely.
The epistimic probability that there's a reason is identical to the probability that God exists:
P(there is a reason) = P(G)
P(there is no reason) = 1-P(G)
You're ignoring, or refusing to think through this rigorously.
Quoting Devans99
...If and only if there is a God. So:
P(winner is not unique in God's eyes) = P(G)
Examine the math I gave you. You aren't thinking it through completely. Again, the starting point is:
P(G) = prior probability of God
P(N) = 1-P(G) = prior probability there is no such God
You have provided no basis for increasing P(G) because all you have done is to discuss the implications of God's existence. This doesn't change the probability.
If a one eyed dwarf has won a lottery at a billion to 1 and we have reason to suspect is rigged for one eyed dwarfs, the we should conclude the most likely explanation is that it was rigged for one eye dwarfs.
Quoting Relativist
But again this is like a murder mystery who done it. You have to work out the most likely reason that the universe supports life. God is more likely than a fluke.
Sure, but the mere fact that he won is not such a reason. There's something unique about every possible winner, so merely being unique is irrelevant; it's not a reason to suspect rigging. As I noted, EVERY POSSIBLE WINNER is unique, so uniqueness alone is not suspicious (nor is it a "fluke").
Quoting Devans99
There is no "fluke" if the universe is a product of random chance. You are only considering the implications of God's existence. An implication doesn't constitute additional evidence, so it does add to the probability of God:
:
P(G) = prior probability of God
P(there is a reason the universe supports life) = P(G)
There's no basis for considering #2 more probable.
You referenced a "fluke" but this is a red herring. When a lottery winner happens to be a OEHD, this does not constitute a "fluke" because he had the same chance of winning as everyone else. If there were two consecutive lotteries, and a OEHD won both - THAT would be a fluke. But when there's a single random event, and every possible outcome is unique, there can be no fluke.
Not from God's perspective.
Quoting Relativist
But there are multiple coincidences, one for each of the 20 constants:
- Chances of gravity being right strength
- Chance universe expanding at right rate
- Mass of up quark must be right
- Etc...
So if you prefer, you can consider that the OEHD entered 20 competitions in a row and won them all.
That is true only if there is a God. This implication of God existing doesn't make it any more likely that God exists.
"Life is an unintended consequence" is an implication of naturalism. So when you erroneously use an implication of God as evidence of God, it's equivalent to using "life is an unintended consequence" as evidence of naturalism.
Quoting Devans99 A random set of constants does not entail a coincidence, and the unintended consequence of life eventually emerging can't be considered a coincidence. It would only be a coincidence if life was a design objective, but if naturalism is true - there was no design objective.
Quoting Devans99
That is analogous to 20 different universes each having life. You've forgotten that the "universe lottery" consists of randomly picking a SET of values. The number of sets of values corresponds to the number of entries in the universe lottery.
But bearing in mind all the other evidence in favour of God then there is a high probability that a design objective exists. This is evidence independent of the separate scientific evidence for fine tuning.
Whereas we have no independent evidence in favour of naturalism; there are no 'proofs of no God' for example. All we know about naturalism is it is a billion to one shot - that is the whole of the evidence for naturalism.
Irrelevant, because this just affects the prior probability of God. "Fine Tuning" considerations do not increase that probability. If the prior probability of God is 10%, the final probability is also 10%. If the prior probability is 90%, the final probability is still 90%.
So understand that I'm not claiming the FTA makes a case for naturalism, I'm just pointing out that it has zero relevance to the question of God's existence. You need to rely on those other arguments to support your belief. Some are better than others, but the FTA is the worst of all.
Quoting Devans99
The "case" for naturalism is simply this: P(naturalism) = 1 - P(God).
I propose that if you want to make a case for God, it's time to move onto a better argument than FTA. If you want to do that, I propose starting another thread.
Welcome any comments of the following argument for God:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5832/argument-from-equilibrium
The universe (its properties: physical constants & laws) is such that life is possible + actual.
It's half-a-refutation of the Copernican Principle (Nothing special about earth, life, the universe. Vide the Mediocrity Principle); at the very least earth, life, the universe is privileged.
Why? The natural question. Prompts a search for the reason for the special status of our universe (life-friendly).
One response: The multiverse. A large number of universes exist (every possible value for physical constants and every possible variation in laws exist as different universes). In other words, we (humans, you and I) just got lucky, that's all. In other words, there's nothing at all special about this universe in which we exist.