The science of "fine-tuning"

[unkleE]

I want to start a thread about the scientific discoveries sometimes labelled universal "fine-tuning". (There is a theistic argument that is based on this science, but I am not talking about that, and I hope the discussion here can stay on the science.) We shouldn't be put off by the phrase "fine tuning". It makes no inference of someone doing the tuning, but is apparently a phrase commonly used by physicists to describe when an outcome is extremely sensitive to the input parameters.

I am not a cosmologist, but I have read a number of books and listened to a number of talks and debates by cosmologists, and what I am saying is my best understanding of what they say. These are not my opinions. Cosmology is a science, based on data and mathematical analysis, and I don't have access to the data, I cannot do the maths and I don't have a deep understanding of the science. If I am going to understand cosmological science at all, I need to take notice of what the best experts say, based on their years of work. Thinking I can move past what they say is not sensible. Only when I have some understanding of the science can I express a sensible opinion on what it all might mean.

I have based what I say mainly on two books:

A Fortunate Universe by Geraint Lewis and Luke Barnes - the most up-to-date book I know on the subject, published in 2016. Barnes researches in this field.
Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees - he is one of the leading lights in the field and this 2001 book is considered a classic.

In addition, I have read books and articles and listened to talks by Paul Davies, Leonard Susskind, Roger Penrose, Lee Smolin and Sean Carroll - all eminent cosmologists.

This is the basis of my summary of the science.

[unkleE]

Here is a basic summary of the science.

Astronomers observe the heavens, take photographs and record measurements. Cosmologists use this information to develop and test hypotheses about what is going on, and what occurred in the past. From all this, mathematical  equations have been developed that describe cosmic processes, and the constants in the equation have been calculated from the data. Many of these equations have been used to make predictions, tested against observations and either verified or rejected. The cosmologists now have good working models of our universe. We can call this "theoretical physics", and cosmologists can use these discovered physical laws to test "what if" scenarios of different universes.

About 50 years ago, cosmologists began to see that if they varied some of the numbers in some of the equations, very different universes would result. (About a dozen numbers seem to be important here.) Most of these hypothetical universes were very different from ours and would never allow life to form, and in many cases, didn't allow very much at all to form.. Some were very short-lived so there was not time for anything much to happen. Some were so sparse that particles would only interact very rarely. Some would not contain atoms, just more elementary particles. Some would be composed only of Hydrogen atoms, some only Helium atoms. The simplest expression of these discoveries is this:

In the set of all possible universes allowed by theoretical physics, the set that would provide conditions under which life could form is extremely small.

That is, as far as I can ascertain, accepted and understood by virtually all working cosmologists. The closest to an exception I can find is Sean Carroll, who accepts that our universe is very unusual among theoretically possible universes, but thinks that some of the apparent fine-tuning can be explained. Some cosmologists are exploring ways that might make our universe less unusual, but as far as I know, they haven't really delivered tis yet.

Against those few examples, Luke Barnes references over 200 scientific papers that support the idea of fine-tuning, and names about 20 of the world's top cosmologists who support it.

They all seem to agree that the odds against our universe occurring by chance are astronomically small. :) So how to explain it?

The majority of scientists I have read/heard seem to think that the explanation for this "fine-tuning" is the multiverse - the untested and so far untestable idea that zillions upon zillions of universes with different properties have been and are being generated, and life evolved in one of the rare universes that allowed it. The science of the multiverse is problematic, and Luke Barnes and Sean Carroll, among others, are doubtful about it. Some cosmologists still hope that a natural, non-multiverse, explanation can be found, but the majority don't seem to think so. But if it wasn't the multiverse, no-onne seems to have a workable alternative explanation, though they are certainly looking for it.

So that is the science of fine-tuning in brief, as I understand it. Note that it says nothing about how much of the universe is habitable, and whether life will evolve.

[kevin]

fgjf

[Kiahanie]

Here is a basic summary of the science.
••••
So that is the science of fine-tuning in brief, as I understand it. Note that it says nothing about how much of the universe is habitable, and whether life will evolve.

That is all very nice, but what is the reasoning behind that? All those guys have the same data sets (which change regularly). It is the reasoning that distinguishes their conclusions from SWAG. Which is why Penrose never published his calculations for peer review.

We could also ask after the reasoning behind supporting a finite omniverse. You seem to think presenting poll results is more important than the reasoning behind provisional conclusions.

[unkleE]

fgjf

fjgf !!

[unkleE]

That is all very nice, but what is the reasoning behind that?

I'm really not sure what you want.  They have looked at the date, tried to understand the processes, built mathematical models that describe what they see, verfied the equations, and then used those equations to see what would happen if something was different. That's a simple enough process in principle.

Which is why Penrose never published his calculations for peer review.

It's in a book. The book has been read by his peers and at least several of them accept his results because they understand his method. I haven't seen anyone who disagreed with it, have you?

Can you explain how you know he hasn't published a paper on it, and how you know his motives for not doing so?

You seem to think presenting poll results is more important than the reasoning behind provisional conclusions.

I don't see any poll there, just doing what academics do and citing experts. As Luke Barnes said when challenged, start citing papers!

I wonder if you accept the findings of evolutionary biologists on the evolution of life on earth. I wonder if you accept the findings of climate scientists on global warming. I do. I probably know more about the justification of fine tuning than evolution, and probably an equal amount about climate change. In all cases I could give a summary and refer you to references. I cannot see any justification for your scepticism or for your statements about Penrose.

[kevin]

fgjf

fjgf !!

no, i was thinking of something better and ran out of timr.

its too interesting a question to post less than important stuff

[Kiahanie]

••••

I'm really not sure what you want. 
••••
I cannot see any justification for your scepticism or for your statements about Penrose.

Thought we were gonna call it a day, unkleE. You're not gonna go all sea lion on me, are you?

[unkleE]

Thought we were gonna call it a day, unkleE.

That was on another thread! But happy to here also.

You're not gonna go all sea lion on me, are you?

No, I have a different porpoise! 

[kevin]

fgjf

fjgf !!

its the N=1 problem, really, like in AI. another aspect.

suppose the conditions for life as we know it or the conditions that give rise to the various constants and physical laws we see around us are horrifically unlikely, almost impossibly unlikely, infintesimally unlikely . . . thats what the cosmologists say, after all, in support of fine-tuning.

and yet of course, we exist in that reality.

can we possibly expect anything else? arguably, we are unlikley, but we are not impossible, and the only way for us to be asking the question in the first place is if we exist in the single impossibly unlikley universe that beat the odds. the cosmologists say that they can calculate the odds, so the number of possible universes cannot be infinite. they claim there must be a limit and they claim they can calculate what it is.

but suppose you have a huge universe, one consisting of an immense room full of a very large --but finite-- number of sleeping people lying on beds, each isolated from the others, each unique and different.

each one of these people possesses a single lottery ticket, one for each sleeper. one ticket in all the immense series of tickets for all the huge number of sleepers will allow one sleeper to wake up. the cosmologists say they can calculate the odds.

so the one winning sleeper wakes, and observes, it is infintsimally unlikely that i should be the one to be awake, almost impossibly unlikely, the chances of it being me that wakes among all the numbers of people who could have awakened is so impossibly small that it must have been finely-tuned, it must have been designed this way, i must have been somehow chosen, mechanically or divinely,  to be the one who awakened, it couldnt possibly have occurred to me by chance . . .

yet it was chance. it couldnt have happened any other way. the cosmologists say that there is a finite number of lottery tickets, not an infinite number, and so someones ticket will win, sooner or later. some ticket will someday beat the impossible odds and one sleeper will eventually awaken while all the others stay asleep. only because the sleeper woke up is he awake to ask the question. if he can ask the question, somebody has won the lottery, else the question cannot be asked, because no winner awakened.

similarly in a cosmos with a large number of possible expressions, some single universe must beat the odds in order for us to ask, why us? in a finite series of possible universes, some universe wins, eventually, no matter how unlikely it is that that any particular universe will be the one. . so long as no universe wins, no universe exists to contain a curious human. but because the odds are finite, and the lottery continues until there is a winner, someone has to beat the odds for the question to be asked.

its the cosmologists that supply the odds, and they say the chance cant be zero. and since we are here, there was a winning ticket, ours.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

It's the old playing card problem.  A standard deck of cards has 52! combinations, so if you randomly shuffle one there is a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000012397999% chance that you landed on the result you did.  But no one ever refuses to play the game on the basis that the deck in front of them is nearly impossible to achieve by random shuffling: in fact, all deck combinations are equally as nearly impossible to achieve!

Statistically unlikely things happen all the time, and as anyone who's played cards knows, getting a statistically near-impossible result is trivial.  We don't dispute someone's poker win because they only won the hand due to the deck having a 1 in 52! chance of occurring that way.  Indeed, the sheer number of possible deck states is a feature, not a bug.

Likewise, we can't say that the universe is fine-tuned because only a small number of universes might support life.  The fact is, if our universe didn't support life, we wouldn't be here having this discussion.  Even if there is only a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000012397999% chance of us being here, we're here now, so we can't dispute it any more than we can dispute a deck of cards sitting right in front of us.

[Kiahanie]

The major problem with Penrose -style calculations is they assume a random distribution of "universal" constants and properties: universes appear with a random set of constants and features.

Nobody has any evidence to support that assumption. It is equally likely/unlikely that when the speculative omniverse burps up a universe that some basic features of that omniverse are carried forward, resulting in a non-random distribution of constants and features.

[Boots]

I know "they say it's possible..." but how in the holy hand grenade can someone conclusively (or even convincingly) determine that any of the universal constants could possibly be any different??

[kevin]

The major problem with Penrose -style calculations is they assume a random distribution of "universal" constants and properties: universes appear with a random set of constants and features.

Nobody has any evidence to support that assumption. It is equally likely/unlikely that when the speculative omniverse burps up a universe that some basic features of that omniverse are carried forward, resulting in a non-random distribution of constants and features.

I know "they say it's possible..." but how in the holy hand grenade can someone conclusively (or even convincingly) determine that any of the universal constants could possibly be any different??

^^^this is the problem highlighted by the mixing bowl model. given a mixing bowl with a randomly distributed array of interior points that a ball bearing could conceivably come to rest upon, the ball bearing defies the odds and comes to rest in the very bottom of the bowl every time.

[Kiahanie]

Static vs dynamic analysis.

[unkleE]

Hi everyone, it seems you are all repeating all the standard azrguments by non-cosmologists to the science of fine-tuning.

Kevin: you are more or less arguing for the multiverse - zillions of universes, so sooner or later one will likely support life. As I have said, that is the most popular scientific response. But it is unproven, likely unprovable and much disputed.

Mooby: hi mate, nice to see you again! This is the anthropic principle. Yes, if there weren't observers like us, no-one would know our universe existed. True. But it still doesn't explain why it happened - which is what science is all about. Imagine this hypothetical. You and I play poker. I get a royal flush and so win 10 games in a row. The odds of this are approx 6 x 10^-39. And so you begin to wonder if I am cheating. By I reply "but  these hands are as likely as any other, and these odds are way, way better than the odds of fine-tuning by chance, which you've said is quite OK." Would you be convinced? Say you are convinced, because, after all, you've explained away much much longer odds, so we play another 10 games & I get another 10 royal flushes. Odds of approx 3 x 10^-77. Do you get suspicious, or do you remain convinced that, since the odds are still way, way better then the fine-tuning by chance, you keep playing (if you have any money left!)?

I wonder if a young earth creationist has ever visited this forum, and any of you criticised him/her for not accepting the science?

[kevin]

hi unkle E

Kevin: you are more or less arguing for the multiverse - zillions of universes, so sooner or later one will likely support life. As I have said, that is the most popular scientific response. But it is unproven, likely unprovable and much disputed.

im not arguing for a multiverse. im just quoting the cosmologists arguments back to you. if a cosmologist says that the chances of our sysyem being the one that happened are 1 in 10^568875324689]853 possibilites (or some other number),   then thats his sample size, not mine. if those other possibilities are not actually possible, then they cannot be included in his calculations.

regarding YEC, it cannot be disproven by science. ive never criticized a creationist who understood what he was saying. but very few people who discuss it--whether they believe it or not-- realize the implications of how it works.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

This is the anthropic principle.

It sure is!

True. But it still doesn't explain why it happened - which is what science is all about.

"Why" is a question of telos: the assumption that there is some sort of reason or plan for things.  Science doesn't examine telos.  Science examines mechanisms: the "how."

We can observe our universe as-is, speculate on the variables that are necessary to maintain it the way it is, and try to determine how things might be different if those variables are different.  That's the "how."  But trying to conclude that the way it is must suggest some sort of design, reason, intent, etc. - the "why" - is metaphysical, not scientific.

Imagine this hypothetical. You and I play poker. I get a royal flush and so win 10 games in a row. The odds of this are approx 6 x 10^-39. And so you begin to wonder if I am cheating. By I reply "but  these hands are as likely as any other, and these odds are way, way better than the odds of fine-tuning by chance, which you've said is quite OK." Would you be convinced?

I have a couple issues with this analogy:

• Your analogy relies on 10 trials (poker hands), while our universe is only one trial.  My answer would be very different if we knew of 10 universes with different constants and all 10 supported life (10 seemingly independent trials.)
• Your analogy relies on a known intelligent player in the game with the capacity to cheat, and cheating is a potential mechanism for generating a hand.  We have direct evidence of this player being part of the game, but know of no such intelligent agent with the ability to alter the universe's rules.  If the poker hands were simulated by a computer that has a known fair algorithm, my answer would be very different vs. an intelligent player who could work outside the rules of the game.

With these two limitations in mind, my current answer is that I would be presented with two competing models:

• A statistically unlikely random result caused this hand to repeat 10 times in a row.
• Our known intelligent agent cheated in one or more hands.

In this case, we would be looking for the more parsimonious model, and in this case the second one is more parsimonious.  But we cannot apply this same answer to the universe, because we don't have any evidence for an intelligent agent, and statistical improbability is in not itself evidence for an intelligent agent.

Say you are convinced, because, after all, you've explained away much much longer odds, so we play another 10 games & I get another 10 royal flushes. Odds of approx 3 x 10^-77. Do you get suspicious, or do you remain convinced that, since the odds are still way, way better then the fine-tuning by chance, you keep playing (if you have any money left!)?

Here you're referring to doing more trials.  Again, we have only one trial to our universe: we're looking at a single poker hand, if it were.

If I saw a single hand with a royal flush, my questions would be:

• Is this the only deck configuration that can result in a royal flush?
• Is a royal flush necessary to win poker?
• Can there be non-royal straight flushes, flushes that are not straights, and/or straights that are not flushes?
• What other poker hands are possible?

Likewise, with the universe, I'd want to know:

• Is this the only universe configuration that can generate life?
• Are the current constants necessary for life?
• Can there be life that does not rely on carbon, water, oxygen, or constants being the way they are now?
• What other forms of life are possible?
• Is there some sort of mechanism by which constants balance each other out such that they create a stable universe?

I think the anthropic principle is a necessary starting point, because we have to realize that the universe we have doesn't have to be the universe we have, it's just the only one we currently see.  Trying to say it has to be the way it is merely because it exists is telos, not mechanism.  We don't actually know that the universe is fine-tuned for life, we just know it exists here.  How do we know it's not in the bottom 5% of universes suitable for life?  After all, the vast, vast majority of the known universe is completely uninhabitable as far as we're aware.

[Kiahanie]

Hi everyone, it seems you are all repeating all the standard azrguments by non-cosmologists to the science of fine-tuning.
••••
I wonder if a young earth creationist has ever visited this forum, and any of you criticised him/her for not accepting the science?

Let us be clear about something. In these discussions you do not get to wrap yourself in the mantle of science if you cannot explain the logic, the why and how of their reasoning, to reach their conclusions. You accept their logic not because you understand it, but because of their reputations. Purely an argument from authority.

Let us also be clear about the cosmological consensus: your conclusions on infinite time, the omniverse, and Penrose are not shared by the majority of cosmologists. In order to support your opinions you magnify that authority by selectively choosing a few of those who are most followed by the popular press because their speculations are the most spectacular.

Right now your reasoning seems to be "They said so."

If you can offer no supporting logic or reasoning -your own or that if your sources- you do not understand enough to be persuasive to those who do not already agree.

 Unless they are impressed by titles.

[kevin]

my title is Disciple Of Perfect Enlightenment

but you can refer to me as DOPE for short

[Kiahanie]

My title is Yamhoo Yam, but being a Quaker I disregard titles. You can call me Yoo.

[Maria-Juana]

my title is Disciple Of Perfect Enlightenment

but you can refer to me as DOPE for short

I like that! DOPE.

Or 

You could be DUDE.
Dude/Disciple
Under
Dope
Enlightenment.


**Dope
adjective
INFORMAL

[unkleE]

regarding YEC, it cannot be disproven by science. ive never criticized a creationist who understood what he was saying. but very few people who discuss it--whether they believe it or not-- realize the implications of how it works.

To be honest, that's a bit how it feels here.

[unkleE]

"Why" is a question of telos: the assumption that there is some sort of reason or plan for things.  Science doesn't examine telos.  Science examines mechanisms: the "how."

I don't believe that is true. You can ask the reason for something without assuming a "telos". Science does it all the time.

• Why (= what is the reason) is the cosmological constant so much lower than theory said it should be?
• Why (what reason) are human some characteristics heritable?
• Why (for what reason) does a chimp strip leaves off a twig?
• Why (for what reason) do yeast cells clump together?
• Why do human beings dream?

Asking for a reason is asking for a cause, a process, an advantage (in the case of natural selection), etc. But if "why" bothers you, just change my statement to "It still doesn't explain the process by which it occurred."

I have a couple issues with this analogy:

• Your analogy relies on 10 trials (poker hands), while our universe is only one trial.

Again, I think you're caught up in the detail. Imagine a poker game with 25 suits and cards up to 100 (or whatever) so that the odds of a royal flush were the same as the odds I quoted. Which is more likely, I got lucky or I cheated? Remember, you are looking for the more parsimonious model!

With these two limitations in mind, my current answer is that I would be presented with two competing models:

• A statistically unlikely random result caused this hand to repeat 10 times in a row.
• Our known intelligent agent cheated in one or more hands.

These are not the correct options. Remember we are doing science, so #2 isn't a scientific option at this stage. #2 is the multiverse. #3 is a fundamental law yet to be discovered. Cosmologists like Martin Rees says #3 looks impossible, #1 is so close to impossible, so he opts for #2. Again, the most parsimonious answer.

[8livesleft]

Here is a basic summary of the science.

Astronomers observe the heavens, take photographs and record measurements. Cosmologists use this information to develop and test hypotheses about what is going on, and what occurred in the past. From all this, mathematical  equations have been developed that describe cosmic processes, and the constants in the equation have been calculated from the data. Many of these equations have been used to make predictions, tested against observations and either verified or rejected. The cosmologists now have good working models of our universe. We can call this "theoretical physics", and cosmologists can use these discovered physical laws to test "what if" scenarios of different universes.

About 50 years ago, cosmologists began to see that if they varied some of the numbers in some of the equations, very different universes would result. (About a dozen numbers seem to be important here.) Most of these hypothetical universes were very different from ours and would never allow life to form, and in many cases, didn't allow very much at all to form.. Some were very short-lived so there was not time for anything much to happen. Some were so sparse that particles would only interact very rarely. Some would not contain atoms, just more elementary particles. Some would be composed only of Hydrogen atoms, some only Helium atoms. The simplest expression of these discoveries is this:

In the set of all possible universes allowed by theoretical physics, the set that would provide conditions under which life could form is extremely small.

That is, as far as I can ascertain, accepted and understood by virtually all working cosmologists. The closest to an exception I can find is Sean Carroll, who accepts that our universe is very unusual among theoretically possible universes, but thinks that some of the apparent fine-tuning can be explained. Some cosmologists are exploring ways that might make our universe less unusual, but as far as I know, they haven't really delivered tis yet.

Against those few examples, Luke Barnes references over 200 scientific papers that support the idea of fine-tuning, and names about 20 of the world's top cosmologists who support it.

They all seem to agree that the odds against our universe occurring by chance are astronomically small. :) So how to explain it?

The majority of scientists I have read/heard seem to think that the explanation for this "fine-tuning" is the multiverse - the untested and so far untestable idea that zillions upon zillions of universes with different properties have been and are being generated, and life evolved in one of the rare universes that allowed it. The science of the multiverse is problematic, and Luke Barnes and Sean Carroll, among others, are doubtful about it. Some cosmologists still hope that a natural, non-multiverse, explanation can be found, but the majority don't seem to think so. But if it wasn't the multiverse, no-onne seems to have a workable alternative explanation, though they are certainly looking for it.

So that is the science of fine-tuning in brief, as I understand it. Note that it says nothing about how much of the universe is habitable, and whether life will evolve.

From what I understand, the science behind this argument is based solely on the standard model which accounts for the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces as well as general relativity which covers gravity.

Now, are we saying:

1. We have complete or perfect understanding of those 4 forces?

2. There are no other (possibly unknown) forces at play?

3. There are no other (possibly unknown) materials at play?

4. Life can only come in the carbon-based form we see here?

Given the above, it seems to me that yet again, some people are painting a picture with 3/4 of the colors missing.

This is why the card or dice analogy doesn't apply.

Cards or dice have set limits because we know exactly how many cards and numbers there are on a set of dice or deck or cards.

The universe doesn't have such exact set limits.

[Francis]

Hello 8livesleft,

1. We have complete or perfect understanding of those 4 forces?

No one is proposing  that we have complete or perfect understanding about anything... let alone those 4 forces.  No one in here... and neither is any scientist... omniscient.  No one is claiming absolute perfect understanding.  We can only work with what we have and what we know and then try to create rational reasonable models and inferences from that data.

Even many brilliant scientists will propose completely unproven models like the multiverse with no evidence.

If they are allowed to do that intellectually... and still retain the mantel (a figurative cloak symbolizing preeminence or authority) of being an intellectual rational reasonable scientist/person... then why is unklE not allowed to propose fine-tuning, which is on a much firmer ground evidentially, than the purely speculative multiverse model?

2. There are no other (possibly unknown) forces at play?

There could be. Just like God could be a possibly unknown force at play.  Like Santa Clause.  Like a cosmic puppy (Kevin's example in a previous post). 

In a court room... no one is asked for a verdict that is absolutely certain.  The toughest standard of proof is always "beyond a reasonable doubt"... not absolute certainty.   And playing the "possibly unknown forces" card, does not factor into a verdict because reasonable rational people have realized that we can reach rational verdicts/beliefs without having to resolve every possible shadow of doubt.  Even in capital cases. 

Think about it, The defense attorney can surely ask the jury the same question you ask... they can ask the jury if there might not have been a possibly unknown assailant who did the murder, and not their client.

What is the response of the prosecutor?  They tell the jury that we go with the current evidence... with what can and do know... the known facts.  Where does the evidence/facts point to?

Confirmation bias is real.  Very real.  That is why we always should follow the evidence and/or argument to wherever it leads... even if we don't like where it leads. 

3. There are no other (possibly unknown) materials at play?

There might be. Like the material that God creates.  Like Santa and his reindeer and sled.  Like pixie dust. Indeed, maybe the other possibly unknown materials at play is created by God?  Why isn't it logically possible that God did create the material world that you are currently enjoying?

Confirmation bias is real.  Very real.  That is why we always should follow the evidence and/or argument to wherever it leads... even if we don't like where it leads.

4. Life can only come in the carbon-based form we see here?

Once again, we can only work with what we know and have evidence for.  We can speculate about all kinds of life forms. Santa.  Pixies. Aliens. Spirits.

If you can speculate that there might be more than just carbon-based life forms in the universe, then what is your objection to speculating that God exists?

And if you argue that God is less likely than not... well, that is exactly what the fine-tuning argument and scientists are doing... speculating on what is more likely than not.. based on the current evidence and data that we have to work with.

Given the above, it seems to me that yet again, some people are painting a picture with 3/4 of the colors missing.

But you haven't shown that 3/4 of the colors are missing in the first. That is the point.  You're just speculating.  And  you're doing so on less firm ground than the fine tuning argument rests on.

The universe doesn't have such exact set limits.

How do you know?  Using your 4 above questions, we can ask you the same kind of questions you've been asking.

Hope you and your family are doing well

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

I don't believe that is true. You can ask the reason for something without assuming a "telos". Science does it all the time.

• Why (= what is the reason) is the cosmological constant so much lower than theory said it should be?
• Why (what reason) are human some characteristics heritable?
• Why (for what reason) does a chimp strip leaves off a twig?
• Why (for what reason) do yeast cells clump together?
• Why do human beings dream?

"Reason" has two definitions: it can be an explanation, or it can be a rational ground/motive.  "Why" has a connotation of the latter while "how" has a connotation of the former.  I would prefer we use precise terms such as to not waste time with a semantic argument.

To use your first example, asking "What is the intent behind human characteristic heritability?" is nonscientific, because it assumes intent is present when we have no evidence it is there at all.  Whereas, "What is the mechanism of human heritability?" and "What are the evolutionary forces that favor human heritability?" are much more clear and precise questions.

Again, I think you're caught up in the detail. Imagine a poker game with 25 suits and cards up to 100 (or whatever) so that the odds of a royal flush were the same as the odds I quoted. Which is more likely, I got lucky or I cheated? Remember, you are looking for the more parsimonious model!

The more parsimonious model of this single trial is a single-mechanism model: probability alone.  Probability plus intelligent manipulation requires a dual-mechanism.  If a game has a possible outcome, then you can't cry foul if a single trial results in that outcome: it doesn't make sense to say, "This is the best hand, but you can never have the best hand!"  It's only when we have multiple independent trials that it makes sense to explore alternate models.

With these two limitations in mind, my current answer is that I would be presented with two competing models:

• A statistically unlikely random result caused this hand to repeat 10 times in a row.
• Our known intelligent agent cheated in one or more hands.

These are not the correct options. Remember we are doing science, so #2 isn't a scientific option at this stage. #2 is the multiverse. #3 is a fundamental law yet to be discovered. Cosmologists like Martin Rees says #3 looks impossible, #1 is so close to impossible, so he opts for #2. Again, the most parsimonious answer.

Excuse me?  You created a scenario with cards, said the intelligent agent exists, made an argument that we have to consider that intelligent agent's actions, and then are saying your own argument is unscientific?  Are you even reading your own posts?

I agree with you that your own analogy does not apply to our discussion of the universe due your above objection to your own analogy's relevance.

[Novice]

Hi UnkleE,

Here is the summary of my thoughts on this subject.

There are other theist positions which make me pause and ponder, such as consciousness or the complexity of human thinking, but the arguments for fine-tuning sounds unconvincing. I have raised my doubts, but none of them have been sufficiently addressed.

Let me assume that what Penrose is saying is true for a moment. That there were 10^10^123 possible combinations and out of them our universe that supports life emerged. Hence, the theistic position is that 1 in 10^10^123 is an extremely rare event, so it could have happened only by hand of God.

Firstly, this conclusion does not sound mathematically correct
- One cannot define probability for an event AFTER the same event has occurred.
- However small the probability might be, if it is a non-zero probability, then the event CAN occur as pointed out by 8livesleft, so invoking hand of God seems unnecessary.
- The example of royal flush in poker is not making any sense to me. The royal flush is special only in the eyes of a poker player. For a neutral observer, it is just another combination of cards which has equally low probability when compared with any other combination. For a neutral observer, the set of combinations is {x1, x2, x3, x4 ....} where all options have equal probability of happening. If all the options have equal probability, I fail to see what is the magic in getting a royal flush. One of them is bound to happen and what is the big deal? Similarly, one of the equally probable 10^10^123 options need to happen, and our universe happened. I am not able to see any fine-tuning in this. If you have shown evidence that creation of this universe is relatively less probable than other options, then I may be able to understand.
- If we roll a 6-faced dice and get a number '3', do we call this as fine-tuned or chance? If we roll a 10^10^123-faced dice and get a number '23439348', what is special about it? If this universe happened from 1 out of 10^10^123 combinations which all had equal probability, what is special about it?

Secondly, if we assume God exists and he really fine-tuned the universe for us, to me, this points to God's limitation and not God's power. Was God so limited in thinking that he could only fine-tune it to 1 out of 10^10^123?  Why not 10^10^10^10^10^100000000? Or for that matter, why not incalculable by human beings? It would have made sense if the probability was exactly one or incalculably low. That would have made some one sit up and wonder. How does a probability of 1 in 10^10^123 translate to a hand of God?

Thirdly, if we assume what Penrose says is true because is a good scientist and knows what he is talking about, why apply only to to this probability? For example, Penrose has also speculated that the universe is cyclical. But, I don't see any theist supporting this. What is the reason for the selectiveness?

Fourthly, observable universe is just 5% or less of the universe. This itself is a speculation as no one really knows how big this universe is. In the observable universe, we have no clue about dark matter and dark energy (hence the name dark) which constitutes more than 95% of observable universe. Basically we know a little about 0.25% of this universe and that is if you are extremely optimistic. When we know less than 0.25% of this universe, grandly announcing that trillions and trillions of other possibilities would not have resulted in anything meaningful is seriously confusing.

Also, fine-tuning means God specially designed this for us and we are special. But we are neither spatially or temporarily significant. And it does not make sense that God grandly designed the entire universe specially for us and then put us right in the middle of earthquakes, volconoes and tsunamis.

The fine-tuning argument appears to fail on all counts - feasibility, motive, consistency.

[unkleE]

Now, are we saying:

I think what we are saying is that this is science, just like all other science. Probably not as well based as the science that put men on the moon, but better based than much of evolutionary science which most of us accept. It is interesting to me to see people so willing to doubt this science while accepting most other science.

[kevin]

regarding YEC, it cannot be disproven by science. ive never criticized a creationist who understood what he was saying. but very few people who discuss it--whether they believe it or not-- realize the implications of how it works.

To be honest, that's a bit how it feels here.

some of the difficulties may be due to me. i have only sporadic access to th enet, and so discussions with simultaneouls arguments going on get neglected by me. im strictly linear, because i dont have time to multi-task a topic. ill take one aspect, think about it, then move on to the others in turn. so some thing s you may heve mentioned will get overlooked by me, because by the time i get back to the conversation it has moved on.

very difficult sometimes, this anal retention stuff