|
Post by James Hannam on Jul 19, 2009 23:50:21 GMT
Hi Sarah,
Welcome and thanks for linking to Quodlibeta at your blog. Your writing makes me wish I had twice as many hours in the day to read and think it over.
Do stick around as we are a pretty harmless bunch but interested in lots of stuff.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jul 20, 2009 9:02:07 GMT
Hey, just noticed the comment on my blog (I wrote this stuff in December last year) and tracked it back here. Don't be too snarky, it was one of my first attempts at this philosophy/religion malarkey! Cheers Sarah Sorry I called you a chap.
|
|
Mike D
Master of the Arts
Posts: 204
|
Post by Mike D on Jul 20, 2009 14:16:13 GMT
Sarah,
Sorry, no snarkiness was intended, but I am a rabid statistician (do not get between me and a mass of data) and thus not totally in control of my own actions. ;D
Glad to have you with us, hope you stay and share your views.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jul 22, 2009 1:50:28 GMT
Hey, just noticed the comment on my blog (I wrote this stuff in December last year) and tracked it back here. Don't be too snarky, it was one of my first attempts at this philosophy/religion malarkey! Cheers Sarah Hi Sarah. I have to confess it was I who posted the comment on your blog. But I didn't feel at all snarky, and I hope I didn't cause any offence. I just felt that you, and many others who write about this question, don't always take adequate notice of what the best experts say. Please stick around and join in, as we'll all benefit - and it'll encourage us all to keep visiting! : )
|
|
|
Post by codewordconduit on Jul 23, 2009 1:11:20 GMT
James - Hi Sarah,
Welcome and thanks for linking to Quodlibeta at your blog. Your writing makes me wish I had twice as many hours in the day to read and think it over.
Do stick around as we are a pretty harmless bunch but interested in lots of stuff.
Best wishes
JamesNo worries, I like your blog – and I think it’s a better representation of Christianity than many of the theistic sites out there that (perhaps rightfully) draw nothing but derision. Thanks for your kind words too, they are gratefully received, especially in light of your (frankly intimidating) credentials : ) Unklee - Hi Sarah. I have to confess it was I who posted the comment on your blog. But I didn't feel at all snarky, and I hope I didn't cause any offence. I just felt that you, and many others who write about this question, don't always take adequate notice of what the best experts say. Please stick around and join in, as we'll all benefit - and it'll encourage us all to keep visiting! : )Nah, no offence taken; and you’re right – I haven’t read properly into the topic at all. As I said before, I wrote that essay in September last year, posted it in December – and it was basically my initial reaction to the topic as presented on my AS religious studies course! The tone is a touch too arrogant, the arguments are hit and miss; and I’ve moved on rather a lot since then (with miles and miles to go!). Humphrey - Sorry I called you a chap.Easy assumption to make; most of the people who natter on about stuff like this are blokes. After two days of feminine histrionics, six litres of haagen-dazs and an afternoon of Bridget Jones in my PJs; I just about got over it . . . As for the anthropological argument. I don’t know much about this so maybe I can just ask a few questions about it, and you guys can explain as simply as possible? When constructing answers, please bear in mind that I failed GCSE maths, and have no qualification higher than an AS to my name - which is why I had no right to be so boistrously know-it-all in the first place! Okay, question 1: Doesn’t the term “finely tuned universe” imply that other universes exist that are not “finely tuned”?
|
|
Mike D
Master of the Arts
Posts: 204
|
Post by Mike D on Jul 23, 2009 7:09:56 GMT
I don't think so. I see it like this - there are great many 'possible universes', universes that could have existed but didn't, but only one (to our knowledge) 'actual universe'.
The 'actual universe' that we observe appears to be extremely finely tuned when compared to the 'possible universes' that could have existed: but this does not mean that the any of the 'possible universes' actually exist.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jul 23, 2009 8:56:54 GMT
Doesn’t the term “finely tuned universe” imply that other universes exist that are not “finely tuned”? Well the term 'fine-tuned' is nonsensical unless we make it clear exactly what the universe is fine-tuned for. In its most common usage fine-tuning is taken to refer to the conditions for the emergence of complex life (with the pretty safe assumption that it would have to be based on a complex element like Carbon). Since Brandon Carter's paper back in the 1960s physicists have been applying 'counterfactuals' to the laws of physics in our universe and asking what would happen if they were changed in any significant way (e.g Barrow and Tipler 'The Anthropic Cosmological Principle', Lee Smolin 'The Life of the Cosmos', Sir Marin Rees, 'Just Six Numbers). The results are pretty staggering. A tiny alternation in any of the fundamental constants would render our form of life impossible. Therefore we can assess the probabilities and model possible alternate universes, the overwhelming majority of which would not stand a chance of producing life. Not surprisingly this has revived the design argument (there have also been attempts to revive it in biology with so called 'irreducible complexity' but these have been discredited by Kevin Miller and others). The responses to the 'fine tuning' problem in the academic community have been as follows. 1) Deny fine tuning exists - This used to be the first line of defence, for example Stephen Weinberg denied that the 'Carbon Resonance' coincidence was that impressive, but it has been more or less abandoned by everyone; with the possible exception of Victor Stenger. Part of the reason for this has been the acknowledgement of the problem by leading cosmologists and the discovery of the value of dark energy (cosmological constant). 2) Say that the values of the constants are fixed as part of a fundamental theory (Theory of Everything). This isn't that popular because a fundamental theory which fixes biophillic values would be the ultimate fine tuning fix. 3) Alternative biochemistry (Stenger). This defence goes "sure the chances of our form of life emerging if the constants were changed is very small, but we can't say that no other form of life would emerge in these alternate universes". This is superficially true but falls apart once you analyse the chemical requirements of our form of complex life and try and think of alternatives. You are going to need something as malleable as carbon and a suitable cosmic habitat which is going to require a similar set of cosmic coincidences. We can't say for sure but we can certainly rule out a vast subset of universes based on what we know. 4) Multiverse - We are simply part of a gigantic bubble universe created by eternal inflation. This would solve the fine-tuning problem but it raises a whole host of metaphysical and scientific issues, not least where this infinite multiverse came from and why it takes the form it does (it would need some fine tuning and require the same basic foundational properties). It would also mean that everything that can exist does exist, including Gods and multiple copies of us. Also, according to Paul Davies, simulated universes would outnumber real ones. See: jameshannam.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=science&action=display&thread=4
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jul 23, 2009 16:11:23 GMT
Okay, question 1: Doesn’t the term “finely tuned universe” imply that other universes exist that are not “finely tuned”? The only thing I'd want to add to the previous replies is to say that there are (as always) two different things - the facts as we know them and the interpretations we put on the facts. The facts have been discussed many times here - settings for natural laws have to be within very narrow ranges for the universe to even exist, even narrower ranges for stars and planets to form, narrower still for complex life to be viable. Some cosmologists (e.g. Susskind, Penrose, Smolin) make quite definite statements about the probability of this occurring by chance - they seem to treat these probabilities as "fact", but perhaps they are really interpretation. But the interpretation really comes when trying to explain these facts. Most cosmologists discuss the quasi-scientific options Humphrey mentioned, but many also recognise these facts may have metaphysical implications (i.e. God) that fall outside of science, and most therefore don't consider them further. Susskind and Rees both say that the object of science is to avoid such metaphysical implications. (I personally can't see how that is different from closing one's eyes to possible truths, but I respect Rees greatly, so I guess he would see it differently.) But some cosmologists are not averse to delving into metaphysics, whether sceptical (e.g. Weinberg, Stenger - except he's not really a cosmologist) or more open (e.g. Hoyle, Davies). And so Davies says in several places that it all really looks like it was designed, though we cannot really say for sure that it is or not. "Fine-tuned" is in a sense a way of hedging one's bets - recognising the facts and making an ambivalent statement about the interpretation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2009 13:55:15 GMT
But the interpretation really comes when trying to explain these facts. Most cosmologists discuss the quasi-scientific options Humphrey mentioned, but many also recognise these facts may have metaphysical implications (i.e. God) that fall outside of science, and most therefore don't consider them further. Susskind and Rees both say that the object of science is to avoid such metaphysical implications. (I personally can't see how that is different from closing one's eyes to possible truths, but I respect Rees greatly, so I guess he would see it differently.) But some cosmologists are not averse to delving into metaphysics, whether sceptical (e.g. Weinberg, Stenger - except he's not really a cosmologist) or more open (e.g. Hoyle, Davies). And so Davies says in several places that it all really looks like it was designed, though we cannot really say for sure that it is or not. Unklee, physicists shouldn't do metaphysical speculations because that falls outside of their competence and education. Nobody's closing their eyes, they're responsible and let the metaphysical implications of the fine tuned universe to philosophers. I'm scoff at Davies because he, an amateur, is dabbling somewhere where he shouldn't. He can publish books about his views, but that's not academic philosophy and shouldn't be treated as such. It's legitimate to read about his views, but beyond that, don't give it much weight.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jul 26, 2009 16:47:27 GMT
Unklee, physicists shouldn't do metaphysical speculations because that falls outside of their competence and education. Nobody's closing their eyes, they're responsible and let the metaphysical implications of the fine tuned universe to philosophers. I understand why you say that, but it seems to me that you are condemning everyone to half truths. Let's assume for the moment that a creator God does indeed exist and is responsible for the creation of the universe at the big bang. (The same considerations would apply if God created the multiverse.) If scientists, as scientists, refuse to consider the possibility that God created, as Rees and Susskind do, then they are cutting themselves off from the ultimate truth about cosmology (on the above assumption). I'm not suggesting they try to bring that possibility (that God did it) into their science, but I think they should bring it into their thinking and into their books. And they should make it very clear (as Rees sort of does) that the God hypothesis is relevant but needs to be settled by a different epistemology than science. I'm still grappling with this, but I think that writing about cosmology cannot be done using science alone, but methodological naturalism seems to lead them to try to do this. Does that make sense? I feel a bit the opposite of this. I feel thankful that he's having a go at the big questions. But I do think a better exponent of this is John Polkinghorne, who has expertise in science, theology and (I think) philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by codewordconduit on Jul 26, 2009 21:23:53 GMT
Hi, sorry it's been a couple of days but my schedule can be pretty erratic. It's pretty obvious that I'm not well-read enough in this area to comment either way, and was far too hasty in denouncing the argument in such an off-hand manner. Perhaps I'll get back to you guys in a couple of years with some more education under my belt
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2009 17:59:19 GMT
Unklee, physicists shouldn't do metaphysical speculations because that falls outside of their competence and education. Nobody's closing their eyes, they're responsible and let the metaphysical implications of the fine tuned universe to philosophers. I understand why you say that, but it seems to me that you are condemning everyone to half truths. In this day and age, fragmentation of knowledge, even in a single discipline, is inevitable. There are so much specializations and sub-specializations; nobody can keep track of anything. Every scientist, researcher, and thinker has a chip of the entire picture. We are all condemned to half truth simply because we’re human beings. With all due respect to Humphrey, the time of the Renaissance man is long over. If they did that as scientists, they would violate the principles of philosophy of science. Science is limited to the natural world and presumes that our universe is a causally closed system. It can’t comment on the supernatural. Of course, they have right to their private beliefs, but they can’t put them into science. Why should they bring it into their books? You’ve already got an established discipline for that – philosophy of religion. Of course that the God question is settled by a different epistemology. There are other sources of knowledge and justification then the scientific method. That’s when other fields, like philosophy, come into play. Through other methods you can gain knowledge of God, or more adequately, you’re epistemicly justified in believing in God based on the fine tuning and you’re epistemicly justified in believing the resurrection occurred based on the historical evidence. He's a retired physicist and an Anglican priest and theologian. I can't say anything about him; I haven't read him.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Aug 7, 2009 13:46:05 GMT
With all due respect to Humphrey, the time of the Renaissance man is long over. Renaissance man ;D . You are too kind. Unless by renaissance man you mean, snobby, obsessed with ancient texts and dabbling in things like magic and the 'wisdom' of Hermes Trismegistus.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Aug 7, 2009 22:46:13 GMT
In this day and age, fragmentation of knowledge, even in a single discipline, is inevitable. There are so much specializations and sub-specializations; nobody can keep track of anything. Every scientist, researcher, and thinker has a chip of the entire picture. We are all condemned to half truth simply because we’re human beings. I can agree with all that except the last sentence. Yes, we are all condemned to imperfect truth because we are humans, but we are able to step outside our disciplines for the questions that require it. Yes, I can accept that too. But then, in writing a book on cosmology, they should either never mention the metaphysical (God, teleology, origins) or they should mention it but say their science is inadequate to answer those questions rather than sort of dismiss them as unscientific, and point to the disciplines which can (perhaps) answer the questions.. I guess it depends on whether they see their books as primarily science, come what may, or as addressing certain questions. I think they try to do both, and that leaves them feeling incomplete. So I see all that you say, but I think they have not fully presented the issues, either (1) why they have stuck to science and therefore are unable to answer the quite valid metaphysical questions, which require other forms of knowledge, or (2) venture into metaphysics as well as science. By not clearly defining the limits of the different disciplines and the limits of their subject for that book, they seem to me to be incomplete. Thanks for your thoughts.
|
|