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. — Isaac
It could however be any conceivable value from 0 to ∞ and we would still have a universe; just without life. — Devans99
Read your reply to Devans99. What is the correct sample space in your opinion? — TheMadFool
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." — Relativist
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!” — Relativist
Any particular set of values for the "fundamental constants" is low probability. As Feyman implies: low probability things happen all the time. — Relativist
The "Fine Tuning Argument" leads one to believe there is some "coincidence" that demands explanation, — Relativist
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.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. — Devans99
You are treating life as special, just is Feynman is facetiously treating this license plate as special.The license plate ARW 357 has nothing special about it Feynman's analogy falls wide of the mark.
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.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 — Devans99
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? — Isaac
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? — Relativist
Show how this set's winning is more unlikely than all other possibilities. Do so without assuming life is a design objective.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. — Devans99
Show how this set's winning is more unlikely than all other possibilities. Do so without assuming life is a design objective. — Relativist
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. — TheMadFool
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. — Isaac
Devans99
1.7k
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? — Relativist
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. — Devans99
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.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. — Devans99
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.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?
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. — Relativist
it is still remarkable that we won at a billion to one — Devans99
Fine tuning is a much more likely explanation that a billion to one shot coming off. — Devans99
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?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. — Relativist
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. — Devans99
But in this lottery there is only one participant - only one of the billion tickets was bought - as represented by our universe. — Devans99
You are assuming the fundamental constants could have been different, so each combination of constants participates in the lottery. — Relativist
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. — Relativist
we have only one shot at winning. We won, — Devans99
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. — Isaac
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) — Devans99
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.