I don't follow. One can favor Croations without favoring individual Croations. — Relativist
Who says life can't adopt as many different forms as existent universes? Maybe life can exist in many possible universes. The "laws" of physics are based on models of our universe, not every possible universe. — Enrique
small changes in the parameters of physics produce catastrophic changes in the evolved universe. In particular the complexity of the evolved universe, and hence its ability to support life, would be undermined by small changes in the universal constants... Thus, parameter sensitivity is the claim that the target in parameter space which is compatible with a complex universe is small in some sense. — RAW Bradford, The inevitability of fine tuning in a complex universe, 2011
America Croatia first. — Relativist
One of my hobbies (or obsessions) is to debate theists on their Fine Tuning Argument for God — Relativist
Awhile back, someone on this forum posted a link to this paper: The Fine Tuning Argument. The author (Klaas Landsman) argues that the existence of life is not a good reason to infer either a designer OR a multiverse. — Relativist
Selection bias, on the other hand, poses challenging epistemological problems in the same line as Sleeping Beauty, Doomsday, etc. — SophistiCat
The real context here is not theist vs. non-theist, but one group of physicists (and not a group of theists) arguing with others. FT came out of non-theist physicist concerns that the chance of a universe right for life seemed so radically small it bothered them. Right or wrong it seriously bothered a group of non-theist physicists. And it bothered other physicists enough to try to find a rebuttal, some of these along with some of the first group thinking that a multiverse offered an elegant solution. Later theists heard about FT and used it also.One of my hobbies (or obsessions) is to debate theists on their Fine Tuning Argument for God (here's my current one - I'm called, "Fred"). I've read a number of papers, including the SEP article, and I've read debates and seen videos where its defended. I have observed that the most common rebuttal to it is the multiverse hypothesis. I don't think that's the best approach because it concedes too much - in particular, it concedes that life needs to be explained. — Relativist
The thing about the multiverse is it is one way to eliminate the seeming problem with FT AND to maintain determinism. It could also deal with the oddness (seeming or otherwise) of there being something specific rather than all possible things.And the counter-argument that there are countless ‘other universes’ that don’t exhibit natural order of the kind science observes seems to me one of the most inane ideas in current culture. — Wayfarer
Sleeping Beauty, Doomsday, etc. — SophistiCat
Though debates about these frequently seem just as intractable as those around theism. Answers to these problems rely so heavily on your basic epistemological stance that it's hard to make a convincing case to someone who doesn't have the same background. — Echarmion
If you showed physicists evidence that put multiverse theories beyond the pale then advocates in nearly all cases would stop being advocates.Seriously, I do wonder what would happen if some breakthrough discovery was made which showed that multiverse theories, and the Everett theory, were for once and for all considered to be beyond the pale, out of respectable bounds. — Wayfarer
Right, though I am sure there could be other kinds of speculative physics that people can and would turn to. And I would guess that many of the current advocates are just as likely to be good teachers and other physicists, so I am not sure why anyone should worry about it.That henceforth, there would be no more grants, and no more tenures, for advocates of same. — Wayfarer
These two need not be conflated.string theory/multiverse — Wayfarer
You seem to be claiming there was an objective to "increase awareness, connection, and collaberation." Why think that? — Relativist
Because there can only be an objective if an intelligence is behind it. I'm open to this possibility, but the case mist be made. The FTA purports to make such a case, but obviously if it depends on the assumption of an intelligence the argument is circular.Not so much an objective as an impetus, but why not think that? — Possibility
You're assuming too much. The FTA, if it were successful, would only entail a creator who wanted life. It does not entail a creator who gives a damn what they do to each other.hypothetically speaking, Croatians are killing each other negates the very generous offer of assistance from an interested party. God fine-tuned the universe for life only so that life could devise ingenious ways of snuffing itself out. Intriguing! — TheMadFool
You're assuming too much. The FTA, if it were successful, would only entail a creator who wanted life. It does not entail a creator who gives a damn what they do to each other. — Relativist
I don't espouse the belief that we are somehow a unique and significant manifestation of the universe, but I don't discount the possibility either. — Pantagruel
Because there can only be an objective if an intelligence is behind it. I'm open to this possibility, but the case mist be made. The FTA purports to make such a case, but obviously if it depends on the assumption of an intelligence the argument is circular. — Relativist
Please explain what you mean by a "creative impetus." What are it's identifiable characteristics?I agree that an objective may imply a prior intelligence, but an underlying creative impetus does not - and neither does it imply ‘luck’, despite the unlikely arrangement of conditions. This is the point I’d like to make. — Possibility
That's a minimal definition of a creator: having a desire, and the ability to act on that desire. This is the sort of deism Antony Flew ultimately embraced.might not even entail a creator, just some kind of universal desire for life. — Coben
Please explain what you mean by a "creative impetus." What are it's identifiable characteristics? — Relativist
I'm certain I exist, and I'm aware of my existence. However, I'm also certain the universe was around before me to be aware of it. What makes you think there was awareness 5 seconds after the big bang?We can be certain only that ‘something’ exists, and that ‘something’ is aware of existence. All other information or intelligence attempts to build on this basic certainty, as what matters. — Possibility
Which was an aristotilian deity, outside the chain of being and some sort of pure intellect. I don't think we need either the implied dualism or this kind of pure intellect. Perhaps we do, perhaps it would entail a separate creator, but I can't see how this could be demonstrated. (given my own beliefs, which are theist, I don't have a problem with the conclusion, I just think whatever the argument would be speculative and likely carry assumptions out of our everyday lives into cosmological issues.) I don't think Hawking's cosmology which is FT based is theistic or even deistic. (though I will concede in advance I am not sure I truly get it. But I see no diety in there.)That's a minimal definition of a creator: having a desire, and the ability to act on that desire. This is the sort of deism Antony Flew ultimately embraced. — Relativist
I'm certain I exist, and I'm aware of my existence. — Relativist
What makes you think there was awareness 5 seconds after the big bang? — Relativist
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.