An Atheist defends Design Theory

[Wyrm]

Gee, where to begin?

There's only one problem with the 'fine-tuning argument' in this classical form... it's wrong! Totally, completely, and utterly wrong, for the simple reason that the assumptions made in the fine-tuning argument, when carried to their logical conclusion correctly, actually churns out the opposite conclusion to Toby Wardman's claim: the more 'fine-tuned' a universe appears is for life, the more that fact supports a naturalistic explanation.

In the Jefferys-Ikeda argument, it is shown that the observation that the universe is fine-tuned by observers within can never undermine the naturalistic hypothesis, and may serve to support it. On the other hand, the observation that the universe is fine-tuned can never support supernaturalism, and may serve to undermine it.

The argument boils down to this: suppose we observe that the universe is not fine-tuned to allow life to work naturalistically. Then we would conclude that there must be some other, non-naturalistic, element to the universe that allows us to exist. But basic rules of evidence say that if observing one particular piece of evidence undermines a hypothesis, then observing the opposite of that evidence never can undermine the hypothesis. Since the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) is exactly the negation of a piece of evidence that would undermine naturalism, observing that the WAP is true can never undermine the naturalistic hypothesis.

After realising this fact, that observing the weak anthropic principle is true can never undermine naturalism, no matter what the eventual explanation might be, arguing whether whether this WAP comes about through multiple universes or constrained freedom in the constants of the univeres are a side issue, though interesting.

Now, it is certainly incumbant on us to try to find out how much of the universe's choice of its constants is due to blind chance, and how much is due to some kind of selection process (how free are the parameters of the universe are to be different from the observed constants), but rest assured, it will be a naturalistic explanation.

[Durandal]

Maybe a gravitic acceleration of 9.6 meters/sec ...

I think you're seriously confused about the concepts of acceleration and gravity.

Actually, I think I'm just plagued with typo demons.

The Earth's acceleration due to gravity is not a universal constant. It only applies to Earth.

[Surlethe]

Quick refresher on physical constants, in case anyone's interested (borrowed from the main site's constants page):

• Speed of light in vacuum c = 3E8 m/s (only constant velocity for all reference frames)
• Electron rest mass me = 5.49E-4 u
• Neutron rest mass mn = 1.0087 u
• Proton rest mass mp = 1.0072 u
• Hydrogen atom rest mass m1H = 1.0078 u
• Deuterium atom rest mass m2H = 2.0141 u
• Carbon atom rest mass m1C = 12.0000 u (exact; 1u is defined as 1/12 the mass of Carbon-12)
• Universal gas constant R = 8.31 J/mol·K (constant of proportionality in the Ideal Gas Law, as I recall)
• Avogadro constant NA = 6.02E23 atoms/mol
• Stefan-Boltzmann constant s = 5.67E-8 W/(m²·K4) (constant of proportionality in Stefan-Boltzmann law for energy flux from a blackbody)
• Gravitational constant G = 6.6726E-11 m³/(s²·kg) (constant of proportionality in Newton's law of gravity)
• Bohr radius rB (hydrogen atom radius) = 5.29E-11 m
• Proton radius = 1.2E-15 m
• Proton magnetic moment mp = 1.41E-26 J/T
• Light-year = 9.46E15 m
• Planck constant = 6.626E-34 J·s (constant of proportionality in the law governing energy of massless particles)

[Patrick Degan]

Now, it is certainly incumbant on us to try to find out how much of the universe's choice of its constants is due to blind chance, and how much is due to some kind of selection process (how free are the parameters of the universe are to be different from the observed constants), but rest assured, it will be a naturalistic explanation.

I would tend to think that whatever "selection" mechanism operated to permit those processes which allow life to exist would be driven by the simple principle of whatever takes the least amount of energy for X process to work.

[wolveraptor]

The Earth's acceleration due to gravity is not a universal constant. It only applies to Earth.

Right right. I should've quoted The Law of Universal Gravitation or something. Man, I feel so scientifically illiterate right now.

[Wyrm]

Now, it is certainly incumbant on us to try to find out how much of the universe's choice of its constants is due to blind chance, and how much is due to some kind of selection process (how free are the parameters of the universe are to be different from the observed constants), but rest assured, it will be a naturalistic explanation.

I would tend to think that whatever "selection" mechanism operated to permit those processes which allow life to exist would be driven by the simple principle of whatever takes the least amount of energy for X process to work.

But that would depend on the constants of the universe, would it not? I was talking about the processes or principles that select those constants, such as some constants being fundamentally related to other constants. For instance, we can derive the Stephan-Boltzmann constant to be 2 π^5 k^4 / 15 c^2 h^3 by a relatively straightforward integration (if you know about polylogarithms) of Plank's law. In other words, there are fewer "brass tacks" universal constants than there are in Surlthe's list.

(BTW, I wouldn't call a light-year 'universal', because there's nothing particularly special about the distance light travels in a year, relative to some other time, for the universe. The time it takes for a photon to cross a proton's diameter, on the other hand, is far more physically interesting!)

[Il Saggiatore]

Yes, but to explain that, you had to introduce new postulates: those of relativity. Now, you have to ask, "Why does the principle of equivalence hold?"

Yes, I agreed that newer and more general theories introduce new sets of postulates.

I suppose my initial question, restated, is: the principles themselves, as you pointed out above, are not beyond scientific review, but within the bounds of the system of science, is the origin of its postulates beyond review?

No it is not.
We might not know, for example, why the Equivalence Principle holds. But that won't stop future theorists to search for an answer.
That's why I said that I don't know whether this process is infinite.

And when we reach the ultimate theory of everything, it will consist of a series of principles which describe everything in the universe, correct?
At that point, will the question, "Why these principles? Where do they come from?" be within the purview of science?

I picture these "true" first principles like the postulates in Euclides' geometry: statements that cannot be proven, but are true in a self-evident manner.
(A bit like the General Principle of Relativity.)
Of course, the fact that they are self-evident probably won't stop people from questioning them (just as the fifth postulate was questioned).

So, to answer: the "true" first principles will be subject to scientific investigation, but they won't be transformed into theorems.

Perhaps the answer to the question is, we make those principles. They are a human creation, and they are used because they conveniently describe the universe; and when we find the most convenient postulates which provide the best description of everything, then we will have discovered the ultimate theory of everything.

Although physical theories require creative thinking, I consider them discoveries rather than inventions.
After all, they are tested against experimental results, which gives an objective way to test their correctness.

[drachefly]

Mind the gap! The postulates of Euclid's geometry are in fact false.

You can make a theory which takes assumptions, and you can measure the theory to be good, and then tentatively conclude that those assumptions are correct in reference to the way the world works. That's how it goes.

[Surlethe]

I suppose my initial question, restated, is: the principles themselves, as you pointed out above, are not beyond scientific review, but within the bounds of the system of science, is the origin of its postulates beyond review?

No it is not.
We might not know, for example, why the Equivalence Principle holds. But that won't stop future theorists to search for an answer.
That's why I said that I don't know whether this process is infinite.

If the origin of each postulate is under scientific inquiry, then it must be described in terms of a more fundamental postulate. The assumption runs into the "turtles all the way down" objection: you'll never reach a theory of everything if you don't draw the line somewhere. Suppose, then, that we draw the line somewhere, and reach a set of "most fundamental" postulates; but then, the origins of those postulates must remain eternally in question.

I get the feeling there's a catch in my logic, but I don't see it.

And when we reach the ultimate theory of everything, it will consist of a series of principles which describe everything in the universe, correct?
At that point, will the question, "Why these principles? Where do they come from?" be within the purview of science?

I picture these "true" first principles like the postulates in Euclides' geometry: statements that cannot be proven, but are true in a self-evident manner.
(A bit like the General Principle of Relativity.)
Of course, the fact that they are self-evident probably won't stop people from questioning them (just as the fifth postulate was questioned).

Right, but can those questions be scientific in nature?

Perhaps the answer to the question is, we make those principles. They are a human creation, and they are used because they conveniently describe the universe; and when we find the most convenient postulates which provide the best description of everything, then we will have discovered the ultimate theory of everything.

Although physical theories require creative thinking, I consider them discoveries rather than inventions.
After all, they are tested against experimental results, which gives an objective way to test their correctness.[/quote]

Right, but their origin is human in nature. I think this is just another way of stating the weak anthropic principle: the universe is the way it is because humans are here.

[Il Saggiatore]

If the origin of each postulate is under scientific inquiry, then it must be described in terms of a more fundamental postulate. The assumption runs into the "turtles all the way down" objection: you'll never reach a theory of everything if you don't draw the line somewhere. Suppose, then, that we draw the line somewhere, and reach a set of "most fundamental" postulates; but then, the origins of those postulates must remain eternally in question.

I get the feeling there's a catch in my logic, but I don't see it.

I think there is a mismatch on the meaning of "scientific inquiry".
To me, scientific inquiry means that scientists are investigating it, whether there is an answer or not.
To you, I guess, it has stricter meaning of questions whose answers can - at least in principle - be found.

Think about it in terms of Goedel's theorems.
A self-consistent logical system (such as mathematics) can ask questions whose answer that very system cannot give.

The postulates for physical theories are to some degree similar: they are statements whose accuracy is not determined within the theory itself.
The difference from mathematics, is that physics uses experiments to test the accuracy of the theories.

You are right when you say that it tends to be "turtles all the way down", but the new postulates tend to be more general than the previous ones (think about the difference between the Principle of Special Relativity and the Principle of General Relativity), and the new theories tend to include and correct older theories.
Since the tendency is to go towards more general and fundamental postulates, I expect that at some point a line will be drawn, and we will end up with a set of postulates that are self-evident (I consider the General Principle of Relativity to be very, very close to this kinf of postulates).

Of course, the fact that they are self-evident probably won't stop people from questioning them (just as the fifth postulate was questioned).

Right, but can those questions be scientific in nature?

If you mean "testable", then by testing the theories against experiments, the postulates of those theories are tested as well.
If you mean questions like "Why does the Equivalence Principle hold?", then it is not scientific if you don't come up with hypotheses that can be tested.
Probably my idea of "questioning" in this case does not fit the idea of scientific inquiry. What I meant was that scientists will keep speculating to find more fundamental postulates, which require a shorter leap to be accepted as self-evident.

Again, let me make the example of Euclides' fifth postulate: it requires a leap to be accepted, because it cannot be truly tested.
For some mathematician this leap was to large, and that's when non-Euclidean geometries started being developed.

Right, but their origin is human in nature. I think this is just another way of stating the weak anthropic principle: the universe is the way it is because humans are here.

I think we'll have to wait for some extraterrestrial aliens to show us their textbooks.
I don't expect big differences in their physics, because they would be testing their theories against the same observable Universe as we do.

[Surlethe]

I think there is a mismatch on the meaning of "scientific inquiry".
To me, scientific inquiry means that scientists are investigating it, whether there is an answer or not.
To you, I guess, it has stricter meaning of questions whose answers can - at least in principle - be found.

That makes sense. I'm thinking of scientific inquiry as examining questions using the scientific method.

Think about it in terms of Goedel's theorems.
A self-consistent logical system (such as mathematics) can ask questions whose answer that very system cannot give.

The postulates for physical theories are to some degree similar: they are statements whose accuracy is not determined within the theory itself.
The difference from mathematics, is that physics uses experiments to test the accuracy of the theories.

You are right when you say that it tends to be "turtles all the way down", but the new postulates tend to be more general than the previous ones (think about the difference between the Principle of Special Relativity and the Principle of General Relativity), and the new theories tend to include and correct older theories.
Since the tendency is to go towards more general and fundamental postulates, I expect that at some point a line will be drawn, and we will end up with a set of postulates that are self-evident (I consider the General Principle of Relativity to be very, very close to this kinf of postulates).

As below, the line would be drawn when further investigation becomes pointless and unfalsifiable, I'd think.

Of course, the fact that they are self-evident probably won't stop people from questioning them (just as the fifth postulate was questioned).

Right, but can those questions be scientific in nature?

If you mean "testable", then by testing the theories against experiments, the postulates of those theories are tested as well.
If you mean questions like "Why does the Equivalence Principle hold?", then it is not scientific if you don't come up with hypotheses that can be tested.

This is what I've been missing: the scientific method. I've been rather dense; my apologies. I would think now that the question of why the postulates are the way they are will eventually become unscientific: once we have a theory of everything, there will be no need to introduce additional postulates, and actually, we'll be unable to do so without violating parsimony.

Probably my idea of "questioning" in this case does not fit the idea of scientific inquiry. What I meant was that scientists will keep speculating to find more fundamental postulates, which require a shorter leap to be accepted as self-evident.

Eventually, when they've found postulates which describe everything, there will be no need to introduce or describe those postulates any more, except to possibly unify them. But, if there is one unified theory, there's no need to introduce any additional postulates; hence, sufficient conditions for it would necessarily be beyond the purview of scientific inquiry as unparsimonious. This is because the theory of everything describes everything; any additional postulates would still describe everything, and would therefore be redundant.

Right, but their origin is human in nature. I think this is just another way of stating the weak anthropic principle: the universe is the way it is because humans are here.

I think we'll have to wait for some extraterrestrial aliens to show us their textbooks.
I don't expect big differences in their physics, because they would be testing their theories against the same observable Universe as we do.

Damn it, I've been barking up the wrong tree. My apologies.

[Il Saggiatore]

Eventually, when they've found postulates which describe everything, there will be no need to introduce or describe those postulates any more, except to possibly unify them. But, if there is one unified theory, there's no need to introduce any additional postulates; hence, sufficient conditions for it would necessarily be beyond the purview of scientific inquiry as unparsimonious. This is because the theory of everything describes everything; any additional postulates would still describe everything, and would therefore be redundant.

That is more or less my idea, although I used the term "self-evident" for the ultimate postulates, with the meaning that they don't require further justification or investigation.

[Kathryn]

The Earth's acceleration due to gravity is not a universal constant. It only applies to Earth.

Right right. I should've quoted The Law of Universal Gravitation or something. Man, I feel so scientifically illiterate right now.

Now that's something I don't see everyday.

[Alan Bolte]

The Earth's acceleration due to gravity is not a universal constant. It only applies to Earth.

Right right. I should've quoted The Law of Universal Gravitation or something. Man, I feel so scientifically illiterate right now.

Now that's something I don't see everyday.

Welcome to SDnet.