> At 02:27 PM 10/26/98 -0500, Randy wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Sciama quote:
> >> ===================================================
> >> This simple but powerful argument leads us to ask the question:
> >> *how much* can I deduce about the universe from the fact that
> >> I exist? It turns out that various elementary particle, nuclear,
> >> atomic and molecular properties of matter have to be very finely
> >> tuned for conditions in the universe to have permitted my
> >> development--many examples are given by Barrow and Tipler and
> >> elsewhere in this book. These finely tuned properties will
> >> probably also eventually be accounted for by fundamental
> >> theory. But why should fundamental theory _happen_ to lead
> >> to these properties?
> >>
> >> There seem to be three possible answers to this question:
> >>
> >> (a) It is a complete chance.
> >
>
> Randy:==
> > This answer doesn't seem very scientific to me since the probability of
> >this being coincidental is so vanishingly small.
> >
>
> I agree, but perhaps for a different reason. It becomes problematic
> to speak of fine-tuning in terms of probability. For one thing,
> we have only one universe. Does it make sense to talk about
> probabilities when the sample size is one?
I was thinking of my sample size as including all the possible values
for the physical constants. I'm not sure what the "correct" way would be
to view the "sample size" question in this case. But this does bring up
another question that I didn't deal with before. Is there any scientific
way to put a boundary on the possible values of these physical constants?
Can science address the questions like "Why does gravity attract objects
to each other instead of repelling them?" and "Why does an electric field
give rise to a magnetic field?" I'm sure I don't know the answers to these
kinds of questions.
>
> But fine-tuning, as defined in the AP literature, is not tied
> to probability, except perhaps in special cases. To get a
> glimmer of this consider carefully Sciama's comment in the
> quote above: "These finely tuned properties will probably
> also eventually be accounted for by fundamental theory."
> Now, some hold out a hope that if this eventuality comes
> to be, then the fine-tuning "problem" will be solved.
> The reason for this is most likely that so many confuse
> fine-tuning with improbability. If the fine-tuning is
> accounted for by "fundamental theory" then they are no
> longer "coincidental" in a certain respect. They are,
> however, still finely tuned wrt life. Note that Sciama
> goes on to say "But why should fundamental theory
> _happen_ to lead to these properties?".
>
> Having a fundamental theory which accounts for all the finely-
> tuned parameters does not explain why these finely tuned parameters
> are those required for life. Sciama remarks that if indeed there
> is a fundamental theory which gives rise to finely tuned
> parameters one could still seek to "explain" this with the
> "many worlds" hypothesis by supposing that each universe has
> its own "fundamental theory" which leads to different parameters
> not meeting the finely tuned specifications required for life.
> One then applies the anthropic selection principle to say that
> we shouldn't be surprised to find ourselves in the universe
> with a fundamental theory that leads to parameters finely tuned
> for life. We couldn't very well be in any of the others. :)
>
> OK, suppose the fundamental theory which leads to a finely-
> tuned universe is unique. Again, some have proposed this as
> the death blow to the design argument based on fine-tuning.
> But this turns out to be Sciama's worst nightmare. If the
> fundamental theory is unique then introducing "other worlds"
> fails to do the trick since every one of these is the same.
> Since they're all the same there is nothing for the anthropic
> selection principle to select from. A very interesting twist
> to things.
>
> OK, back to the main point. When someone says something
> is a complete chance they don't necessarily mean "chance"
> as used in probability. They may just mean that something
> occurs for no apparent reason. It just happens. That's just
> the way it is. I think this is the way Sciama was using the
> word chance and thus I agree that this is not a particularly
> good scientific answer.
I think I just need to do some more reading on the AP. My only source of
info at this point is the stuff I've read by Hugh Ross. Can you recommend
some more books? Which books are these Sciama quotes from?
>
> >Sciama:==
> >> (b) God regards me as such a desirable product of the universe
> >> that he has fine-tuned it so as to guarantee my development.
> >
>
> Randy:==
> > This seems like the best answer to me, although I don't know if it's the
> >best scientific answer.
> >
>
> Very good answer. I also like this answer best but am cautious
> about the scientific merit of the explanation.
>
Which raises a question for me. If this is indeed the best answer, but
it's not the best SCIENTIFIC answer, does that say anything about the need
for an integrated approach to truth-seeking?
> >Sciama:==
> >> (c) There exist other, disjoint, universes with other laws
> >> and constants of nature.
> >
>
> Randy:==
> > This answer also seems unscientific since there is no evidence(as far as
> >I know) for the existence of these other universes.
> >
>
> Yes, another good answer. For some reason Pim has seen fit to
> criticize your answers. I can't really understand why except
> that its just part of Pim's nature to play the role of the
> infinite skeptic :). As far as I'm concerned, the AP lies just
> outside the bounds of science. All three answers are not
> really satisfactory from a scientific point of view.
>
> [...]
>
>
> >> Brian:==
> >> Evolution would not explain fine-tuning, rather, most fine-tuning
> >> has to do with the required conditions for life to evolve.
> >> IOW, fine-tuning seems to me to fit in nicely with design from
> >> evolutionary creationist perspective :).
> >
>
> Randy:===
> > If I'm understanding you correctly here, you're saying that evolution by
> >itself would not account for the fine-tuning of the universe but that
> >these phenomena would make sense to a theistic evolutionist.
> >
>
> Yes, see Howard's recent post. He says it much better than I
> ever could.
>
> Brian Harper
> Associate Professor
> Applied Mechanics
> The Ohio State University
>
> "He who establishes his arguments
> by noise and command shows that
> reason is weak" -- Montaigne
>
>
Thanks for your feedback Brian, I'm learning a lot from this
interaction.
Randy Bronson
_____________________________________________________________________
| |
| ______ ______ _____ Randy Bronson, Manufacturing Tech |
| /\_____\/\_____\/\____\ TECH-SOURCE INC. |
| \/_ _/ / ____/\/_ _/ 442 S. North Lake Blvd. |
| / / // / /___ / / / Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 |
| / / /_\/___ /_/ / / TEL : 407-262-7100 |
| / / //\____/ /\_\/ /_\ FAX : 407-339-2554 |
| \/_/ \/_____/\/______/ EMAIL: randy@techsource.com |
| |
|_____________________________________________________________________|