At Reasons.org: Is the Universe the Way It Is Because It’s the Only Way It Could Be?

_{Eric Hedin

December 6, 2022

Fine tuning, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Question of the week: How do you respond to the argument against fine-tuning as evidence for God by those who say the universe and its laws of physics are the way they are because that’s the only way they could be?

My answer: As I have documented in my books, The Creator and the Cosmos, 4th edition, Improbable Planet, and Designed to the Core, there are hundreds of independent features of the universe, its laws of physics, and its space-time dimensions that must be exquisitely fine-tuned to make the existence of humans, or their equivalent, possible in the universe. However, that pervasive fine-tuning is not the only way the universe and the laws of physics could be.

From a biblical perspective, the angelic realm has different dimensions and different laws of physics. Similarly, the future home of Christians, the new creation (see Revelation 21–22) has different dimensions and different laws of physics. Readers can see our book, Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men, for the scientific physical evidence for angels and the angelic realm.

As I explain in my books on fine-tuning, the universe can be fine-tuned in a different way to allow for the existence of certain kinds of bacteria but not allow for the existence of animals and humans. I also show how the laws of physics can remain unchanged but the universe structured so that no physical life is possible anywhere, anytime in the universe.
As I demonstrate in Designed to the Core, it is not just the laws of physics and the universe as a whole that are fine-tuned to make the existence of humans possible. All the universe’s subcomponents, from those on the largest size scales to those on the smallest size scales must be fine-tuned for humans to possibly exist.

Unlike the universe, the observed sample size of the universe’s subcomponents is not one. For example, there are a trillion trillion stars in the observable universe. So far, however, astronomers have detected only one star, our Sun, that possesses the fine-tuned history and features that make it possible for the existence of humans on a planet orbiting it. The Sun is not the only way stars can be. The same argument can be made for our Laniakea Supergalaxy Cluster, our Virgo Cluster of galaxies, our Local Group of galaxies, our Milky Way Galaxy, our local spiral arm, our Local Bubble, our planetary system, our planet, and our moon. The fine-tuning of the universe and all its subcomponents also vary according to the intended purposes for humans. As I show in Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, Improbable Planet, and Designed to the Core, the fine-tuning that allows billions of humans on one planet to be redeemed from their sin and evil within a time span of several tens of thousands of years is orders of magnitude more constrained than the fine-tuning that allows for the existence of a tiny population of technology-free humans with lifespans briefer than 30 years.
Reasons.org

Dr. Ross refers to scientific observations that show evidence of fine-tuning, not just for the existence of life, but to sustain life as we know it on Earth, with millions of species of plant and animal life, and a multi-billion population of humans with a technologically advanced global civilization. Often, arguments against intelligent design boil down to bad theology. Dr. Ross provides here a very brief connection between physical design parameters and a biblically-based theology.

Comments

Kairosfocus Origenes, perhaps, not all reasoning is language and symbol based, some is non verbal and sign or pattern or association based
:) Every thought has a tag/sign/symbol attached that make it "identifiable" by the mind.Sandy_{December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

KF @ Sandy@
KF: However, when language, symbols, abstract relationships, logic, logic of being, logic of sufficient reason [including cause], logic of structure and quantity, logic of process etc are present, those are strong signs of intelligently directed configuration. KF
If I understand Sandy correctly, hers is a stronger claim: if something can only be understood in terms connected with intelligence, then the only possible explanation for its existence is intelligence (as opposed to being a "strong sign"). Food for thought, I would say.Origenes_{December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

We make all sorts of judgments/reasoning based on non language (sign and non verbal behaviors are a language,) For example, the direction of debris on the street and in the woods tells us the direction of the wind and intensity last night. Also trackers could tell the animal and time it passed by disturbances in the wild. There is all sorts of other things. What is smell and sound and of course touch? All communicate. Are they all symbols? Have to define what symbol means.jerry_{December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Origenes, perhaps, not all reasoning is language and symbol based, some is non verbal and sign or pattern or association based, e.g. some animals seem to work things out at that level, going beyond mere instinct. We may argue that bee dance is an analogue communication system with symbolic analogues: angle to sun, distance to target etc. However, when language, symbols, abstract relationships, logic, logic of being, logic of sufficient reason [including cause], logic of structure and quantity, logic of process etc are present, those are strong signs of intelligently directed configuration. KFkairosfocus_{December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

Sandy @ 247
Reason works only with symbols , signs and languages and also creates symbols, signs and languages. If we detect such things in our Universe the answer is not ambiguous: Some sort of intelligence did it.
A very profound point. Let me see if get this right. Some things can be understood in a non-intelligent context. For instance, in water molecules (H2O), hydrogen covalently bonds with a more electronegative oxygen atom. Arguably, there is no intelligent action going on. However, some things can only be understood in terms of intelligence (symbols , signs, language, intentionality), such as the symbol-code-construction system under discussion. If I understand you correctly Sandy, you are saying that things that can only be understood in terms of intelligence, can only be produced by intelligence. Food for thought.Origenes_{December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

Origenes, my use is rooted in the higher order machine Turing envisioned, the oracle machine. Wiki's confessions, thumbscrews in sight, are a useful reference:
In complexity theory and computability theory, an oracle machine is an abstract machine used to study decision problems. It can be visualized as a Turing machine with a black box, called an oracle, which is able to solve certain problems in a single operation. [--> one step, decision that puts the TM on a decided trajectory, by being 1 step it is itself halting and not carrying out a stepwise computation] The problem can be of any complexity class. Even undecidable problems, such as the halting problem, can be used . . . . An oracle machine can be conceived as a Turing machine connected to an oracle. The oracle, in this context, is an entity capable of solving some problem, which for example may be a decision problem or a function problem. The problem does not have to be computable; the oracle is not assumed to be a Turing machine or computer program. The oracle is simply a "black box" that is able to produce a solution for any instance of a given computational problem: A decision problem is represented as a set A of natural numbers (or strings). An instance of the problem is an arbitrary natural number (or string). The solution to the instance is "YES" if the number (string) is in the set, and "NO" otherwise. A function problem is represented by a function f from natural numbers (or strings) to natural numbers (or strings). An instance of the problem is an input x for f. The solution is the value f(x). An oracle machine can perform all of the usual operations of a Turing machine, and can also query the oracle to obtain a solution to any instance of the computational problem for that oracle. For example, if the problem is a decision problem for a set A of natural numbers, the oracle machine supplies the oracle with a natural number, and the oracle responds with "yes" or "no" stating whether that number is an element of A.
This of course points to the two tier controller cybernetic loop envisioned by Derek Smith, and onward opens up themes such as quantum influence and the self moved, free agent. That is a far more fruitful context for thought than poof magic emergence. KFkairosfocus_{December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

Only if you can re(present) any symbolic system without using reason and myself receiving and understanding it without using reason . Should be easy if you are right. Good luck!
That can’t be right, since reason is involved in all understanding.
:) Tough luck! Reason works only with symbols ,signs and languages and also creates symbols,signs and languages. If we detect such things in our Universe the answer is not ambiguous :Some sort of intelligence did it.Sandy_{December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @ 244
Ori: There are no laws that compel particles to form organisms and/or code.
The laws obviously allow it but contain no oracles. That’s the problem, oracles need to be accounted for.
Your term “oracle” (or “original source”) may very well be synonymous to the terms I often use, namely “unity” and/or “whole.” Perhaps the key point is the self-relation of the oracle (unity), which in my view points to self-causation, that is, being an ‘original source.’ A concept that naturalism does not allow for. Surely, only an oracle can explain information—CFSI/O. Somewhat as an aside, I hold that your argument that emergentism cannot account for CFSI/O kills it. It may prove difficult to directly rebut the out-of-the-blue claim that consciousness **emerges** out of some physical substrate, but no one buys into the idea that information emerges for free. No one believes that from mindless particles in the void information equivalent to Shakespeare’s Hamlett just ‘emerges’ (*poof*), without explanation. Everyone understands that information doesn’t come for free, that it requires work, hard intelligent work.Origenes_{December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

JB:
Think about what symbolism means: representing something by something that it is not. A symbol has therefore no deterministic physical causal link to what is represented by definition, it is conventional (arbitrary) and therefore cannot have its source in physical necessity but must be intentional. For example, there is nothing in the sequence of nucleotides AUC that compels it to mean isoleucine (indeed AUA or AUU will do just fine), in the same way that there is nothing that necessitates that the sequence of letters “tree” means a large plant with wooden trunk (in french it is “arbre”).
Well said. KFkairosfocus_{December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT}

Origenes,
There are no laws that compel particles to form organisms and/or code
The laws obviously allow it but contain no oracles. That's the problem, oracles need to be accounted for. KFkairosfocus_{December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PDT}

Barry A: JVL, still no interest in responding to I did respond. Make sure your brief is complete before making assumptions.JVL_{December 30, 2022
December
12
Dec
30
30
2022
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT}

@Origenes Yes that's pretty much it !Jblais_{December 30, 2022
December
12
Dec
30
30
2022
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

Jblais @240 If I understand you correctly, you are saying that non-reductive physicalism (strong emergentism) wants to have it both ways. It starts off with the good old barren materialistic ontology (reality is at bottom a mindless and purposeless brute fact), and next it attempts, in an act of total disconnect from its basis, to end up with all sorts of wondrous ‘emerging’ things, like “intentionality, qualia, subjectivity, free will, creativity, symbolism, morality, etc…”. And you are saying that this is incoherent, that the two ontological options you describe are mutually exclusive. Here I can only agree. Have a good trip and a Happy New YearOrigenes_{December 30, 2022
December
12
Dec
30
30
2022
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

@Origenes I need to go and will be away for a few days so I'll just give a short answer for now: I don't think that either "emergentism" (in the sense of strong emergence) and "non-reductive physicalism" are coherent. They don't make any sense in my opinion. There both an ill-defined appeal to magic. At the end of the day, there is only two options. Either your ontology implies that at bottom, our reality is a mindless and purposeless brute fact, which means that there is no reason and no explanation for anything, or it implies that our reality has a reason and explanation for its existence and this can only be a transcendant mindlike and purposeful intentional creative act. It's clear to me that the former cannot account for the totally of our reality, which includes intentionality, qualia, subjectivity, free will, creativity, symbolism, morality, etc..., while the latter obviously can, so the latter is the only rational ontology from my point of view. Happy New YearJblais_{December 30, 2022
December
12
Dec
30
30
2022
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Jblais@ What is your take on the sort of naturalism that is mentioned by PM1 in posts #224 #234, and is defined with terms like "non-reductive physicalism" and "emergentism"?Origenes_{December 30, 2022
December
12
Dec
30
30
2022
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

@236 I take it that by manipulation you mean physical manipulation as opposed to how one manipulates one's thoughts? "Everything that exists is physically manipulable?" Many physicists hold the laws of physics to be real, to be out there. Given that, they seem to be "supernatural" under your proposed definition. There are also problems with the Merriam-Webster definition.Origenes_{December 30, 2022
December
12
Dec
30
30
2022
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

@PM1 "I wonder at this “symbolism implies intentionality.” Is this a necessary truth? Is there an argument for it? Or is just one of those things that supposed to be ‘obvious’?" Think about what symbolism means: representing something by something that it is not. A symbol has therefore no deterministic physical causal link to what is represented by definition, it is conventional (arbitrary) and therefore cannot have its source in physical necessity but must be intentional. For example, there is nothing in the sequence of nucleotides AUC that compels it to mean isoleucine (indeed AUA or AUU will do just fine), in the same way that there is nothing that necessitates that the sequence of letters "tree" means a large plant with wooden trunk (in french it is "arbre"). Whether you see it as obvious or not I can't help. In this kind of discussion, one inevitably reach at one point or another the level of what's called metaphysical intuition. If metaphysical intuitions are not shared, the discussion cannot progress further unfortunately.Jblais_{December 30, 2022
December
12
Dec
30
30
2022
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

@235 It certainly would be a disaster to define naturalism in terms of non-supernaturalism and supernaturalism in terms of non-naturalism. I think something like this is more or less right, but I'd be curious to know what you think:
For all X, X is supernatural if it is not possible to manipulate the causal processes that mediate one's awareness of X
I'm not happy with it and would appreciate some criticism here.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 30, 2022
December
12
Dec
30
30
2022
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

What is the definition of ‘supernatural’?
Supernatural: 1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe especially: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil 2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b: attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit).
Origenes_{December 30, 2022
December
12
Dec
30
30
2022
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

@233 I don't mean to come as being overly harsh, but it seems to be me that you are conflating two wildly different senses of naturalism, then accusing naturalists of being inconsistent because they aren't make the mistake that you insist on making. It's one thing to be a naturalist in the sense of "refusing to grant ontological status to anything supernatural". It's quite another to be a naturalist in the sense of "insisting that everything that does exist can be explained in terms of fundamental physics." The people who call themselves "non-reductive physicalists" are just those who affirm the first sense of naturalism and deny the second. To show that this is inconsistent, one would need an argument that shows that once we reject everything supernatural from our metaphysics, everything else must reduce to fundamental physics. I know that Rosenberg takes that view, but as I've said numerous times, it's simply not a valid inference. His version of naturalism is logically fallacious.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 30, 2022
December
12
Dec
30
30
2022
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

Another symptom of naturalism's failure is that, in order to deal with criticism, the term has been redefined to the point that it lost almost all meaning.
The term “naturalism” has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. … So understood, “naturalism” is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. [Stanford]
In contrast to Stanford’s cop-out, Wiki’s definition of naturalism reminds us somewhat of the days of old when a man was a man and a woman a woman.
In philosophy, naturalism is the idea or belief that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe.
Naturalism is the idea that everything is physical, and even when things do not seem to be physical, it is its ambition to show that it can be reduced to the physical, in order to uphold the claim that there is nothing else. IOW reduction to the physical was naturalism’s core ambition from the very outset. But these days you have “non-reductive” physicalists, in the same sense that it is now possible for men to become pregnant and give birth to children of their own.
On the other side stand “non-reductive” physicalists, who hold that the causal efficacy of special causes will be respected as long as the properties they involve are “realized by” physical properties, even if they are not reductively identified with them. [Stanford]
This is where we are now. It is no longer necessary for naturalists to explain things like consciousness and rationality with physics, you can be a “non-reductive” physicalist now and pretend that you are making perfect sense.Origenes_{December 30, 2022
December
12
Dec
30
30
2022
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

This just isn’t true
It is true as you have demonstrated several times in recent weeks. You can not point to a single example of anything that has emerged let alone a repeatable one. So isn’t it about time to retire the word.jerry_{December 30, 2022
December
12
Dec
30
30
2022
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

Why demonstrate that further by getting involved in a debate you can’t possibly win.
Exactly, Barry. With your finger on the ban button, nobody is going to win any argument with you at Uncommon Descent. :)Alan Fox_{December 30, 2022
December
12
Dec
30
30
2022
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

@226
Only if you can re(present) any symbolic system without using reason and myself receiving and understanding it without using reason . Should be easy if you are right. Good luck!
That can't be right, since reason is involved in all understanding. What you could have said was, can you describe a symbol system from which reasoning is absent in the implementation of the system, not from understanding. @227
One of those symptoms of failure is that, after everything else has failed, some naturalists have proposed **POOF** *magic* as an ‘explanation’ for consciousness. It’s called ’emergentism’, as in “it *poof* somehow!? emerged”
This just isn't true. Emergence is a specific kind of causal process that takes place under specific conditions. It is the opposite of magic (something that takes place without any underlying causal processes that connect the prior and posterior states). – – – –
Another symptom of failure was the attempt to explain consciousness away. E.g. Dennett: “consciousness is an illusion.”
Dennett never actually said that. His project doesn't explain consciousness away: it explains how and why consciousness feels the way it does. He does dismiss the hard problem of consciousness, if that's what you're getting at. But his arguments against the hard problem of consciousness are difficult to refute, once you take the time to understand them (and hardly anyone can be bothered).PyrrhoManiac1_{December 30, 2022
December
12
Dec
30
30
2022
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

@225
Naturalism does not allow for ontological wholes over and beyond fermions and bosons. Rosenberg understands that fact, ’emergentists’ do not.
Rosenberg's project has three glaring problems -- problems so significant that if Rosenberg's view were the only version of naturalism on the market, no one should be a naturalist. 1. Rosenberg assumes reductionism and gives no response to the many philosophers of science who have argued against the very possibility of inter-theoretic reduction. A really good anti-reductionist in philosophy of science is John Dupre. In The Disorder of Things he points out that we can't even reduce Mendelian genetics to molecular genetics. If reductionism is going to fail there, it's going to fail everywhere else. If anything, anti-reductionism is the majority position among philosophers of science these days. (For contemporary anti-reductionism, I found Beyond Reduction to be pretty good and mostly accessible.) 2. Rosenberg's incomplete fundamental physics. Rosenberg takes fundamental physics to be ontologically prior to all other forms of inquiry. But he privileges quantum mechanics and ignores general relativity, which is also a theory of fundamental physics. The fact that our two theories of fundamental physics are logically and ontologically incompatible is (I would say) the one of the major obstacles to an acceptable metaphysical naturalism. Not enough naturalists even try to think about this, but Rosenberg completely ignores this huge problem. 3. Rosenberg's cartoonish understanding of quantum mechanics. Rosenberg, with a strong background in neoclassical economics and population genetics, thinks in terms of objects interacting with other objects. But when we get down to the ontology of fundamental physics, we don't really have objects at all. We have fields, forces, impossibly complicated mathematical structures, n-dimensional topologies, and all sorts of metaphysical weirdness that are quite difficult to understand. So: Rosenberg's project doesn't justify why everything can be reduced to fundamental physics in the first place, it ignores the central problem in philosophy of fundamental physics, and it relies on a cartoonish version of the fundamental physics that it relies upon. Heck, it got negatively reviewed even by Philip Kitcher (author of, among other books, Life After Faith and Science in a Democratic Society).PyrrhoManiac1_{December 30, 2022
December
12
Dec
30
30
2022
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

JVL, still no interest in responding to https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/yet-another-example-of-how-materialism-blinds-is-proponents/ I can't really blame you. Everyone knows you've got nothing. Why demonstrate that further by getting involved in a debate you can't possibly win. Amirite?Barry Arrington_{December 30, 2022
December
12
Dec
30
30
2022
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

PM1 @
Jblais: ... biosemiotics researchers are committed to trying to make sense of coding/symbolism in biology under a naturalistic worldview, that’s precisely why the field was created. But like the valorous naturalists trying to make sense of consciousness or free will, they have failed, they are failing, and they will continue to fail. Their failure is the sad result of their fundamental inability to understand the mental nature of intentionality, and its necessary causal connection to symbolism itself.
I’d be interested to know what the symptoms of failure are.
One of those symptoms of failure is that, after everything else has failed, some naturalists have proposed **POOF** *magic* as an 'explanation' for consciousness. It's called 'emergentism', as in "it *poof* somehow!? emerged" - - - - Another symptom of failure was the attempt to explain consciousness away. E.g. Dennett: "consciousness is an illusion."Origenes_{December 30, 2022
December
12
Dec
30
30
2022
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

But it doesn’t follow that therefore every symbolic system must be the deliberate creation of some intelligent being.
:) Only if you can re(present) any symbolic system without using reason and myself receiving and understanding it without using reason . Should be easy if you are right. Good luck!Sandy_{December 30, 2022
December
12
Dec
30
30
2022
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

PM1 @
Ori: I gather that, under naturalism, an ‘organism’ is nothing over and beyond a bunch of elementary particles.
Sure, if you take the dumbest possible version of naturalism as the only version that there is. I don’t even get exercised about any supposed implications of Rosenberg’s view: his view is internally incoherent. There are very few books I really, passionately hate, but The Atheist’s Guide to Reality is one of them.
Naturalism does not allow for ontological wholes over and beyond fermions and bosons. Rosenberg understands that fact, 'emergentists' do not.Origenes_{December 30, 2022
December
12
Dec
30
30
2022
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

@219
Exactly what is it that naturalists seek to explain? I would like to know because they are never quite clear about it. For instance, what exactly is an “organism” in their view?
I've recommend quite a few books and articles on this specific issue. To my knowledge you haven't looked at any of them. So forgive me, but your bafflement strikes me as less than fully sincere.
? I gather that, under naturalism, an ‘organism’ is nothing over and beyond a bunch of elementary particles.
Sure, if you take the dumbest possible version of naturalism as the only version that there is. I don't even get exercised about any supposed implications of Rosenberg's view: his view is internally incoherent. There are very few books I really, passionately hate, but The Atheist's Guide to Reality is one of them. @220
You raise some of the incoherences inherent in naturalism. I share your bafflement that these problems don’t bother naturalists more, they certainly should !
There are lots of naturalists who have developed carefully worked out proposals about how to think about subjectivity and intentionality within a naturalistic framework. Here are a few: Incomplete Nature< (Deacon), Dynamics in Action (Juarrero), The Mark of the Mental (Neander), Naturalism in Question (Del Caro and Macarthur), Articulating the World (Rouse). I don't really care if this gets dismissed as a literature bluff or whatever -- anyway time is limited, and no one can read everything, and there are lots of things I'd love to read that I know I'll never have time for. Life is short and books are many. But it does irk me when seemingly reasonable people say "why haven't naturalists thought about _____?", when in fact, lots of naturalists have thought about that issue. That's not to say that it'll be entirely convincing or plausible -- maybe it won't be. But just because there's an incoherence to the dumbest possible version of the view doesn't mean that there aren't more sophisticated versions that might not have that incoherence -- and how would you know if you haven't inquired?PyrrhoManiac1_{December 30, 2022
December
12
Dec
30
30
2022
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply