Fine tuning Intelligent Design

Does the argument for fine-tuning of the universe confirm the multiverse hypothesis?

Spread the love

From Peter Fisher Epstein at Philosophy of Science:

Abstract. According to the Fine-Tuning Argument (FTA), the existence of life in our universe confirms the Multiverse Hypothesis (HM). A standard objection to FTA is that it violates the Requirement of Total Evidence (RTE). I argue that RTE should be rejected in favor of the Predesignation Requirement, according to which, in assessing the outcome of a probabilistic process, we should only use evidence characterizable in a manner
available prior to observing the outcome. This produces the right verdicts in some simple cases in which RTE leads us astray; and, when applied to FTA, it shows that our evidence does confirm HM. More.

This is what philosophizing comes to these days. There is no evidence for any universe other than our own—and it is not clear that there ever could be.

And if there were, in the age of naturalism, how would we know? Our brains, they say, are shaped for fitness, not for truth,

Alternatively, if our universe appears fine-tuned, that is probably because it is.

But expect lots of casuistry to come. It’s pretty much what they have got now.

See also: What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?

and Multiverse cosmology at your fingertips

5 Replies to “Does the argument for fine-tuning of the universe confirm the multiverse hypothesis?

  1. 1
    J-Mac says:

    Does the argument for fine-tuning of the universe confirm the multiverse hypothesis?

    Actually, it’s the other way around.

    The fine-tuned universe for life confirms that materialists have not choice but turn in to multiverse bs (bs is called hypothesis in this case) to stop the bleeding at any cost.

    The embarrassment in proposing bully-tons of bs without a shred of evidence is understandable because it is for a good cause: atheism driven materialism first and foremost!

    Expect the materialistic bulling to continue…

  2. 2
    Latemarch says:

    Exactly right J-Mac.

    And of course this only pushes the problem back. Soon there will be multiverses of multiverses required.

    It’s turtles all the way down.

  3. 3
    helloEd says:

    Fine tuning is just a boot strap arguement.
    Science is based on observations from which we derive explanatory laws.
    The laws and their parameters ARE NOT THE CAUSE of effects they are our descriptions. Hardly surprising then when we check the laws out against our observations we find the parameters to be a perfect fit for life.

    Its a load of metaphysics like asking did ohms law exist before electricity was discovered. If your answer is yes then tell me where it was!

  4. 4
    Latemarch says:

    helloEd@3
    Its a load of metaphysics like asking did ohms law exist before electricity was discovered. If your answer is yes then tell me where it was!

    The same place all the mathematics was…in the mind of the maker. Or do you intend to argue for math being a material thing?

    Oops! there’s that metaphysics rearing its ugly head again.

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    HED:

    First, I suggest we all read Lewis and Barnes, A Fortunate Universe, Cambridge. (Yes, that Cambridge University Press.)

    The fine tuning discussion pivots on the mathematical space of reasonable possibilities linked to quantitative laws etc deriving from physical cosmology. That exploration becomes deeply enriching of our insight as we see how the operating point for our cosmos — from particle physics on up — is locally finely tuned [sits on an island of function] in that space.

    Now, obviously, our squiggles on a chalk board etc have no power to fire up a cosmos in themselves. However, the logic of structure and quantity — aka, Mathematics — is keyed to the nature of distinct identity, which has implications for what is feasible for the cosmos or indeed any possible world. Whatever breathes fire into equations to create an actual world must be logically possible, including the logic of structure and quantity.

    This then naturally leads to why, as Leslie highlights in his locally isolated fly on a wall swatted by a bullet argument. That targetting issue emerges regardless of possibilities for all we know that elsewhere flies carpet sections of the wall and for such, hitting some fly or other would be highly likely.

    So, the multiverse speculation does not resolve our fine tuning challenge.

    And yes, a highly mathematical — structured, coherent, quantitatively exact — observed cosmos does point to rational contemplation and intelligently directed configuration (aka design) as a serious candidate explanation.

    KF

Leave a Reply