Some Random Guy
Striker
From his post he doesn't believe in either, he's just hedging his bets.
Islam Homework project at Sunderland School
- Thread starter Sam Handwich
- Start date
- Status
ProfessionalMackem
Striker
WTF?
Hardcore subject marra
Spot on mate. I don't necessarily think that an interventionist god is called for though.
From his post he doesn't believe in either, he's just hedging his bets.
Fucker.
Last edited:
Ilios
Winger
There's no demonstration that they are. This is the circular argument that theists have adopted in recent years, but it is necessarily circular. The very words 'finely tuned' imply the thing being posited in the 1st place. The cosmological constants are what they are, and if things were different, then things would be different. It's the anthropic principle - people assume significance in the way that our universe is, because we are the result of it; the fact that we are the result of it, is irrelevant though, as if we weren't, we wouldn't be here to make that inference. Having read that back, I'm not being very concise
Here's an analogy to better explain what I mean:So you are dealt 2 hands of cards, the 1st one is the following: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Jack, Queen, King all Hearts
The 2nd hand is a seemingly random collection of numbers from a variety of suits.
Which hand is more likely? The correct answer is neither. The odds of drawing the first hand is identical to drawing any other set of cards in a fair pack. The only reason we would think of hand A as significant, is because we imbue it with significance. The only reason that theists argue for fine-tuning, is because they imbue our universe with significance, because they think we are the intended recipients of it - which is exactly backwards, and circular. The universe wasn't developed to support us, we developed in relation to it.
AlpineExile
Striker
Douglas Adams' (I think) parable of the puddle sums it up very well, imho.There's no demonstration that they are. This is the circular argument that theists have adopted in recent years, but it is necessarily circular. The very words 'finely tuned' imply the thing being posited in the 1st place. The cosmological constants are what they are, and if things were different, then things would be different. It's the anthropic principle - people assume significance in the way that our universe is, because we are the result of it; the fact that we are the result of it, is irrelevant though, as if we weren't, we wouldn't be here to make that inference. Having read that back, I'm not being very concise
So you are dealt 2 hands of cards, the 1st one is the following: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Jack, Queen, King all Hearts
The 2nd hand is a seemingly random collection of numbers from a variety of suits.
Which hand is more likely? The correct answer is neither. The odds of drawing the first hand is identical to drawing any other set of cards in a fair pack. The only reason we would think of hand A as significant, is because we imbue it with significance. The only reason that theists argue for fine-tuning, is because they imbue our universe with significance, because they think we are the intended recipients of it - which is exactly backwards, and circular. The universe wasn't developed to support us, we developed in relation to it.
Lefty Frizzell
Striker
If a school teacher has asked any pupil to write a letter to their parents/guardians to hypothetically explain why they are changing their faith to any religion, other than the one that their parents/guardians have brought them up to be is absolutely shameful. Haven't read the whole thread but am presuming that this must have been a misunderstanding between the teacher and the pupil over the actual assignment, as otherwise it is completely overstepping the mark.
Ilios
Winger
Yeah it is the same principle. The theists essentially argue that the the hole was designed to hold the water, which is completely the wrong way round - the 'puddle' develops because the water takes the form of the hole. It is identically flawed to 'fine tuning' arguments.
In order to argue for fine tuning, we would need to know what a designed and a non-designed universe would like. We don't, as we can only access 1 universe (and barely that).
Last edited:
ProfessionalMackem
Striker
There's no demonstration that they are. This is the circular argument that theists have adopted in recent years, but it is necessarily circular. The very words 'finely tuned' imply the thing being posited in the 1st place. The cosmological constants are what they are, and if things were different, then things would be different. It's the anthropic principle - people assume significance in the way that our universe is, because we are the result of it; the fact that we are the result of it, is irrelevant though, as if we weren't, we wouldn't be here to make that inference. Having read that back, I'm not being very concise
So you are dealt 2 hands of cards, the 1st one is the following: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Jack, Queen, King all Hearts
The 2nd hand is a seemingly random collection of numbers from a variety of suits.
Which hand is more likely? The correct answer is neither. The odds of drawing the first hand is identical to drawing any other set of cards in a fair pack. The only reason we would think of hand A as significant, is because we imbue it with significance. The only reason that theists argue for fine-tuning, is because they imbue our universe with significance, because they think we are the intended recipients of it - which is exactly backwards, and circular. The universe wasn't developed to support us, we developed in relation to it.
I do see where you are coming from mate. You make some very valid points. I just I don't throw away the "significance" as easily as you may. Using your analogy. You are right that the odds of drawing cards are the same. But drawing the hands like a straight royal flush are significantly more improbable than getting a random set. Why is that? Is it because we attach significance because we know the mathematics behind the probability? In the same way that Brandon Carter and a certain Stephen Hawkins have tried to debate the Anthropic principle. With Carter being a huge proponent.
Hawkins: "Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, ten thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate?" "If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million," he explains, "the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size."
This a cracking read
https://phys.org/news/2015-01-evidence-anthropic-theory-fundamental-physics.html
Are you saying the multitude of scientific experiments done with computer simulations by scholars and scientists are redundant because you say so marra?
Plus, what about natural imperfections in the geological landscape? Do they not have any bearing on what puddles or not?
Last edited:
Ilios
Winger
It isn't. The odds are identical, which is the whole point of the analogy, and that by Douglas Adams. Fine-tuning has to demonstrated, not asserted, and it cannot be demonstrated without invoking a circular argument, which makes it useless and fallacious.
The problem goes even deeper than that, though. ALL arguments from 'design' are either circular, self-refuting or just completely unfalsifiable.
Last edited:
ProfessionalMackem
Striker
Its not as clear cut as that mate. You are dismissing out of hand a valid avenue of discussion.
The anthropic principle might seem trivial to you but that doesn't mean its completely useless. Mathematical theorems are results of derivations following from assumptions and definitions. They essentially are the assumptions, just expressed differently, always true and sometimes trivial. But often, they are surprising and far from obvious, though that is inevitably a subjective statement. Complaining that something is trivial is like saying “It’s just sound waves” and referring to everything from engine noise to Mozart. Which you are doing by saying getting a random 5 cards is the same as getting a royal straight flush.
I'm not a massive supporter of the Anthropic principle btw. The principle might strike you as somewhat silly, it can however be useful on occasion. E.G to rule out values of certain parameters of our theories can have. The most prominent example is probably the cosmological constant which, if it was too large, wouldn’t allow the formation of structures large enough to support life. This is not an empty conclusion. It’s like me seeing you drive every morning and concluding you must be old enough to have a driver’s license. (You might just be stubbornly disobeying laws, but the universe can’t do that.) Though, this probably doesn’t work for all parameters, it only works when the parameters effect is almost independent on what the other parameters do.
Fuck this. I'm having a drink
Ilios
Winger
I think we are talking about slightly different things. When I talk about 'fine-tuning', I'm referring to the fine tuning cosmological arguments for the existence of god. We already know that the universe that we inhabit is necessarily capable of supporting intelligent life; it would be nonsensical if I thought we lived in an uninhabitable universeIts not as clear cut as that mate. You are dismissing out of hand a valid avenue of discussion.
The anthropic principle might seem trivial to you but that doesn't mean its completely useless. Mathematical theorems are results of derivations following from assumptions and definitions. They essentially are the assumptions, just expressed differently, always true and sometimes trivial. But often, they are surprising and far from obvious, though that is inevitably a subjective statement. 1. Complaining that something is trivial is like saying “It’s just sound waves” and referring to everything from engine noise to Mozart. Which you are doing by saying getting a random 5 cards is the same as getting a royal straight flush.
I'm not a massive supporter of the Anthropic principle btw. The principle might strike you as somewhat silly, it can however be useful on occasion. E.G to rule out values of certain parameters of our theories can have. The most prominent example is probably the cosmological constant which, if it was too large, wouldn’t allow the formation of structures large enough to support life. This is not an empty conclusion. It’s like me seeing you drive every morning and concluding you must be old enough to have a driver’s license. (You might just be stubbornly disobeying laws, but the universe can’t do that.) Though, this probably doesn’t work for all parameters, it only works when the parameters effect is almost independent on what the other parameters do.
Fuck this. I'm having a drink
. 1. It isn't, because the universe has no concept of a 'royal flush', and neither does a pack of cards - that is an entirely external, arbitrary assessment by the observer, in favour of its own biases. A royal flush is 5 random cards, it has no greater odds than any other set of cards. It has no inherent significance at all, you give it the significance.
However, if when discussing fine tuning, we are talking about a universe where 'intelligent life was the intended purpose', then that is circular and a post hoc fallacy - it would be like arguing that 'every painting needs a painter', without actually demonstrating that what you're looking at is a painting.
I'd argue that the cosmological constants, the goldilocks zone are evidence against the classical theism definitions of a god (the onmipotent, omniscient god) - A universe created by an all-powerful god would not require such narrow parameters for error. It is a limitation of god's power to say that he had to create a universe within such narrow ranges of 'finely-tuned' margins.
ProfessionalMackem
Striker
I think we are talking about slightly different things. When I talk about 'fine-tuning', I'm referring to the fine tuning cosmological arguments for the existence of god. We already know that the universe that we inhabit is necessarily capable of supporting intelligent life; it would be nonsensical if I thought we lived in an uninhabitable universe
1. It isn't, because the universe has no concept of a 'royal flush', and neither does a pack of cards - that is an entirely external, arbitrary assessment by the observer, in favour of its own biases. A royal flush is 5 random cards, it has no greater odds than any other set of cards. It has no inherent significance at all, you give it the significance.
However, if when discussing fine tuning, we are talking about a universe where 'intelligent life was the intended purpose', then that is circular and a post hoc fallacy - it would be like arguing that 'every painting needs a painter', without actually demonstrating that what you're looking at is a painting.
I'd argue that the cosmological constants, the goldilocks zone are evidence against the classical theism definitions of a god (the onmipotent, omniscient god) - A universe created by an all-powerful god would not require such narrow parameters for error. It is a limitation of god's power to say that he had to create a universe within such narrow ranges of 'finely-tuned' margins.
Fuck mate. All them words to say. "marra I agree with you".
Good post btw. Apart from bold bit. You can't dismiss the "significance" so easily. It exists because we exist and give is survivor bias.
Ilios
Winger
Again, I kind of agree with you that the universe we are in is necessary compatible with life. There's nothing 'significant' about that, that's just anthropocentric bias- significance is an arbitrary assessment, there's no variable for significance. If the universe had been slightly different, then a slightly different type of intelligent life might be sat here wondering why the universe was designed for them.
You don't know how many 'failed universes' there were, or if this is the perfect universe. You only think it is the most significant version of any potential universe, because you live in it. But that is a circular argument, you're saying: the universe is significant because it supports the life that arbitrarily judges it to be so, based on the fact that they're here. That is circular.
Last edited:
S
stephen cartwright
Guest
get a darkened room together you two
ProfessionalMackem
Striker
Look mate. We are always going to differ on our interpretations of this fundamental "significance". Your stance that you pugil from is of a solid stature. I am not saying its not true. It may well be. All I'm saying is my interpretation fits in better with my world view. That is I can not and will not just whimsically declare this "significance" as err insignificant. How can we? Please tell me how you can do this? We are who we are, we see what we see. You cant just delete it imo.
Take the formations of bubbles for example. A soap bubble in a given Riemannian manifold M to the n, is by defintion, a closed hypersurece of a constant mean curvature. When you take the surface tension and all the other myriad of factors involved in creating one. Mathematics say its improbable to create one. When in fact in reality we can do this whenever we want. Just like our special eyes, common sense and experience tell us that getting a royal flush is harder than getting five random cards. Maths may be fundamentally correct. But our intuition says otherwise.
The bold bit. I'm sorry if I'm coming across that way, but that isn't really where I'm at. What I'm trying to say is that the universe may be significant because it is finely tuned to harbor the sort of life that is questioning its true nature. Until we can without shadow of the doubt prove that we live in a multiverse or we have no creator, I will not reject Deism.
Dinnet get jello Stephen. Its unbecoming of a gentleman. Plus you know you're my favorite.
Ilios
Winger
No no, you misunderstood what I mean by that. A 'Royal Flush' is harder to get when you set up the dichotomy as 'either a royal flush, or any other set'. Of course that is true, because every other combination (whilst each individual combination is equivalent in likelihood) covers all bases and therefore you are massively more likely to get 'any other combination' - but that isn't my position. That's like saying, 'I'll either win the lottery or won't, therefore it is 50-50'. You're 'stockpiling' the unfavourable outcomes in a way that biases the likelihood of your preferred outcome.
My position is that within the finite number of possible combinations of hands dealt, every individual hand is equally as likely as any other - and that is a mathematical certainty.
Let me do this a bit better
. Lets say you had a 'random card generator', that doled out hands constantly. The combination 'A-K-Q-J-10' being doled out, is of the exact same likelihood as '2-6-4-Q-7'. How do you tell whether or not our universe is the Royal Flush, or the second hand?What do you mean by 'significance', we'll have to unpack that.
This maybe just a wording issue, but why are beginning with the assumption that deism needs to be disproven? Deism cannot be disproven, because it is completely unfalsifiable.
Lets say there are 3 potential God types:
God A: An intelligent agent that created, and interferes within the universe; answers prayers, shags virgins etc. One of the gods of theism
God B: Some kind of entity that may or may not be intelligent, that created the universe but has no interaction or interference whatsoever.
God C: This god doesn't exist.
A 'deist' has rejected God A, so lets forget about that one. How do you tell the difference in a universe where either god B or C 'exists'. You can't.
A god that hides itself from any investigation cannot have evidence for its existence, which means that no predictions can made about a universe where it exists. Which in turn, means that a universe where either B or is C true, appear identical, and Occam's Razor dispenses with B.
An invisible, spirit monkey hiding in my wardrobe is indistinguishable from a monkey that doesn't exist.
Last edited:
Hep
Striker
It’s impossible to rule out the existence of pixies but would you take anyone seriously if they lived their life by the fact that they did?
Sam Handwich
Striker
Well, this thread went wildly off topic.
Keawyeds
Striker
Twice apparently.
What are you intending on getting by dragging it back to the top 2 hours later?
Sam Handwich
Striker
My intention is to draw you back in and get you to confess to your antifa agenda.
- Status
