We call this argument the Fine Tuning argument. As pointed out, it has two key points.

Before addressing either point, it is necessary to consider a self-refuting aspect of the argument. The weak Anthropic principle says that "if sentient life had evolved somewhere else, we would be asking why it evolved there". In other words, by virtue of the fact that we are sitting on a planet which can foster biological life, we can ask the very questions and have the very discussion that we are having now. In other words, the question we are asking is "how came it that a planet with the ability to foster intelligent life was formed"? Surely, you must realize that to say that an intelligent being placed it in that specific zone is to innately undermine the claim that such conditions are necessary for intelligent life to evolve to ask such questions, which is the crux of the argument! In other words the argument is shooting itself in the foot.

Let us now consider the two aspects of the argument.

The first is the examine the very precise "Goldilocks Zone" associated with planets hospitable to biological life. Biological life has very specific attributes of being based on long, fragile molecules that encode replicative information. This pertains to the situation of precise tuning the Earth finds itself in regarding its stability and friendliness to life. For one, obviously, it is placed precisely in a small band of temperature ranges from its star such that water does not freeze or boil (0 to 100C). Water is probably not absolutely necessary for life, but is surely the best molecule conducive to its formation. For one, its a permanent dipole, which is what gives it its properties and an electrical charge without which no biomolecular system could function (ion channels, proton gradients, DNA, cytokines, signal integrators, molecular switches and protein folding all rely on this principle), this charge is also conduicive to abiogenesis, the formation of proto-replicating biomolecules.

Another such useful fine-tuning comes in the form of Earth’s natural satellite, the moon. Tides may play a role in electrophoresis, which is central to the development of stable biological molecules and the alternating charge and wetting and drying of primordial biological molecules (see clay theory), and its rotation and orbit keep Earth’s orbit stable. Without it, it would become erratic every several hundred million years, and would flip over. Obviously, such conditions would destroy any DNA forming, which takes perhaps as much as half a billion years.

There are plenty more examples. But that is not to say that the blue marble has been carefully placed by an intelligent being. The first thing to consider is that there are an estimated 10^11 galaxies, and a total of roughly 6x10^20 stars, and roughly 5x10^17 planets, and roughly 10^17 solar systems. These all form and collect from ionized gas (for stars) or the nucleosynthesis bridge completed by supernovae (for terrestrial planets).

It is also necessary to consider Anthropic fine tuning. You said "50 constants". The number is actually 6:

Epsilon: The fusion ration of hydrogen to helium. In our universe, this is 0.007, precisely correct. If it were off, say, to 0.008, too high, then all hydrogen would immediately fuse, and there would none left over from the big bang, and hence life could never get started, if it was slightly lower then the universe would remain in freezing darkness since stars could never condense and generate nucleosynthesis fusion, creating the heavy elements necessary for life (oxygen, carbon, iron)

Q:

Omega: Relative density of the universe. This is precisely fine-tuned, the overall density of the universe, if too small, the universe would expand and freeze before life could begin. If too large, the universe would collapse almost as soon as it began, crushing back into the fiery pinprick from whence it came.

Lambda: The cosmological constant determining the acceleration rate of the universe. Any larger than it is (0.7), and the universe would be blown apart by Dark Energy, any smaller and it would quickly crush itself into a fireball. The Hubble constant is precisely equal to one (Omega+ Lambda).

D:  The number of spatial dimensions. Our universe, of course, has three. This is the most conduicive to life. If there are more, the inverse square law is replaced by an inverse cube law, and hence, the motion of planets becomes too erratic for the long stretches of stability needed for life. If there are less, say two, then the advanced computational systems for life cannot develop, as the possibilites are too few. It is much harder to store information in two dimensions than in three (think of integrated circuits) For example, the human mind depends on massive networks of neurons . Biological structures would have great difficulty assembling in two dimensions.

N: The force of electromagnetism divided by gravity. The ratio between the disengaged forces is 1: 10^36, but only slight deviations would quickly destroy any collected proto-stars that tried to form, and ionized gas would be unable to collect.

 

At any rate, this variant is more compelling than the former, yet is still problematic for reasons outlined at the top. Let us consider this solution in a pool of various hypotheses on why our universe is so well tuned to biology, because there are others. (Hence applying abductive reasoning).

The principle antithesis to the hypothesis under discussion is Multiverse. Multiverse is not to be confused with "many worlds" in quantum mechanics. Many Worlds is defined by a world-line split that occurs at every possible divergence for every quantum mechanical event where multiple outcomes are possible. Multiverse has nothing to do with quantum mechanical divergence or decoherence. A new universe is not said to "diverge" as a result of a quantum mechanical event. Rather, individual universes are discrete entities linked by white holes, but they are universes unto themselves, as opposed to carbon copies of a divergence outcome with only a single difference in a quantum event. In Cosmology, universes are said to "bud" off each other through rapidly expanding areas of space-time.

I had liked this idea even before linking it to Fine tuning, because of the 50 or so hypotheses regarding inflation, Linde's was probably best, and his necessitated the aforementioned concept. Guth’s original problem was solved by Linde, where the false vacuum fluctuations would generate many different inflating regions of space time called “bubbles”. The problem is that the theory necessitates the nucleation of the bubbles (imagine it as analogous to heating water on a stove). While the collapse of a false vacuum would dictate that the expansion of the space between the bubbles would multiply logarithmically faster than the actual bubbles themselves. The universe would expand extremely rapidly, but it would never stop in Guth’s model. Inflation necessitated an extremely fast, but extremely short burst. Guth’s model had no way to wind down the inflation. Linde’s solution was that the expansion which triggered the universe was originally very slow, and accelerated in a scalar-field to become competitively fast compared to actual expansion of space time, and when it does, inflation stops, so the bubbles nucleate and thus the universe heats. For the purpose of this exercise, it becomes necessary to merge inflation with quantum cosmology. The original symmetry would have been broken as a trigger to inflation, and the negative energy associated with the vacuum would have been cancelled by the collapse (Since it is mechanistically so unstable. This means that energy, hence matter, may arise).

Taking the concept further, a theory that expounds on this by Lee Smolin has a distinctly Darwinian feel to it. Smolin argues that
1) In a Multiverse, universes are said to bud off of parent universes. Hence, like mitosis produces daughter cells from parents, so too here, universes bud off each other

2) In Cosmology, unlike in the QM concept of Many Worlds, each universe, being an actually seperate universe as opposed to a quantum divergence of an event that occured in an antecedant universe, each universe has slightly different constants. Because universes "bud" off each other at white holes, a universe with more white holes will have more universes bud off.

3) On the other hand, universes which have physical constants which are unstable will usually be destroyed immediately

4) Because universes directly bud off each other, the daughter universes will retain physical constants of their antecedants

5) However, because this process is not perfect, there will always be variation in the physical constants of offspring universes. This enables variation under selection, since the universes with the physical constants most conducive to star formation, hence the formation of biological life, will propogate.

I would feel quite vindicated if Smolin is proven correct, because that would make the concept of evolution not merely the unifying theory of biology, but also all of science. It is not invalid to make a comparison here between the formation of the theory of evolution being pitted against Paley's Design, and the hypothesis of the evolution of physical constants being pitted against Fine Tuning.

 

I'd like to second Brian37 in saying that even if it is improbable, that doesn't point to intent, much less intelligence. Also, the universe is what, at least 100 billion light years wide? That's a lot of space for something improbable to happen.

Obviously, deludedgod gave you the full story, but even before any rigorous treatment, the improbability argument falls flat at the conversational level.

Hey Brian,

thanks for the post, I enjoyed reading it! My stance takes parts from the 'fine tuning argument,' but I am not implying that intelligence was 'placed' here in this zone by something intelligent. More that the big bang may have been fine tuned so eventually it would harbour some sort of life. We don't need to assume that any intelligence fine tuning the big bang knew of all the consequences (eg. life that can ask these questions of itself). Its analogous to firing particles at an atom, you dont need to have any scope into which particle will hit the atom, rather you set it up so that its highly likely that one will hit.

Also, about the other post regarding the improbability, mentioning albinos etc. The order of magnitude of improbability in fertalizing an egg is far smaller than that of the universe. An event that has odds of 1 in 10^6 is large compared to something that has odds of 1 in 10^100. You also mentioned about how large the universe is and how improbable things happen etc.....this can work in my favour. If you were trying to create a universe from a big bang with the goal of creating some sort of life, you would try to make it as large as possible for greatest chance of success....

 

And I am not assuming the universe is a giant thinking brain, my argument had nothing to do with anything like that. the universe is more like a set quantum events as Brian mentioned.

 

So essentially what you are suggesting is that the creator was mentally deficient. If he had to create trillions of planets to get one to work he couldn't have been too smart, could he?


 

Double Post

 

mm, I'd like you to specifically answer a question for me.  You're working really, really hard to create a tiny window of science through which a deist god might slip, and in the process, you're ignoring the anthropic principle, and you're promoting seriously suspect math to an unduly high prominence.  (The 'probability' of life equations are all riddled with flaws.  The more we understand things like liquid crystals and their propensity to promote horizontal alignment in pre-RNA type molecules, the more we're realizing that IF a goldilocks zone planet exists, life might actually be relatively probable.)

Here's the question.  Why are you working so hard for something that will give you no gain in the end?

Even if you manage to squeak some kind of god through a crack, you will have absolutely no way of tying it to anything that man has ever worshiped, and you will be unable to demonstrate any relevance to the scientific method.

Consider:

IF a god created the universe:

1) We have no evidence that the god still exists.  Perhaps the big bang was god's destruction!

2) We have no evidence that IF god still exists, it is intelligent.  (In other words, we might just be calling something god, when actually, 'vacuum fluctuation' might have been a much better description.

3) We have no evidence that IF god still exists, and is intelligent, it has any knowledge of us.

4) If (3), then we have no evidence that it wants us to know of it.

5) If (4), then we have no evidence that even if it wants us to know of it, that it is truthful.

6) If (5), then all we have to go on is what we can see, and that leaves us at (1).

In other words, your whole line of inquiry is setting you up to be in exactly the same position as an atheist, even if you are proven correct!

So, again, please tell me why you're so interested in proving this correct.

Thanks.

 

 

Very nicely put. It is true, we will all be in the same position regardless of whether god 'squeezes' in through the crack, but that doesnt negate the interest in the topic. I am not posting here or thinking about the topic for personal gain, rather just to keep my mind open and explore all possibilities. Whilst the topic is still open and not proven either way, the best thing to do is find arguments for and against......isnt that human nature?

Does it not bother you that because of your 'open' attitude about this question, any theist who believes in his particular sadist in the sky will automatically assume you're on his side?  You gain nothing if you are correct, and regardless of your correctness, theists perceive a win for themselves.

I mean, why not spend time pondering the unanswerable question of whether or not there are garden gnomes plotting to overthrow the government of Sudan?  You can spin around in philosophical circles for years, and nobody will make any laws about stem cell research based on your support.

Trust me.  If it's philosophical conundrums you like, you can find plenty that don't encourage bad behavior from Christians and Muslims.

Ok.  You're about to tell me why you're not interested in the topic... personal gain, etc.  You haven't told me why this particular unanswerable and irrelevant question is of so much interest to you.

What is your position on invisible gnomes in my refrigerator?  Why don't you devote your time to that question, which has literally billions of possible answers?  You see what I'm getting at?  There's something hidden either in your psyche or your agenda or both.  You elevate the irrelevant "God" question, while ignoring thousands of other philosophical dilemmas.  I've already shown you that your question is truly irrelevant, and has no bearing on anyone's theological beliefs.  Why are you still interested?

Actually, not quite.  Again, consider that you've never gone door to door looking for invisible gnomes in refrigerators.  It's an open question that nobody has ever answered, but you're not concerned with it in the least.  Your motivations for asking the god question are not as benign as you say.  I don't know if your ulterior motive is even known to you, but it's there.

Please, address this directly.  The god question you posed is exactly as relevant to your life as whether there's an invisible gnome in my refrigerator.  Why are you concerned with god and not the gnome?

 

My 'hidden agenda' simply concerns all that is and was and will be and why........I cant think of a more interesting topic personally. The fact that religion is tearing countries apart and there are forums like this that are so hell bent on arguing athiesm, only makes the topic more interesting for me. This is not all I think about! In fact I only stumbled across that debate on the net about a week ago!

But it  doesn't make it more likely. By adding an improbable creator to the formula you actually exponentially increase the improbability of the universe. You can ignore that because it doesn't help you arrive at the conclusion you want to reach, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a catastrophic problem for the argument.

We have found no such thing.

There have been some back-of-the-napkin scribblings, with some wild speculation on constants to throw in. However, this is complete speculation. One of those constants in some of the earliest speculations, the probability of a sun having planets, has already been contradicted by current observation. It appears the likelihood of a sun having planets is orders of magnitude greater than originally thought.

The only rational conclusion is, we don't have any clues concerning the probable distribution of life throughout the universe.

Ah. The strong anthropic principle.

Okay. How about the same thing that gave us intelligent species? How about evolution?

There's an interesting thing about evolution. Evolution is not a theory of biology. It's based firmly in information theory. Dawkins touches on this when he talks about memes. Here is a case of pure information theory not only occurring in nature, but quite possibly being the driving force behind at least two major fields of study-- biology, and physics.

Now, what if our being here isn't just chance? What if the same thing that drives biological evolution also selected for the physical laws and constants that govern our universe?

This is exactly the idea put forth by Lee Smolin in 1992. For a little background, check out:

http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_4.html#smolin

http://www.universaldarwinism.com/Smolin%20Lee%20contributions.htm (that *should* work-- I had to escape the spaces)

In his essay in the book Intelligent Thought, Smolin presents an excellent lay-person overview of his hypothesis. He then even provides the first empirical proof of its validity.

In a nutshell, Smolin hypothesizes that, due to the quantum gravity effects first hypothesized by John Archibald Wheeler and Bryce DeWitt, each singularity (black hole) created within a universe causes a "bounce" within the singularity. That is, each black hole causes another universe to form. During the creation of the new universe, physical laws would deviate slightly from the laws of the "parent" universe. Now, if we look at propagation as the defining factor of an evolutionarily-successful universe, the universes most likely to create black holes would create the most successful "child" universes.

It just so happens that the same balance of laws and constants that make a fertile black-hole universe, are also the same balance that leads to a universe friendly to life.

Over the last several years, there's been a lot of research into quantum gravity. The current evidence supports Wheeler and DeWitt's orginal hypothesis, providing good support for Smolin's concept of evolutionary physics. It is far from proven, but it's survived that basic first tests, and has also made at least one prediction that has been verified.

This is not just speculation. It's very good science, and a lot of fun to think about.

Your viewpoint is very much like Paul Davies, a very intelligent, very thoughtful man, and chair of the SETI Post-Detection Science and Technology Taskgroup.

Given Smolin's purely-naturalistic hypothesis, though, we know there is no need for a God, or even intelligent planning beforehand. It does away with the strong anthropic principle, and probably even the weak anthropic principle.  Smolin's idea is beautiful, simple, and clear. That doesn't make it right, of course, but it means that, as we have one natural possibility to address your issues, there is no need to resort to an unnatural God just yet.

One thing we humans always do is put ourselves as the most important thing in the Universe. It is extremely smug to think that life can only exist as we know it here. Given enough possibilities and our Universe certainly has that, life could be based in a different way than we ever could imagine. If we never study or investigate beyond the accepted we won't make progress in knowledge. Many scientists and inventors went in a direction that ultimately resulted in greater understanding of science and new accepted laws because they had an open mind. Just because we lack complete understanding of the Universe is no reason to add a God or creator as a possibility. That only results in a closed mind an acceptance of the irrational.

Have you tried real ale? (Sometimes called "cask conditioned" or "traditional ale".) Delicious! I prefer my local Wellington Brewery County Ale, but I'd encourage you to ask a local microbrew if they have a "real ale" on tap.

Benjamin Franklin proposed beer as the proof that God loves us (he would have been drinking real ale at the time) and so far, that's the best proof I've heard for any supernatural being.

Other posters have addressed this, but I will add to their excellent points.

 

Your "but" is huge. You are basically saying: "I understand your arguments but don't care. I like the feeling I have."

 

That is, the argument has been strongly countered and the idea of a god (of any kind) is highly unlikely through logical means. Trust me, many, many people have addressed the Fine Tuning argument and it always fails to show that a god exists. 

 

So, what make you think there is a god in the first place? Why insert a virtually impossible figure into a series of improbable events?

 

I simply don't get why you present the argument, say you understand the rebuttals, but return to your argument? How about rebut the rebuttals? That is where all Theists fail in this regard - they simply think that rephrasing their argument with a  nice personal story, threat of Hell, or more vivid descriptions makes the argument better.

1+1 still equals 2, whether you right it in Syntax font or Illuminated manuscript.

Fine tuned to necessary values as determined by what?

Time isn't independent. Time itself is highly dependent on the existence of the rest of the universe. They didn't name it the "space-time continuum" after one of their cats. Time is also relative. It flows slower through a gravity well than it does in free space. In a black hole, time stops at the singularity.

Some thinkers have suggested that we are actually in a simulated universe, not a real one. The thinking goes like this:

The universe is very old, but it's going to last quite a bit longer. There is a strong probability that, during all that time, one or more intelligent species will live to master quantum computing. At some point, they will be able to simulate very complex models. They will want to model the development of their own species. This model universe will be perfect, and the simulations inside won't "know" the difference between the simulated universe and the real universe. Finally, they will run many, many simulations over the course of their species' existence. Ergo, there will be  many more "simulations" than actual intelligent species, making it more probable that we are in a simulated environment, rather than a real universe.

Now, this is an interesting hypothesis. Given the argument that the models would be perfect, though, it's impossible to test. This makes it speculation, and it will never make it to the theory stage. Since it's not testable, it's not science.

It is infinitely more probable that we are in a simulation, than there is a God. Why? Because we know the natural world exists. We know that intelligent species are possible. We know that quantum computing is not only possible, it's kick-ass. There's nothing to postulate that doesn't already exist.

To postulate God in a non-pantheistic manner (such as the Christian God), you must also assume there is a realm outside of natural reality-- some call it the "supernatural." The realm must have a connection to the natural world, in that agents (God) within the supernatural realm may interact with the natural world (causing floods, plagues, the start of the natural universe, the murder of children, and so forth). The properties of this other realm are that it is eternal and static.

Here's where the strong anthropic principle breaks down. As described, God isn't the "cause" of the universe. He's the causer. He's an entity. A cause is an action, a transient thing. God is not transient. He exists in the same way the universe exists, only in a different realm. So, given the axiom that every effect must have a cause, if the universe is an effect that requires a cause, then God must also have a cause.

If you claim that God is eternal, then why do we need the step from the universe (which could be effectively eternal, as the arrow of time starts in our universe with the big bang) to a supernatural God? It makes more sense to begin the causal chain with the start of the universe, as we don't have to postulate another realm with another entity, neither of which we can measure or perceive.

Finally, there is a question that no Christian supporter off the strong anthropic principle can answer: assuming God does exist, what is the evidence that this first-cause God is the God of Abraham? What makes Him the Father of Christ? What is the evidence that He even exists as the abusive Father described in the Bible? Why isn't he simply a divine Wombat who wanted to make a world for wombats everywhere?

That's actually several questions, but the all amount to the same thing. Why do you suppose this God has any particular interest in us?

I don't think my objection is reliant on any conception of time. The problem comes from what would necessarily be logically prior, not temporally prior.

Look at it this way. Let's say that in some possible world all the physical constants are vastly different values in respect to what they are in our world, yet the world is stable and supports a life form identical to our's because this is how the creator created it. In this world there are theologians who claim that, due to the fact that life exists and that the physical constants are what they are, which they need to be to support life in that world, then there has to be a fine tuner who tuned the constants to their specific values.  Both our world and their's are using the same argument to arrive at a necessary fine tuner/creator and yet  the  constants  that  lead them to  that fine tuner are different. You could plug in any of infinite values and make the same argument which shows that any specific values can not lead to a necessary creator unrestricted by some rules, laws, constants.

If it is not possible that a creator could create a world with different physical constants that support our form of life then there must be some logically prior conditions that dictate what type of life can be created within certain physical constants. If the creator is restricted by these conditions then it must exist in a meta-realm with its own rules, laws, and constants that then need a fine tuner/creator as well.

I don't understand how this is dependent on our conception of time. Probably I am misunderstanding your objection to my objection. If so, please clarify.

xlint posting all .... just a buddha thought , ( Ignore this if you're feeling serious or frustrated )

Asking a cherished wise man some 2000 plus yrs ago about god, and getting a "who cares" reply is rather revealing for me. As "Buddha" may have predicted, here we've now come with all our present scientfic imfo falling into the same worthless question. If god was staring us in the face we'd still doubt, unless hypnotzed.

I like the beer ale idea. To much philosophy is bunk sophism , and all religion is practically worthless. Science will never end therefore ........etc to etc. Does anyone even remotely know themself ?! ( "soliphism" )

I wish more buddhists would get drunk with me, they are a fun atheistic bunch. Buddhaism is like a defense philosophy against the madness in our minds and world. Drunk Party Buddhists ?, Imagine ! Real progress .... and no armys needed ..... why not ??? ..... ( if everyone was Xain we'd still have armys ) .....

Sometimes I've used the wrong word when meaning "sophism"; ( to many simular spellings ) This is all a bit interesting tho .... (?)

"sophism" = B.S. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sophism&btnG=Search

My RRS goof here etc "solphism", ( I meant sophism ) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define+solphism&btnG=Search

Then , "soliphism" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=+soliphism&spell=1

Then , "solipsism" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=solipsism&btnG=Google+Search

1.  The theory or view that the self is the only reality.

2.  The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.

So what is the self ???? shezzz ..... beats me .... that's why I JUST call me "god as you". God = ALL and can't know, and so that is highest GOD, a sense of unknown, that's me for damn sure, then I wonder on !? ..... What is this ? .... So I'll just call it "god" and be done with that, and get back to science .....

.... geezzz language is a fucking bitch .... Do we do it on purpose ?!?! YES / NO ....    yeah beer, proof god loves us !

 

I don't agree. While we often reference something that is a logically prior condition as also being temporally prior, I don't think logical priority is dependent on temporal priority. Logically prior conditions for X are simply the necessary states of affairs if X is to be considered true.  In order for a flower to be yellow light must exist. This does not require that light exists before color exists temporally, just that the existence of light is a necessary condition for the existence of color. Light is therefor logically prior to color but not necessarily temporally prior to color.

Fine tuning requires a set of parameters. If every radio frequency broadcasts KKPW then I can not fine tune my radio tuner to receive KKPW. If there were infinite radio frequencies, then what frequency I decided to set my radio at to listen to KKPW would be completely arbitrary. There must be some logically prior set of required parameters, only within which I can receive the KKPW signal, if I want to fine tune my radio to receive KKPW. If all of infinite radio frequencies received KKPW then stumbling upon a radio playing KKPW's morning show should not lead me to believe that someone had fine tuned the radio to KKPW.

Does the arbitrary frequency, to which the discovered radio receiving KKPW is tuned, imply an act of selection? A radio receiver has to be tuned to some frequency, so how does any frequency imply selection?

I really don't see how your objection applies to my argument. I've tried to, but I still don't.

Understand that there are roughly 100 to 500 billion galaxies in the observable universe.  In each of these galaxies there are roughly 200 billion stars.  Combine these numbers gives you a figure between 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 and 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars.  Considering we may yet find life in our own solar system (the building blocks of life have been found on Mars, Enceledus, & Europa) this gives us a rather high probability of life of some sort existing in the universe.

As to the big bang argument, actually the factors aren't that sensitive, for example we could remove one of the four fundamental forces entirely, the weak force, and the universe would be just about the same, except no radioactive elements like uranium, etc.

 

Also it's a big jump from "wow this is pretty improbable" to "wow god must have done this".  I could refer you the the probability of getting a specific hand by shuffling a deck of cards, I think its 1 in some billion probability.  Also the probability that all your relatives would meet, have sex, the particular lucky sperm would find the particularly lucky egg and have your descendant, etc, etc, till you were born.  You don't think god did that do you?  I hope not.

 

Then there's the difficult situation of figuring out which god did it, since there are multiple competing gods out there, you'd have to find some sort of way to discredit the other gods that didn't discredit your own, good luck with that.

 

Hi Nigel,

This is precisely what we really don't know about the fine tuning conditions, if there is a mathematical necessity here it's not one that we can sensibly argue at this juncture which forces us to deal with some degree of an anthropic principle until we can.

I haven't been ignoring your other post, by the way, I've just been really engrossed in the conversation with Vessel and hadn't got around to responding to you yet.

There's no question of that in my mind.  Of the three the multiverse is the one that actually has a sensible cohesive argument associated with it. By virtue of that it must be given due respect. 

I'm aware of cosmological natural selection, just to properly clarify my position on this AP issue, I'll be no less glad if Smolin's process is found proven and does invalidate the anthropic principle, I have no attachment to AP and don't think it has any earth shattering potential either way. When it comes to Smolin's work I am actually more baited for the future ramifications of RQM, dissing the anthropic principle is just fly swatting in comparison.

How can I dress a first mover at all when my initial contention excludes any meaning of the word first from the statement? What part of forget time did you miss the memo on?

Vessel`

I am thinking our conversation is getting a little bogged down in speculation and dissidence without underscoring the actual topic of the thread so I've decided to start afresh on a clean page, hopefully steer the course of the discussion more directly to the anthropic principle and then answer your questions as they apply to my side of the fence on this.

First the anthropic principle and what I had meant by the word arbitrary.

This is a very big universe, if you were going to consider the ordinary chance of carbon-based life evolving in this universe you would expect to find some indication from the physical state of the universe that the parameters within which the conditions for life were able to develop were somewhat free over a large deviation, you'd expect to find a 'Star Trek' universe. 

They're not, and it's not.

The conditions for carbon based life developing seem to be highly extravagantly specific. The universe, big as it is, and small and insignificant seeming as we are, springs from this extraordinarily narrow band of physical parameters that decree carbon based life. This is the whole universe we are talking about, a universe with no sentience or reason attributed to it, meaning that it really should not care what comes of its being.

This gigantic universe's utterly arbitrary path through existence did not seem to stumble upon some small pocket of life that was likely over large degrees of freedom, the conditions that exist tend to exclude this possibility. What appears to be is that it's initial conditions bound it firmly to the eventual existence of a golden age in a goldilocks zone of carbon based life forms. In a way if there was a blueprint of the entire potential of the universe we are in at dot then carbon based life, right here, right now was locked into it from the first moment.  It was not inevitable because there is a large chance of carbon based life happening, it was inevitable because the baby steps of the universe were directly toward it.  This is why the anthropic principle is latched onto by creator claims, it is a compelling argument, but I, like any atheist despise "God did it" s, so I am honestly not making that claim here.

So to your questions now, Vessel.  In your analogy KKPW is these 'baby steps' of the universe.  We are tuned into KKPW and the arbitrary positioning of the universes listening at this band directly corresponds to us existing. In relation to our specific existence there is only KKPW. If the self same thing were happening on another band broadcasting KKPW to another universe of carbon based life, in relation to them there would only be their band and their KKPW.

Ideally we could know if another band of KKPW parameters did support life that is exactly like ours, but we don't have a way to do that so we're in speculative territory here. What we can say from your question is that if an alternate band broadcasting KKPW to another universe was in every way the analogue of our situation then their band would be in direct relation to their existence, their universe would still appear to move in a direct line in which their existence was assured and inevitable across the expanse of time.  Their universe took an arbitrary path along the paths within their system which was in direct relation to their existence.

 

Now the question of logical priors vs temporal priors.

You wrote:

I see what you are saying Vessel, yet I will still contend that your logical priority is based on temporality and this is why. Light is only logically prior to a flower being yellow in temporal terms. The light travels from the source to the flower, the flower's atomic and cellular structure auspices the absorption of energies corresponding to the spectrum of light with the exception of the colour yellow, yellow light is reemitted then, recieved by the eye of an observer and transferred to the brain to be translated as a recognisable colour. This is a logical sequence over a dimension of time lending to light being a logical priority.

Take time completely out of the picture and the logical priority for a flower to be yellow must occur at the very instant that flower=yellow. This relationship exists in the observers decision framework, in consciousness. Thus the logical priority here is that the observed state of the flower is, wrt the observers conscious state, yellow.

Linear Time is a very pervasive concept, and it is somewhat unintuitive to conceive of physical relationships without assuming a sequence over time, so I don't expect you to immediately agree with me on this. nevertheless, the existence of some thing as a logical prior necessarily assumes a flow of time, in the absence of a flow of time, not a single thing has existence prior to anything else, Space-Time, the very fabric on which anything we observe exists, is not continuous. It is not linked up with infinitely smaller subsections merging into one another. The existence of light does not spill precedence over into the existence of yellow, they are as discrete from each other as a spoon to a fork - a similarly constructed chunk of similar material in two distinct forms wholly unreliant on each other.

Two points not addressed by the basic AP argument:

1. We have no basis for even assigning a probability to any of the constants having the value it has, because we really don't know what constraints there may be on the range of plausible values it could have.

2. No attempt is normally made to assess the probability that, while a significant variation of any one 'constant' would render the universe unsuitable for some form of life, there could be a whole range of values which would work if the other constants also had significantly different values. Some work which has been done here shows that there could easily be many 'islands' of life-friendly recipes or combinations of values in the 6-dimensional value-space of possible values.

So it really is pure speculation, and the 'God' solution of course in no way is a reasonable response unless we can say confidently that the conditions needed for a God to exist are highly probable, which of course is inherently pure un-founded speculation about an intrinsically un-knowable entity.

Once you consider time as a more complex, possibly circular dimension, or bring in quantum observer effects, then you have another set of potential solutions. A Universe like ours then could virtually determine that conditions that are more likely to bring it into existence will, by that very fact, be more likely to come into combination. IOW the Universe determines its own initial conditions, entirely independent of any outside entity, and in an entirely (quantum) mechanistic way. Paul Davies expressed something like this recently. You can, at a stretch, and without adding usefully to the idea, see this as consistent with a pantheist view.

Understandable. He's much more engaging, and actually cares about the philosophical arguments.

 

My apologies, Ma'am. I read more into your post than you actually stated. Mea culpa. (I tend not to read signatures. Sorry. I should've. And your comments definitely lean to panentheism, so it was just laziness on my part that I misconstrued your commments.)

What you describe is the strong anthropic principle. The weak merely states that we observe the finely-tuned universe because the finely-tuned universe exists. No entity (other than us, as observers) required. So it's not because it's the anthropic principle, but the strong anthropic principle.

That's the only hair I'll split. Really.

So, you're proposing an auto-panentheistic entity? A self-directed universe? I'm not quite sure what you are proposing for this entity that isn't readily explained by nature itself. If the entity is of our natural universe, then it is constrained by the laws of our universe, Are you suggesting something similar to Seth Lloyd's universe-as-quantum-computer proposal?

Given all that, and your statement that the constants are logically prior, not not necessarily temporally prior, are you suggesting that the physical constants of the universe are malleable, and have been altered since the first few picoseconds of the universe? Or, did the entity exist within the time between the singularity and the point at which the constants in the universe became fixed? Do you think the arrow of time may have been reversed at different "times" in the universe, thus avoiding the logically prior/temporally prior maxim? Or is it that the singularity/entity relationship is logically prior to the state of the universe?

I'm asking these questions not to build a challange, as these are questions that cannot be answered empirically at this time, with our current knowledge. Rather, I'm intrigued by your line of reasoning, and I'd like to know more about some of the necessary details.

Thanks for kicking my ass over my assumptions. I sometimes jump the gun in an argument, thinking I've seen it before, when in fact I'm just being an asshole. It's humbling, but reassuring to be reminded I'm not necessarily the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

                                                                                                           - Tony

This has really been covered by DeludedGod, in particular, but on re-reading the OP, I would like to point out a very specific fallacy in bringing in the improbability of conditions on planet being suitable for life. This is a much lower order problem than the strict Anthropic Principle. Whatever merit it had has effectively evaporated with recent discoveries which seem to indicate that the likelihood of stars having a retinue of planets, of a range of sizes and compositions, is much higher than used to be assumed.

So the chances of there NOT being a planet suitable for life like ours somewhere in the universe may well be astronomically small, given the fundamental properties of our Universe. These properties are the argument, the 'suitable planet' thing is not an issue which should be considered 'on top of' the basic question. It is better seen as another way of looking at the AP, ie why are the fundamental properties such as to lead to a Universe where planets are so common.