Suppose that some force did tune the constants to those values. Why assume that it was in order to permit *life*? Those values are necessary for complex structures of all kinds. What's the argument for thinking that life was the goal?
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Because the only life we know of in a tiny dot within the vastness without known life that has existed for a tiny fraction of the time the dot has existed believes it has to be special?
That „force“ might not even be aware of us. What if it’s experimenting with different „values“ and only able to observe the universe as a single, instant event without the details or timespan within?
We suppose the possibility of tuning, a supposition we lean in to because we confuse our model of reality (physics) with reality itself. The model includes numbers, and we can vary numbers. But to suppose reality itself is similarly tunable is an illusion & much of the way to begging the question.
There is none. Probably something like cosmological natural selection is the case and we are, for example, in a goldilocks zone of universes in terms of of laws of physics and complexity.
I guess an analogy with what Philip thinks would be if God were limited to existing materials and there was no greeness to colour the cat. However, He had blueness and yellowness, and knew that if he made cats of each and just waited, they might eventually interbreed and make green cats.
Because it’s a worthwhile valuable goal with meaning and purpose? An opportunity for the excursion of consciousness and for interaction and learning? What other complex structures provide such things?
I don't think it's necessarily an assumption. FT (if we forget about the multiverse explanation) is evidence for design. Design implies a designer. There are many possible design hypotheses. FT alone doesn't favour a God valuing life, but other considerations could potentially swing it.
Quite. So, as you say yourself, those values are required for complex structures of all kinds. So it's a good guess that whatever it is that is intended, it's something complex, if not just complexity itself. Life is not all that implausible a candidate, but there are others.
I think for Philip and other theists the value of the FT argument is to help open minds to the idea of some sort of purpose or design, and then the argument that God was designing for life specifically would come from other sources, whether revelation or moral realism/DCT or the ontological argument
Do you think the tendency toward entropy is sufficient for
“design”? The tendency to entropy naturally selects those things which resist entropy longer. Interactions between things that last longer can lead to new things, specifically new things that last yet longer. I think this is Assembly Theory
You are all still making the mistake of thinking like human beings. If we are biologically programmed to seek out meaning and purpose, we are likely to find it wherever we want it to be, whether it's really there or not.
I quite like Lee Smolin's hypothesis that the constants are tuned to maximise black hole production (which in turn maximises the number of offspring universes).
Even that, more limited, assertion still assumes that some deeper fundamental purpose exists outside the value systems inherent in sentient beings. In the system I'm arguing for, purpose exists exclusively as one of the properties of consciousness. If we evolved, so did C, which includes purpose.
These people just don't like "shit happens" as a philosophy, do they?
The fine tuning argument is essentially people being surprised they get mice when they scatter crumbs over their kitchen floor and don't clean regularly.
Humans are the consequence of the universe not cleaning up its shit.
I'm not sure I’d agree with that. The more I've learned about biology the more I've been impressed by its vast multilevel complexity, and I'm doubtful that even AI will get anywhere close to capturing that any time soon.
The fact that the physical constants allow for complexity is very strong evidence against theism. Complexity is only necessary for consciousness under naturalism; under theism, God could associate life and consciousness with anything at all.
Exactly. The "this universe" argument can be used against theism. The probability that God would have created this exact universe is vanishingly small, since he could have created an infinite number of universes that contained life.
The ex nihilo nihil fit principle entails that the initial
conditions of the Universe are (or can be) brute facts, so no further explanation is necessarily required.
If the values were set as part of the initial conditions, then they are brute facts. If they weren't, then it implies values which can vary and therefore not fine tuned.
I don’t see why necessity should matter for likelihood? I don’t see why anything that is physically necessary but not metaphysically necessary is “very strong” evidence for atheism (I actually separately seriously doubt that metaphysical necessity is a meaningful way to speak)
Under physicalism it is assumed consciousness arises from complexity. To then argue that the existence of required complexity is evidence for physicalism would be begging the question.
Fluid dynamics is emergent and so is consciousness. It's how we use language to describe a heuristic process.
Consciousness is a word we use to describe a process of a complex arrangement of particles that we identify as the brain and has no barring on the fundamental nature of reality.
I cannot imagine consciousness without it having some kind of structure (including unconscious structures that support it) that changes over time. So, maybe God (or a kid working on his homework one universe up) needed to create a fine-tuned physical world in order to create consciousness.
I agree, but suppose the target here is Philip Goff, who thinks that consciousness can exist without any particular physical structure (panpsychism). Then the point being discussed suggests a tension in Philip's view.
I believe structure is needed even under panpsychism, but it should be 'underlied' by conscious bits that can be combined into macro-consciousnesses. And the properties of the macro-C depends on the structure of the bits. So, if Philip believes C is possible without structure, I am suprised.
C doesn't require any *particular* structure. It may require something all right. Maybe complex consciousness requires conscious structure on panpsychism. Not clear if that's an obstacle for God, who can potentially do anything that's logically possible.
Philip's God is not omnipotent. God's C can be different than ours (e.g. timeless). Either God's C also requires structure (expected under pantheism, but Philip is panentheist) or not. If not, then structureless C is possible. Altough I am not sure why should we call it C, if it is that different.
Yes, surely in theism, no physical complexity is required - no *physicality* at all is required - for consciousness. The soul takes care of it, as presumably we are still consciousness when we head off to heaven (or hell).
I think there may be a subtle difference between what the two of you are saying. I took @keithfrankish.bsky.social to saying this undermines fine-tuning argument for God. I don't think that's right because in Bayesian arguments you keep everything except the evidence in the background knowledge.
But @seanmcarroll.bsky.social seems to be saying this is evidence against God. I'm open to that but it'd be evidence against an all-powerful God. I think the evidence points to a limited God, who can't choose the form of physics but can fiddle with the numbers. Does what either of you are saying..
I formalised this argument, synthesised the discourse around it and explored objections to it in my MSc thesis a while ago -- unfortunately v rare ppl engage with it
A brief overview of the argument here - you'll have to read the whole thing for a full exposition @keithfrankish.bsky.social @philipgoff.bsky.social @seanmcarroll.bsky.social
And me, although what I'm saying, I think, people will find more radical and counterintuitive. It's hard not to think like a human being when you are one. 😏
Comments
Or at least some of it says.
“design”? The tendency to entropy naturally selects those things which resist entropy longer. Interactions between things that last longer can lead to new things, specifically new things that last yet longer. I think this is Assembly Theory
The fine tuning argument is essentially people being surprised they get mice when they scatter crumbs over their kitchen floor and don't clean regularly.
Humans are the consequence of the universe not cleaning up its shit.
I don't think there's such an argument with uncontroversial premises.
The ex nihilo nihil fit principle entails that the initial
If the values were set as part of the initial conditions, then they are brute facts. If they weren't, then it implies values which can vary and therefore not fine tuned.
And I think consciousness, like everything else brains do, is computation, which is pretty elementary.
Consciousness is a word we use to describe a process of a complex arrangement of particles that we identify as the brain and has no barring on the fundamental nature of reality.
Bohr is still correct about that.
Honestly though the logical stand is agnostic at best.
Life being a goal is nonsensical as it puts limitations on what a god can or cannot do based on the laws of nature.
At that point a god is no different than a technologically advanced alien