Mapping the Fine-Tuning Argument: My First Objections

This is the third installment of my blog series "Mapping the Fine-Tuning Argument" in which I examine the notion that there might just be one type of universe that is mathematically consistent.

Let's take a look at the first four statements of the fine-tuning argument:

1. It is conceptually possible to change physical laws and constants from observed values.

2. Conceptually changing some constants from their observed values (independently) would make the universe uninhabitable for life as we know it. NOTE: What I mean by changing "independently" is when someone changes the constant value in their equation without changing the value(s) of any other constants.

3. The constants have an extremely large range of conceptually possible values.

4. Therefore, the number of values that permit life is very small.


The problem with this argument lies with (4) being drawn from (1), (2), and (3). Although it may be conceptually possible (premise one) to change physical values from their observed values, that does not imply that it is logically (or physically) possible (as stated in premise 4). Here's an example: If I ask you what 1048 plus 69 is, you probably would not know off the top of your head, and so it would seem "possible" in your mind that the correct answer is 1107 when actually the answer is 1117 and could not be otherwise out of mathematical necessity. Likewise, the values of the constants might be what they are out of mathematical necessity (what if there is some fundamental mathematical principle that determines them all?) even though we don't see how. Of course, we have no proof that this is the case, so perhaps it would better to think of what I just stated as the "mathematical necessity" hypothesis (a possible explanation which may or may not be true) and to compare it to the God hypothesis at a later date. Nevertheless, we still have a valid objection to the fine-tuning argument, even if it is somewhat weak, in my opinion.

Robin Collins, a well-known proponent of the fine-tuning argument, has this to say about the above objection:

"[T]he problem with postulating such a law is that it simply moves the improbability of the fine-tuning up one level, to that of the postulated physical law itself. As astrophysicists Bernard Carr and Martin Rees note 'even if all apparently anthropic coincidences could be explained [in terms of some grand unified theory], it would still be remarkable that the relationships dictated by physical theory happened also to be those propitious for life'" (1979, p. 612). [See his paper "God, Design, and Fine Tuning"].

I find this response faulty on several grounds: first, God is improbable, and so attributing the fine-tuning to God also transfers the improbability upwards. So, if the "mathematical necessity" hypothesis suffers from the flaw of not resolving the improbability of the universe, then so does Collins' alternative proposal (God).

Second, we must live in a universe that is logically possible, and so if there is only one kind of universe that is logically possible it would have to be our kind. Why is it that Collins missed this objection? Maybe he is thinking that, if we ignore the fact of our own existence momentarily, then it would seem improbable that any one type of universe is logically (or mathematically) necessary (as long as we have no mathematical proofs that one type of universe actually is necessary). The a priori probability of our universe being the only mathematically possible one does indeed seem low. However, the fact that we know our universe exists means that it must be completely logically and mathematically consistent. We do not know this about the other "universes" scientists might describe in their equations. If we grant the hypothesis that only kind of universe is consistent, then our universe must be of that kind. So the only question of probability is this: what are the odds that only one kind of universe is mathematically consistent? I cannot for the life of me think of how probable or improbable this proposal is, or even how to go about putting a probability on this hypothesis. So, in my eyes, the mathematical necessity hypothesis has an unknown initial probability.

Another point against Collins' objection is that if there is some mathematically necessary way that the universe must be, then not even God could have any leeway in altering that fact, since logically impossible and mathematically impossible feats cannot be done, period (this, by the way, is conceded by most theologians nowadays). So "transferring the improbability" to a mathematically necessary principle is not something that theists can use to their advantage, since God could not explain the percieved improbability of this anyway.

Mapping the Fine-Tuning Argument: A Simple Break-Down

This is the second installment of my blog series "Mapping the Fine-Tuning Argument" in which I try to give a simple, common-sense breakdown of the argument.

The idea behind it is this: Physicists know what numbers that they should plug in to their equations to describe certain physical laws and forces. But no one knows why our universe had to have the numbers it does and not some other numbers. For example, why does light have to travel at 186,000 miles per second rather than 200,000 miles per second or 50,000 miles per second (or any other number we can imagine)? What's more is that, when physicists change some of the numbers that they use in their equations (even to a very small degree), it appears that the universe described in their equations would not support life as we know it. It seems that out of all the logically possible universes, very few would support life (as we know it, anyway). How do we explain that? Many believers argue that God is the explanation. I suppose they believe that God would have wanted life to exist, and so if God exists there is a 100% chance that our universe will exist with all the laws of physics having values that will allow life to exist. However, if chance is behind the laws of the universe, then our existence would be very, very improbable. Of course, many will object that chance is not the only alternative to God, and they are right. In later blog posts I will discuss the alternatives. But for now, suffice it to say that believers tend to argue that the alternative explanations are contrived or in some way not as good as the theisitic explanation.

Mapping the Fine-Tuning Argument: The Argument Stated

This is the first installment of my blog series "Mapping the Fine-Tuning Argument" in which I state my version of the argument and compare it to othe statements of the argument that I have seen and why I believe my statement is better.

I was warned by a fellow blogger that stating the argument my way might get me into trouble. However, I believe that my argument is clear, fair, and I am more than willing to consider revising it if someone thinks differently. Moreover, I believe that the following three syllogisms are a clearer and more valid exposition of the argument than has been seen to date. Take William Lane Craig's version: The fine tuning is due to chance, necessity, or design. It is not due to chance or necessity. Therefore, it is due to design. This syllogism does not spell out the reasoning of why design must be inferred. It does not even attempt to argue that the fine-tuner is God. Anyway, I am spelling out the argument and I will consider how proponents could support the premises in further installments:


(A) 1. It is conceptually possible to change physical laws and constants from observed values.

2. Conceptually changing some constants from their observed values (independently) would make the universe uninhabitable for life as we know it. NOTE: What I mean by changing "independently" is when someone changes the constant value in their equation without changing the value(s) of any other constants.

3. The constants have an extremely large range of conceptually possible values.

4. Therefore, the number of values that permit life is very small.

5. Applying the principle of indifference (assigning equal probabilities to possibilities which, as far as we can tell, are equal) leads us to conclude that any one particular value for these constants only had a small probability of occurring in our universe, because there are so many possibilities.

6. Since any one specific value has a low probability, and life friendly values are limited to one or a few possibilities out of all the possibilities, the probability of a life-friendly universe is extremely small (since we are assigning all possibilities an equal probability).



(B) 1. Theories which predict a very specific state of affairs (which would otherwise have a low probability of occurring) gain probability for themselves when this state of affairs is verified.

2. The hypothesis that God exists predicts a life-friendly universe.

3. A life friendly universe is an improbable state of affairs.

4. Therefore the God hypothesis predicts an improbable state of affairs.

5. A life-friendly universe exists.

6. Since the God hypothesis predicts an improbable state of affairs (a life friendly universe) (4) which has been verified to exist (5), this increases the probability that the God hypothesis is correct (1).



(C) 1. When multiple hypotheses predict the same state of affairs, we judge them by other criteria, such as simplicity, explanatory scope, explanatory power, etc. If there is a hypothesis that outstrips its competitors in these criteria, then we judge that it is probably correct.

2. There are multiple hypotheses that explain fine-tuning, but the God hypothesis outstrips them all.

3. Therefore, the God hypothesis is probably correct.

Zachary Moore - Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot

Luke over at Common Sense Atheism has recently done a really good interview with Zachary Moore about Evolution and Creationism:

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=7748

Check it out!

By the way, Philosopher Antony Flew has passed away. It's ashame that he was not as sharp in the past few years as he was throughout most of his life. The christian apologists who took advantage of him and used him to market their religion were a real disrespect to atheists generally (because Flew was so influential). I reviewed "Flew's" book (which he may not have written much of, see here) a year and a half ago, but if you reall want to honor his memory, I suggest reading one or two of his excellent papers on philsophy.

Books that I Want

So many good books have come out lately that I am having a very difficult time choosing the ones I want. Here are the ones I want:

The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails- Even though I've read a ton of books criticizing Christianity, this book looks really good. I have a feeling this might be a kind of end-all for critiques of Christianity; that is, that this might be the greatest critique of Christianity ever compiled.

The Case Against the Case for Christ by Robert M. Price. Robert Price is an excellent writer, and I'd love to read his criticism of Lee Strobel's infamous book.

The Eerie Silence: Renewing Our Search for Alien Intelligenceby Paul Davies. The title says it all. Looks fascinating.

From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time- I've been very curious about the nature of time lately, and I think this would fit the bill. I'd also be interested in reading a philosophical book on the nature of time, so if anyone has any suggestions, please leave them in the comments.

Good Summary of an Interesting Theory

Over at the secular web there is an interesting summary of Julian Jaynes' work on consciousness and the human mind:

http://secweb.infidels.org/article813.html

I have no idea whether the theory is correct (and in fact, I suspect it isn't) nevertheless it is still interesting and worth a read.

Mapping the Fine-Tuning Argument

I'm thinking about starting a series. Luke Muelhauser over at Common Sense Atheism has been running a series called "Mapping the Kalam". I'm thinking about doing a similar series: "Mapping the Fine-Tuning Argument".

The idea would be to start out with purely logical/philosophical objections to the argument and then work our way into objections that have more to do with physics.

I'm aware of the multiverse objections (including Lee Smolin's cosmological natural selection hypothesis). I've also made a short laundry list of various other objections I know about it. But until I get the series up and running, I'd like my readers to post (in the comments) all the objections you know of, and preferably include a source for who argued the claim (a philosophical paper, book, etc.).