tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post368390049033178196..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Plantinga on DennettVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger130125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63766055973615958342011-04-25T10:05:23.999-07:002011-04-25T10:05:23.999-07:00DL,
This is boring.
"You know that as soon ...DL,<br /><br />This is boring.<br /><br /><i>"You know that as soon as you concede that physical and supernatural fine-tuning are analogous, theism will be found even more wanting than naturalism. For every possible physical universe, there are just lots more supernatural possibilities"</i><br /><br />You continue to beat this hobbyhorse, trying to make an equivalence between two completely different things. Your stubborn refusal to make relevant distinctions is a particularly amateur form of sophistry, as several others have already pointed out. You'd flunk your math class if you did Bayes that way.<br /><br />There are many better, less boring arguments against fine-tuning you could use. Please move on to something more interesting.JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32181412104866878592011-04-25T09:54:18.449-07:002011-04-25T09:54:18.449-07:00How can the Creator and the Created ever be analog...How can the Creator and the Created ever be analogous?<br /><br />God as Creator creates and sustains all that is seen and unseen.<br /><br />The Creature is doing a bang up job of ruining the planet.<br /><br />How can they ever be analogous?<br /><br />God as Creator reaches down.<br /><br />We as the creature try to reach up to bring God down.<br /><br />How can they ever be analogous?<br /><br />God discloses something of Himself and His actions. Or we would never know a thing about this Creator.<br /><br />The creature seeks desparetely to be significant for a few years then it disappears into the dust from whence it came.<br /><br />How can they ever be analogous?<br /><br />It is naturalism that always be found wanting because naturalism cannot bear the weight of ultimate explanations and account for all the knowledge that we need to know.GREVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10415494137313565242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35158189026120605532011-04-25T06:54:21.239-07:002011-04-25T06:54:21.239-07:00Karl,
You know that as soon as you concede that p...Karl,<br /><br />You know that as soon as you concede that physical and supernatural fine-tuning are analogous, theism will be found even more wanting than naturalism. For every possible physical universe, there are just lots more supernatural possibilities. And there are even supernatural possibilities in the absence of physical worlds. So, why, of all possible theistic worlds, does our world look just like a physical world? Theism does not explain this. Theism is conistent with it, but theism is consistent with almost anything we might possibly find.<br /><br />The fine-tuning issue is important in physics as a discussion about physical constants, but the fine-tuning argument for God is a joke because God is far more fine-tuned than our physical universe.Doctor Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182745193512661770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20839185084473511402011-04-25T06:49:12.955-07:002011-04-25T06:49:12.955-07:00Karl,
1) Have we ever observed variability of phy...Karl,<br /><br />1) Have we ever observed variability of physical constants anywhere in the universe that prevent stars (or life) from forming once the universe has cooled down?<br /><br />No.<br /><br />2) Can we imagine a counterfactual universe that would have different constants?<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />3) Are these other counterfactual universes logically impossible (e.g., like 2+2=5)?<br /><br />No. (With what we know so far about the independence of the constants)<br /><br />4) Do we think that it is unlikely we will see the physical constants change?<br /><br />Yes, because of induction. It's why we get up in the morning.<br /><br />You claim that things like vampires and other creatures invulnerable to physical attacks are logically impossible, like 2+2=5. But they are not logically impossible, and there are even claimed observations of such creatures. If God wants to make a supernatural creature appear before me, that's not logically impossible. If you think it's logically impossible, then go ahead and tell us where the LOGICAL (and not INDUCTIVE) contradiction is.<br /><br />You won't be able to do it. So if you want to consider the space of all physical constants, even those beyond what we have observed, then the naturalist is equally justified in considering the space of all supernatural possibilities beyond what we have observed.<br /><br />Look, even if no observation of changes in physical constants had ever been made, the fine-tuning argument would still apply. And it would still apply equally well to theistic models, too.Doctor Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182745193512661770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17185680885360231872011-04-25T06:28:58.559-07:002011-04-25T06:28:58.559-07:00Doctor Logic,
So, you're response is pretty m...Doctor Logic,<br /><br />So, you're response is pretty much <i>No, it's not!</i> The 'pop' science articles, as you call them, provide links to the peer reviewed journals that the research was published and I suspect any scientist who supports a theory that contradicts what you believe is a 'crank.'After all, its not like you provided a detailed rebuttal or even a link to somebody critiquing the work.<br /><br />Second, we can predict what it takes for stars to form, remember what I said about the Mass 5/8 Bottleneck (a point you keep refusing to address).<br /><br />Third, the fact there are frauds who claim to be Christ returned in no way damages Christian theology any more than the fact that the recent Climategate scandal reduces the vladity of climate research or the fact that Hwang Woo-suk turned out to be a fraud damages the stem cell research field. And you are still appealing to ignorance (<i>there are so many possibilities, we can't know</i>).<br /><br />And finally, and I have said this before, there is a difference in taking an equation like z + y = 4x-9x^2 and seeing what happens when you substitute different values for X and Y and what you are doing (what if 2+2 = 5). Anyway, this conversation has dragged on for over a week and I grow bored with plodding, close-minded stubbornness. I'll let you have the last word if you wish.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32662665816780339462011-04-25T06:03:26.374-07:002011-04-25T06:03:26.374-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70969992227645313182011-04-24T22:52:22.031-07:002011-04-24T22:52:22.031-07:00Karl,
You're wasting your time.
First of al...Karl,<br /><br />You're wasting your time. <br /><br />First of all, this work on fluctuating constants is speculative. It's not mainstream physics. That's why you quoted two pop science articles, a crank site (photontheory), and an unpublished paper from a team not affiliated with a physics department. The NSW team is just one result.<br /><br />Second, even if it were mainstream (which it isn't), it obviously doesn't significantly affect the habitability of spacetime. It's not as if we look out and see regions of space where the constants are so different that stars cannot form. That means that the *observed* fluctuations are not of the variety relevant to the fine-tuning problem as you conceive it. <br /><br />Third, even if we suppose the variation could be radical across all space (even if not yet observed), that actually makes our universe a microcosm of the multiverse, i.e., it could be that all values of the constants are realized throughout the universe, so there's inevitably a place that's friendly for life.<br /><br />Finally, if these sorts of variations are fair game, then the same standard should apply to theology.<br />http://tinyurl.com/3mb9hln<br /><br />There are thousands of religious cults with various different supernatural schemes (dozens within Christianity alone), some of them radically different. And they're a hell of a lot more radical than the kinds of changes to physical constants speculated upon by physicists.<br /><br />If different physical constants are fair game for physicists, then OBSERVED fairies, vampires, medusas, dragons, cyclopses, ghosts, etc. are certainly fair game for supernaturalists.Doctor Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182745193512661770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22742831664376814902011-04-24T14:04:32.685-07:002011-04-24T14:04:32.685-07:00Also, some theoretical models for a grand unified ...Also, some theoretical models for a grand unified field theory actually <b>predict</b> this kind of violation of the constants in order to reconcile the different equations.<br /><br />http://photontheory.com/willis.htm<br /><br />So maybe you shouldn't go on too much about the constants while at the same time espousing a grand unified theory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17779652813268266422011-04-24T13:48:19.479-07:002011-04-24T13:48:19.479-07:00Doctor Logic,
Oh, I know what the gravitational c...Doctor Logic,<br /><br />Oh, I know what the gravitational constant is. You just used the word gravity in your post(<i>there's no actual evidence that gravity varies</i>) And you are pretty dumb for someone who claims to be a Doctor of Logic. Or you don't read scientific literature; more than a couple of university reasearch teams say the constants change. <br /><br />http://www.space.com/9122-physics-fundamental-cosmic-constant-shifty.html<br /><br />http://www.economist.com/node/16930866<br /><br />http://www.intalek.com/Papers/SiderealGravity.pdf<br /><br /><i>People who talk about alternate physics are IMAGINING those constants changing</i><br /><br />Really? Go tell that to astrophysicist John Barrow of the University of Cambridge or John Webb and Julian King of the University of New South Wales. I am sure they will be happy to hear some annoymous internet dumbass tell them they imagined their work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8380027977357268482011-04-24T12:55:46.956-07:002011-04-24T12:55:46.956-07:00Karl,
You're pretty arrogant for someone who ...Karl,<br /><br />You're pretty arrogant for someone who doesn't know what the gravitational constant is. Even if the gravitational constant is fixed, that doesn't mean that the force due to gravity (or spacial curvature) is the same everywhere. Even under Newton<br />F=GMm/r^2<br />So if you're near something massive, there's more gravitation. Force due to gravity isn't the same as G, which is a constant.<br /><br />Look, neither G, nor the electromagnetic constant, nor the weak coupling constant have ever been observed to change in the lab. At high energies, the forces look the same, but the constants don't change in the Standard Model. So you are just plain wrong about this. There are theories in which these constants might change, but none of those theories has been confirmed in the lab.<br /><br />So if you say the physical constants might change, you're pulling that possibility out of your butt.<br /><br /><i>The thing that you keep ignoring is that you are not computing consistent outcomes. You are computing outcomes you drug out of your imagination. </i><br /><br />Variable physical constants are coming out of your imagination. Go look up the Standard Model. You'll see that it has constants. They have values that do not change. People who talk about alternate physics are IMAGINING those constants changing - they are imaging alternate reality, and thinking there are an awful lot of imaginable alternate realities.<br /><br />If they want to do that, fine, but fair's fair.Doctor Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182745193512661770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26691483211100114772011-04-23T06:30:53.099-07:002011-04-23T06:30:53.099-07:00Doctor Logic,
The thing that you keep ignoring is...Doctor Logic,<br /><br />The thing that you keep ignoring is that you are not computing consistent outcomes. You are computing outcomes you drug out of your imagination. Or starting from assumptions that fly in the face of observed data (gravity does not vary indeed).<br /><br />And since you bring up Occam's Razor, allow me to quote Phil Gibbs at Physics FAQs (http://www.weburbia.com/physics/):<br /><br /><i>To begin with we used Occam's razor to separate theories which would predict the same result for all experiments. Now we are trying to choose between theories which make different predictions. This is not what Occam intended...The law of parsimony is no substitute for insight, logic and the scientific method. It should never be relied upon to make or defend a conclusion. As arbiters of correctness only logical consistency and empirical evidence are absolute.</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29496367948039030232011-04-23T06:18:38.714-07:002011-04-23T06:18:38.714-07:00Doctor Logic,
Wrong. Gravity does vary, even here...Doctor Logic,<br /><br />Wrong. Gravity does vary, even here on Earth. This had been observed, confirmed and documented. Further evidence that you don't hold a real doctorate.<br /><br />http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=465 <br /><br />And actually there <b>is</b> a difference between altering a known equation or known variable and what you are trying to do, which is asking What if 2 + 2 = 5.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71716251800880572192011-04-23T06:17:33.387-07:002011-04-23T06:17:33.387-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41824405781556565422011-04-23T06:17:04.815-07:002011-04-23T06:17:04.815-07:00Karl,
What we're trying to do here is decide ...Karl,<br /><br />What we're trying to do here is decide between two meta-theories. The physical theory isn't in question. What's in question is the origin of the physical theory. Broadly, the two meta theories are (a) an intelligence designed the physical theory for some purpose, or (b) the physical theory was not designed.<br /><br />In both cases, we can create fine-tuned meta-theories. (a.ft) the intelligence designed our universe to be exactly what it is, and the universe could not possibly have been any different because the purpose in question is to make the universe exactly the way we find it, and (b.ft) physics was not designed, but physics could not possibly have been any different, and so we end up in a universe exactly the way we find it.<br /><br />But (a.ft) and (b.ft) are fine-tuned, untestable, and not predictive. We can't infer anything from them, and no theory is more privileged (except that (b.ft) doesn't violate Ockham's Razor).<br /><br />To look at the relative merits of a non-fine-tuned theory of physics versus a non-fine-tuned theory of design, we have to consider non-trivial theories. For example, if you could show that there were far fewer ways to design universes supernaturally than there were ways to get naturalistic universes, then you would have a case. But the reverse is true! If you are going to consider all the ways physics could have been different, you must also consider all the ways supernatural universes could have been different.Doctor Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182745193512661770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17905144883046205982011-04-23T06:16:51.775-07:002011-04-23T06:16:51.775-07:00Doctor Logic,
Wrong. Gravity does vary, even here...Doctor Logic,<br /><br /><a href="http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=465" rel="nofollow">Wrong.</a> Gravity does vary, even here on Earth. This had been observed, confirmed and documented. Further evidence that you don't hold a real doctorate. <br /><br />And actually there <b>is</b> a difference between altering a known equation or known variable and what you are trying to do, which is asking What if 2 + 2 = 5.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47210670056945833432011-04-23T06:14:45.392-07:002011-04-23T06:14:45.392-07:00Karl,
Please, please look at Bayes Theorem:
P(T|...Karl,<br /><br />Please, please look at Bayes Theorem:<br /><br />P(T|E) = P(E|T) P(T)/ <br />(P(E|T) P(T) + P(E|~T) P(~T))<br /><br />This tells us how we should change our confidence in a theory, T, in light of new evidence, E.<br /><br />This equation relies on values like P(E|T) and P(E|~T). That is, what is the probability of finding the evidence given the theory, or "How much does T predict E?"<br /><br />And this gets counter weighted by the likelihood of finding E, even if T is false.<br /><br />So how do you compute P(E|T)? You have to look at all of the possible T-consistent outcomes consistent with E, and then divide by the number of T-consistent outcomes that are consistent with ~E. In other words, what fraction of the time will T produce E?<br /><br />Every T-consistent outcome has to be considered, even those that involve pulling imagines scenarios out of thin air.<br /><br />Obviously, I can tune T based on experiment so that it precisely predicts E and not ~E. That's what physics does in the lab. It means that P(E|T) is very close to 1. It's been tuned to do that. And fine-tuning is great when you have the experimental evidence to back it up.<br /><br />continued...Doctor Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182745193512661770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31704282610536898852011-04-23T06:13:24.398-07:002011-04-23T06:13:24.398-07:00Doctor Logic,
there's no actual evidence that...Doctor Logic,<br /><br /><i>there's no actual evidence that gravity varies or that it could have been different relative to electromagnetism. This possibility is being pulled out of thin air.</i><br /><br /><a href="http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=465" rel="nofollow">Wrong.</a> Further evidence that you don't hold a real doctorate. <br /><br /><i>There's no difference at all between that and asking "what if God had given us vampire abilities to overcome death by most material means?"</i><br /><br />Actually, there <b>is</b> a difference between altering a known equation or known variable and what you are trying to do, which is asking What if 2 + 2 = 5.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35164081886247648792011-04-23T05:48:08.840-07:002011-04-23T05:48:08.840-07:00GREV,
Gravitation is much weaker than electromagn...GREV,<br /><br />Gravitation is much weaker than electromagnetism, and electromagnetism is much weaker than the strong nuclear force at long distances. When physicists write these forces into a set of equations, the relative values of the constants representing those forces are correspondingly very different. At the end of the day, we're left with equations that describe the observable universe. These equations have been extremely successful.<br /><br />But then we can ask, whay are the laws of physics what they are?<br /><br />There might be no answer, but if we want to apply probability to the problem, we have to ask ourselves, how many other kinds of laws of physics could there have been?<br /><br />So we start changing the constants in the equations to explore that space of possibilities.<br /><br />But there's no actual evidence that gravity varies or that it could have been different relative to electromagnetism. This possibility is being pulled out of thin air.<br /><br />There's no difference at all between that and asking "what if God had given us vampire abilities to overcome death by most material means?"Doctor Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182745193512661770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56925282683776734312011-04-23T05:24:11.198-07:002011-04-23T05:24:11.198-07:00Andrew,
As Grev said, physicists don't make u...Andrew,<br /><br />As Grev said, physicists don't make up alternate scenarios out of nothing. Suppose I said it is possible that Lord Singshir of the Planet Intimi seeded human life on Earth a couple of hundred thousand years ago and propose this as an alternative to the theory of evolution. Now does the fact that I just made up that scenario and say it might be an alternative to the evolutionary theory lessen the odds against evolution having taken place? No, it does not. Now think about Doctor Logic's vampires and imaginary worlds; do they lessen the odds against God's existence? The answer is no. You say otherwise, you think your imagination can alter reality. <br /><br />Also, all known evidence needs to be counted in the probability distribution. Doctor Logic has already demonstrated that he is willing to ignore eyewitness testimony when creating his probability distribution; so what else is he willing to ignore?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50821810184794294762011-04-23T04:31:11.990-07:002011-04-23T04:31:11.990-07:00Andrew:
Unless I am mistaken the constants descri...Andrew:<br /><br />Unless I am mistaken the constants described by the physicists are not pulled out of their ... or thin air or in whatever imaginary way you seem to want or need to posit in defence of whatever you are defending.<br /><br />The constants are arrived at from observable data that gives the person good confidence in saying that this fine tuning is no mere accident.GREVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10415494137313565242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70473212864968638752011-04-22T21:21:36.136-07:002011-04-22T21:21:36.136-07:00Karl,
I think you’re confused.
DL is simply ju...Karl,<br /><br />I think you’re confused. <br /><br />DL is simply judging theism by the same standards that theists hold naturalism to when they launch the fine tuning argument. Thus, if the theist gets to assume a uniform probability for all possible naturalistic worlds (which he does when he makes the fine tuning argument), the naturalist has equal right to assign a uniform probability to all possible super-naturalistic worlds. <br /><br />By parity of argument, Bayesian priors are irrelevant: under fine tuning, probabilities are forced to be uniformly distributed across all possible outcomes (all possible permutations of physical constants), as opposed to being biased by naturalists’ Bayesian priors.<br /><br />“Also, talking about alternate possibilities you just made up is prohibited. Different theories based upon known facts are permitted. Things you pulled out of your ass are not” <br /><br />And why is that? Under the fine tuning argument the naturalist must accept the possibility that the gravitational constant could be some value that you “pulled out of your ass”, as opposed to the value that it actually is. Why can’t the naturalist do the same—that is, pull scenarios “out of his ass”—when he considers possible worlds that could obtain under theism?<br /><br />AndrewAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71169333772733963792011-04-22T16:24:19.566-07:002011-04-22T16:24:19.566-07:00Doctor Logic,
Then you should know that levels of...Doctor Logic,<br /><br />Then you should know that levels of knowledge and ignorance vary from person to person. Meaning somebody else is under no obligation to accept your personal view on the probability of theism versus atheism. Especially, if they know more about science and probability then you. <br /><br /><i>You can't just make up physical constants and alternative decay rates</i><br /><br />Show me one place were I made up physical constants and alternative decay rates. If you are talking about the Mass 5-8 bottleneck, that is an established fact of nuclear physics and what I said would not raise any eyebrows in your typical university or research lab. If you say I made it up, well, that is just further evidence that you are not a real doctor in math or science. <br /><br /><i>The world is what it is under naturalism...</i><br /><br />Question begging, Doctor Illogical. The validity of naturalism is what is being debated, amongst other things. <br /><br /><br />Also, talking about alternate possibilities <b>you just made up</b> is prohibited. Different theories based upon known facts are permitted. Things you pulled out of your ass are not (that includes flying spaghetti monster, pink unicorns, vampires and any other figments of your imagination.) <br /><br /><i>Unpleasant for you when you're the target and not the shooter, huh?</i><br /><br />I have not found this discussion unpleasant, I have found it very entertaining. So I think this statement reveals more about you and your frame of mind concerning debates than anything else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48547568236800684542011-04-22T11:22:01.183-07:002011-04-22T11:22:01.183-07:00Shackleman,
But what you *can't* do is sugges...Shackleman,<br /><br /><i>But what you *can't* do is suggest the odds of YOUR existence are favorable. Nothing could be further from the truth. Your existence is a near impossibility! And yet, here you are. Don't you feel special? You should! </i><br /><br />You quote giant magnitudes for the number of possible DNA base combinations in my genome as if the possible base permutations were independent variables.<br /><br />But they aren't independent, and that's why it's not so improbable that I have DNA that codes for me. There is a regularity that living things evolve through codes in their DNA. The odds of any evolved being matching its genetic blueprint are almost 1.<br /><br />However, the less you know about the relationships, the more unexplained and the more improbable things would seem. This is the reasoning you use when you look at fine-tuning. We don't know why the constants are the way they are. If they are independent variables, then they will seem awfully improbable. And that's a problem for naturalism if you have an alternative that has fewer degrees of freedom. BUT YOU DON'T!!! Theism has vastly more degrees of freedom. It has all the dgrees of freedom of naturalism times infinitely more supernatural degrees of freedom.Doctor Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182745193512661770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81045315379073135192011-04-22T10:33:33.694-07:002011-04-22T10:33:33.694-07:00Doctor L. -- :then you must also enumerate strange...Doctor L. -- :then you must also enumerate strange, alternative theistic worlds, and there are a hell of a lot more strange supernatural worlds "<br /><br />Which one is it? Theistic Worlds or Supernatural Worlds?<br /><br />There is a difference.GREVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10415494137313565242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59713302536266423832011-04-22T10:31:26.806-07:002011-04-22T10:31:26.806-07:00And following from that is I hope the obvious poin...And following from that is I hope the obvious point that this Creator is not reducible to the laws that govern how the universe came into being.GREVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10415494137313565242noreply@blogger.com