tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post7612888514900025962..comments2024-03-29T01:14:19.030-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Fine Tuning the puddle ArgumentJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-72475342247873267172021-06-28T23:11:28.356-07:002021-06-28T23:11:28.356-07:00https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2021/06/answering-i...https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2021/06/answering-i-m-skepticals-comments-on.html<br /><br /><br />new blog piece in which i extend upon these answersJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-51822808736406836482021-06-28T21:30:19.833-07:002021-06-28T21:30:19.833-07:00FT only takes fitedness as a basic assumption but ...FT only takes fitedness as a basic assumption but it does not stop there. It says we have numbers that show a life bearing universe is extremely improbable.<br /><br />Two problems with the probability-based fine-tuning argument:<br /><br />1 - There isn't a scientist, astrophysicist, or anyone else on this planet who actually has the information needed to make a realistic probability estimate. It's nothing more than a wild guess.<br /><br /><b>that is Bull shit, you are playing off of arguments that say there's empirical proof. That is far far cry from saying it's a wild guess. Lots of atheists scientists take the argument seriously</b><br /><br />2 - The actual probability doesn't matter, anyway. All it takes is one. One planet in all the universe that happens to be suitable to produce life as we see it - and here we are.<br /><br /><b>That is total bs and shows you don't understand the argument. One proves nothing we need to know the hit rate. The fewer examples the less probable, you are begging the question</b><br /><br />10:11 AM Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-43560541429766111272021-06-06T10:11:12.120-07:002021-06-06T10:11:12.120-07:00FT only takes fitedness as a basic assumption but ...<i>FT only takes fitedness as a basic assumption but it does not stop there. It says we have numbers that show a life bearing universe is extremely improbable.</i><br /><br />Two problems with the probability-based fine-tuning argument:<br /><br />1 - There isn't a scientist, astrophysicist, or anyone else on this planet who actually has the information needed to make a realistic probability estimate. It's nothing more than a wild guess.<br /><br />2 - The actual probability doesn't matter, anyway. All it takes is one. One planet in all the universe that happens to be suitable to produce life as we see it - and here we are.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-70874601479732291292021-06-01T00:20:39.028-07:002021-06-01T00:20:39.028-07:00Jim: The laws of nature are part of what I'm t...Jim: <i>The laws of nature are part of what I'm talking about. What is physical reality at the sub-atomic level, ultimately, but energy, and what is energy but causal dispositions, i.e .information, or abstract intelligible structure?</i><br /><br />That leaves me still wondering what you are saying. Okay, yes, the disposition of energy can be regarded as information or intelligible structure (but surely not abstract?!?). But that disposition seemingly arises from the laws of nature. It may be argued that therefore the laws of nature were designed - which is the fine-tuning argument essentially - but that does not imply the intelligible structures were themselves designed and created by an intelligent agency.<br /><br />Jim: <i>Planck length and Planck time suggest that physical reality is digital, or abstract, in nature. These features are what make the physical world so transparently accessible to our minds through language, knowledge and science, all of which operate abstractly through the use of universals.</i><br /><br />This sounds like the puddle argument. The universe appears to be so amenable to our observation because we evolved in it. For example, our eyes can see light that is transparent to the atmosphere of the planet not because the atmosphere was designed to be transparent for our benefit. Rather, our eyes evolved to utilise the wavelengths of light that are useful to survival.<br /><br />Jim: <i>Also, if some version of mental functionalism is right, and there's good reason to think it is, then the mind doesn't depend on some physical substance for realization but on an abstract organization.</i><br /><br />I am not familiar with "mental functionalism" and could not find anything on a quick Google. It sounds intriguing. Can you explain it? Or point me to a site that does?<br /><br />Pix<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-54142371712864001232021-05-28T21:00:34.915-07:002021-05-28T21:00:34.915-07:00Jim again:
Joe, this is in answer to Pix's qu...Jim again:<br /><br />Joe, this is in answer to Pix's question to me to be more specific about what I mean about intelligible structure.<br /><br />The laws of nature are part of what I'm talking about. What is physical reality at the sub-atomic level, ultimately, but energy, and what is energy but causal dispositions, i.e .information, or abstract intelligible structure? Planck length and Planck time suggest that physical reality is digital, or abstract, in nature. These features are what make the physical world so transparently accessible to our minds through language, knowledge and science, all of which operate abstractly through the use of universals.<br /><br />Also, if some version of mental functionalism is right, and there's good reason to think it is, then the mind doesn't depend on some physical substance for realization but on an abstract organization.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-81221500858434025242021-05-28T20:57:50.219-07:002021-05-28T20:57:50.219-07:00testingtestingJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-74375247235499418552021-05-28T11:18:58.683-07:002021-05-28T11:18:58.683-07:00Intelligible structure means we can we can underst...Intelligible structure means we can we can understand it. If not then science is a joke.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-2835167397669381942021-05-27T23:56:42.271-07:002021-05-27T23:56:42.271-07:00Jim: Intelligible structure is of fundamental impo...Jim: <i>Intelligible structure is of fundamental importance, which suggests that the universe is grounded in intelligibility and structure, not substance. This is what makes language, knowledge and science possible. While not absolute proof, this is exactly what we'd expect to find if intelligence rather than naturalism was behind the universe.</i><br /><br />Could you be more specific about what this "Intelligible structure" is? The structures we see around us in nature, from star to snowflakes are the inevitable consequences of the laws of nature.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-26199071047802223282021-05-27T20:36:55.626-07:002021-05-27T20:36:55.626-07:00I agree that not all information is a message but ...<br />I agree that not all information is a message but that all messages are information, and that not all information requires an intelligent sender.<br /><br />Intelligible structure is of fundamental importance, which suggests that the universe is grounded in intelligibility and structure, not substance. This is what makes language, knowledge and science possible. While not absolute proof, this is exactly what we'd expect to find if intelligence rather than naturalism was behind the universe.<br /><br /><b>Brilliant argument man! you could develop that into a book. <br />what do you mean by stricture not substance?</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-1379759107006321892021-05-27T20:31:06.234-07:002021-05-27T20:31:06.234-07:00Anonymous said...
Joseph Hinman's argument is ...Anonymous said...<br />Joseph Hinman's argument is that the evidence for the existence a god is missing because alien abductors in UFO's have taken it. Convenient story.<br /><br /><b>where did I say that?</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-69981614906026802962021-05-27T20:27:26.591-07:002021-05-27T20:27:26.591-07:00my friend Jim sends this comment:
Joe, I can'...my friend Jim sends this comment:<br /><br />Joe, I can't publish my comment. Here it is:<br /><br />I agree that not all information is a message but that all messages are information, and that not all information requires an intelligent sender.<br /><br />Intelligible structure is of fundamental importance, which suggests that the universe is grounded in intelligibility and structure, not substance. This is what makes language, knowledge and science possible. While not absolute proof, this is exactly what we'd expect to find if intelligence rather than naturalism was behind the universe.<br /><br /><br />Done.Got it.Will do.<br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-47552339770234946692021-05-27T13:12:55.778-07:002021-05-27T13:12:55.778-07:00Joseph Hinman's argument is that the evidence ...Joseph Hinman's argument is that the evidence for the existence a god is missing because alien abductors in UFO's have taken it. Convenient story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-2019492597139475142021-05-27T03:24:21.451-07:002021-05-27T03:24:21.451-07:00Joe: because the bits that are fit for living are ...Joe: <i>because the bits that are fit for living are too improbable</i><br /><br />Compared to what? The converse question is; how improbable is a creator? If the probability the universes was created by God is even smaller, then the multiverse (say) wins. And this is where the extreme inhospitality of the vast majority of the universe becomes important.<br /><br />Ancient people supposed the world was flat, with the sun and moon travelling across a domed roof. In this scenario, a creator makes sense. He built a world for mankind that suits mankind. Pretty much all of it is habitable. We now know that that is wrong, and that greatly reduces the probability that the universe was created for us. It is a vast waste to build a universe for someone who can only use 0.0000001% of it. What is the rest for?<br /><br />What is the probability of an intelligent being creating a universe for mankind where 99.999999% of that universe is not actually suitable for mankind? It does not make sense, which makes the probability of an intelligent agency behind it very improbable.<br /><br />Joe: <i>wrong I do get to. I as a communication major. Commination theory tells us a message has a sender, a receiver and content that is to be communicated, no sender violates the model thus is not a message.</i><br /><br />But you are <i>assuming</i> it is message. Why should I believe you?<br /><br />Joe: <i>there is a significant and obvious difference in information and a message. Not all info is a message. All messages are info.</i><br /><br />Agreed. So the fact that there is information does not necessarily imply a message. Again, why should I believe your assumption of a message?<br /><br />Pix: <i>we do not know enough about the fundamentals of the universe to know how unlikely it is</i><br /><br />Joe: <i>lots of major scientists think we do</i><br /><br />You are saying lots of major scientists think we know how unlikely the universe is? How come you have not cited any of them in your article?<br /><br />Well, here is your chance. Name a major scientist, and quote where he states how unlikely the universe is.<br /><br />Joe: <i>I have lots of answers on multiverse</i><br /><br />The only honest answer is: We do not know.<br /><br />You link to an article in your subsequent reply, supposedly giving ten reasons multiverse does not work. The first is "<i>Have to know hit rate for life bearing universes</i>". How can the existence of the multiverse possibly depend on human knowledge? If you are right, then when mankind gets to the point where we can estimate the hit point, suddenly it is possible we live in a multiverse! You second is "<i>We can never know if other universes exist or not.</i> Again, how can the state of human knowledge determine in the multiverse exists or not?<br /><br />PixAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-35272080368837481842021-05-26T13:24:44.990-07:002021-05-26T13:24:44.990-07:00here are 10<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2015/10/fine-tuning-part-2-answers-to-multiverse.html" rel="nofollow">here are 10</a>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-5527612351509132342021-05-26T13:03:15.835-07:002021-05-26T13:03:15.835-07:00Welcome back to blogging. I have not known what to...<br />Welcome back to blogging. I have not known what to do with myself this last month or so!<br /><br /><b>good to see you again Pix</b><br /><br />First point, the "puddle argument" imagines the puddle itself is thinking how the world was built for it, not something that crawled out of it. That is trivial in that in does not affect your argument, but worth getting right, nevertheless.<br /><br /><b>Not my mistake</b><br /><br />https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/70827-this-is-rather-as-if-you-imagine-a-puddle-waking<br /><br />I agree it is not the same as Paley's watch argument. Paley's argument revolves around seeing a mechanism in nature, and, by analogy with a watch, supposing the biological mechanism must be designed. We could envisage a scenario in which the universe is carefully crafted to maximise the chances of life appearing and evolving, but where the creator took no action once the universe was created. In that scenario, the fine-tuning argument would be right, but the Paley's watch argument would be wrong. Thus, they must be different.<br /><b>they turn on differed points. Paley on fittedness and FT on probability</b><br /><br />I would, to a degree, agree that the puddle is not an argument - for one thing puddles are not capable of thought, so it is clearly foundered on something that is not true! It is more a way to point out flaws in another argument.<br /><br /><b>right</b><br /><br />One of those flaws is that the puddle is taking an extremely narrow view of the universe. It is considering only the hole it is sat in, and ignoring the rest of the world. Fine-tuning does the same. When we look at a thin layer on the surface of this planet, it looks to be perfect for us. Compared to the volume of the universe that is absurdly small.<br /><br />How can you claim the universe is fine-tuned for human life, if 99.999999999% is deadly to human life?<br /><br /><b>because the bits that are fit for living are too improbable</b><br /><br /><br />Joe: No one needs to suspect what he has already proven. We need only demonstrate a good reasonto bieve; FT is dandy reason.<br /><br />What has already been proved exactly?<br /><br /><b>what i just said: the bits that are fit for living are too improbable</b><br /><br />Joe: What eludes him is the fact that a message with no sender is not a message.<br /><br />You do not link to Turek's argument, and I can only find responses and YouTube videos myself, so I am not sure what he is saying here, however...<br /><br /><b>sorry about not linking</b><br /><br />You need to prove it is a message. You do not get to declare some information is a message. We can measure the decay of a radioisotope, therefore there is information there. Does it follow that there is a message, and hence an intelligence causing nuclei to fall apart at just that moment? No.<br /><br /><br /><b>wrong I do get to. I as a communication major. Commination theory tells us a message has a sender, a receiver and content that is to be communicated, no sender violates the model thus is not a message. </b><br /><br />This really gets to what you mean by information, which is something design advocates have been slow to define. If I was cynical, I would suppose that is so they can declare something in information using a definition that does not require intelligence, then quietly slip to another definition that does, and thus "prove" intelligence was behind it.<br /><br /><b>there is a significant and obvious difference in information and a message. Not all info is a message. All messages are info.</b><br /><br /><br />The two big problems with the fine-tuning argument to my mind are:<br /><br />(1) we do not know enough about the fundamentals of the universe to know how unlikely it is<br /><br /><b>lots of major scientists think we do</b><br /><br />(2) the possibility of the multiverse<br /><br /><b>I have lots of answers on multiverse</b><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-1076512052564731662021-05-26T12:02:20.824-07:002021-05-26T12:02:20.824-07:00I have read it. I have read it. Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-45442856526912132282021-05-25T19:15:42.369-07:002021-05-25T19:15:42.369-07:00Hi Joe,
Does this seem like a book that you would...Hi Joe,<br /><br />Does this seem like a book that you would read?:<br /><br />https://www.amazon.com/God-New-Physics-Paul-Davies/dp/014013462X/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-9332781425659265592021-05-25T01:34:40.680-07:002021-05-25T01:34:40.680-07:00Hi Joe
Welcome back to blogging. I have not known...Hi Joe<br /><br />Welcome back to blogging. I have not known what to do with myself this last month or so!<br /><br />First point, the "puddle argument" imagines the puddle itself is thinking how the world was built for it, not something that crawled out of it. That is trivial in that in does not affect your argument, but worth getting right, nevertheless.<br /><br />https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/70827-this-is-rather-as-if-you-imagine-a-puddle-waking<br /><br />I agree it is not the same as Paley's watch argument. Paley's argument revolves around seeing a mechanism in nature, and, by analogy with a watch, supposing the biological mechanism must be designed. We could envisage a scenario in which the universe is carefully crafted to maximise the chances of life appearing and evolving, but where the creator took no action once the universe was created. In that scenario, the fine-tuning argument would be right, but the Paley's watch argument would be wrong. Thus, they must be different.<br /><br />I would, to a degree, agree that the puddle is not an argument - for one thing puddles are not capable of thought, so it is clearly foundered on something that is not true! It is more a way to point out flaws in another argument.<br /><br />One of those flaws is that the puddle is taking an extremely narrow view of the universe. It is considering only the hole it is sat in, and ignoring the rest of the world. Fine-tuning does the same. When we look at a thin layer on the surface of this planet, it looks to be perfect for us. Compared to the volume of the universe that is absurdly small.<br /><br />How can you claim the universe is fine-tuned for human life, if 99.999999999% is deadly to human life?<br /><br />Joe: <i>No one needs to suspect what he has already proven. We need only demonstrate a good reasonto bieve; FT is dandy reason.</i><br /><br />What has already been proved exactly?<br /><br />Joe: <i>What eludes him is the fact that a message with no sender is not a message.</i><br /><br />You do not link to Turek's argument, and I can only find responses and YouTube videos myself, so I am not sure what he is saying here, however...<br /><br />You need to prove it is a message. You do not get to declare some information is a message. We can measure the decay of a radioisotope, therefore there is information there. Does it follow that there is a message, and hence an intelligence causing nuclei to fall apart at just that moment? No.<br /><br />This really gets to what you mean by information, which is something design advocates have been slow to define. If I was cynical, I would suppose that is so they can declare something in information using a definition that does not require intelligence, then quietly slip to another definition that does, and thus "prove" intelligence was behind it.<br /><br />The two big problems with the fine-tuning argument to my mind are:<br /><br />(1) we do not know enough about the fundamentals of the universe to know how unlikely it is<br /><br />(2) the possibility of the multiverse<br /><br />PixAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com