tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post8477175745307929007..comments2024-02-15T19:40:29.872-08:00Comments on neopolitan's philosophical blog: A Doctor a Day - A Responseneopolitanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02501854905476808648noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-63251163258296694802013-06-06T03:10:39.299-07:002013-06-06T03:10:39.299-07:00Reply is here - http://neophilosophical.blogspot.c...Reply is here - http://neophilosophical.blogspot.com/2013/06/an-open-letter-to-luke-barnes.htmlneopolitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02501854905476808648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-57627965884941616582013-06-05T22:08:57.504-07:002013-06-05T22:08:57.504-07:00A reply is on the way, it will be in the form of a...A reply is on the way, it will be in the form of a separate article which has required a bit of research.neopolitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02501854905476808648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-51075104312054048222013-06-04T17:06:36.563-07:002013-06-04T17:06:36.563-07:00I've read Stenger's book 3 times. He argue...I've read Stenger's book 3 times. He argues against every fine-tuning claim he can find. I'm certainly not "limiting FT to every whacko claim of the more rabid apologists" - Hugh Ross, for example, has written a lot of dross on this subject (http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/any-claim-will-do-a-fine-tuned-critique-of-hugh-ross/)<br /><br />"a form of FT that is consistent with that claim [FT -> God]". FT is independent of any conclusion one might try to derive from it. It is a claim about theoretical physics. "In the set of possible physics, the subset that permit the evolution of life is very small."<br /><br />What is "weak" fine tuning? FT is the fact that needs explaining. I'm arguing for FT, not for any particular explanation. The abstract of my paper explicitly says "I do not attempt to defend any conclusion based on the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.". Fine-tuning is a well-understood in physics - it means slightly different though related things in different contexts. I've heard (somewhere ... sorry no reference) WLC say that fine-tuned does *not* mean designed, or made by God. John Donoghue explains the usage of fine-tuning in physics here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.4080v1.pdf<br /><br />"Naturalness and finetuning have very specific technical meanings in particle physics. These meanings are related to, but not identical to, the common usage in nontechnical settings. The technical version is tied to the magnitude of quantum corrections. When one calculates the properties of any theory using perturbation theory, quantum mechanical effects give additive corrections to all the parameters of the theory...<br /><br />The concept of naturalness is tied to the magnitude of the quantum corrections. If the quantum correction is of the same order as (or smaller<br />than) the measured value, the result is said to be natural. If, on the contrary the measured value is much smaller than the quantum correction the result is unnatural because the bare value and the quantum correction appear to have an unexpected cancelation to give a result that is much smaller than either component. This is an unnatural fine-tuning."lukebarneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03245704613008522157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-13950423712806901762013-06-03T21:21:24.857-07:002013-06-03T21:21:24.857-07:00If you are limiting FT to every whacko claim of th...If you are limiting FT to every whacko claim of the more rabid apologists, the yes, Stenger is saying that FT is false. You said you weren't arguing FT->god so I assume that you aren't arguing for a form of FT that is consistent with that claim (although you might be lying about that, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt).<br /><br />However, my quotes from Stenger indicate that he's not arguing against "weak" fine tuning. Are you specifically arguing for strong fine-tuning that (supposedly) leaves us with no explanation for the universe other than "god did it" or are you trying to argue, a la Smolin, that the apparent fine tuning derives for some underlying fundamental characteristic of the universe that we should be investigating? If this is the case, then your paper was poorly written in that it gives the impression that the fact that intelligent life evolved in this universe somehow implies that the universe was finely tuned -deliberately and intentionally- in order for that intelligent life to evolve. This miswording, if that is what it is, is what the apologists latch onto, so you might want to address that rather than leave it in the lap of philosophers (especially noting that there is considerably more interest from apologists than philosophers).neopolitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02501854905476808648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-81784210485531583842013-06-03T20:20:27.955-07:002013-06-03T20:20:27.955-07:00"I doubt that he really thinks that the range..."I doubt that he really thinks that the range of values for the key constants is unrestrained if life is to result."<br /><br />Stenger: "The most commonly cited examples of apparent fine-tuning can be readily explained by the application of a little well-established physics and cosmology. . . . [S]ome form of life would have occurred in most universes that could be described by the same physical models as ours, with parameters whose ranges varied over ranges consistent with those models. … . My case against fine-tuning will not rely on speculations beyond well-established physics nor on the existence of multiple universes."<br /><br />I take this as the claim that FT is false; most possible universes contain some form of life.<br /><br />"your views have been co-opted by apologists". I'm only concerned with correctly presenting the science. If certain philosophical conclusions follow, then that can be debated by those philosophically inclined.<br />lukebarneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03245704613008522157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-6313367798529395442013-06-03T18:56:49.481-07:002013-06-03T18:56:49.481-07:00The **APPEARANCE** of Fine Tuning is not argued. ...The **APPEARANCE** of Fine Tuning is not argued. Vic Stenger certainly argues that the extent is overstated by the "god did it" crowd, but I doubt that he really thinks that the range of values for the key constants is unrestrained if life is to result. For example in his response to you "I agree that life, as we know it on Earth, would not exist with a slight change in these parameters." In "Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Us?" Stenger writes "I do not dispute that life (as we know it) would not exist if any one of several of the constants of physics were just slightly different." (Words in brackets were originally only italicised.) <br /><br />I do believe that you are misrepresenting Stenger's argument and, less importantly, mine. You still sound like an apologist to me, irrespective of whether you want to hide that fact or not - or how did you put "your views on theism are your own". That would be fine if it weren't for the fact that your views have been co-opted by apologists which, if you are not inclined favourably to apologists, you should be addressing.neopolitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02501854905476808648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-21727844172561866852013-06-03T18:02:46.846-07:002013-06-03T18:02:46.846-07:00I didn't look past this point. The comment was...I didn't look past this point. The comment was too long so I put it in the next one: "I defined FT as "In the set of possible physics, the subset that permit the evolution of life is very small." This is a claim about theoretical physics, one supported by a mountain of papers - see my paper. That is the claim that Stenger is almost alone in opposing. The controversial claim is whether FT supports or implies the existence of God, a claim which I haven't addressed in the paper or on my blog. I'll leave that to the philosophers." <br /><br />"The appearance of Fine Tuning is not argued." That's exactly what Stenger is arguing against. If we summarise the fine-tuning argument as:<br /><br />1. FT<br />2. If FT then God.<br />3. God.<br /><br />Stenger argues against 1. The physicists I've quoted above, as well as the physics literature in general, argue for 1. It's 2 that is controversial. I haven't addressed 2.lukebarneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03245704613008522157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-14518615868684877322013-06-03T17:56:45.236-07:002013-06-03T17:56:45.236-07:00"science at the very edge of our comprehensio..."science at the very edge of our comprehension". The science is well known and tested - nuclear physics and nuclear stability, atomic physics, cosmology. <br /><br />I am not a creationist. I am not antievolutionary. My views on theism are my own. Given the ad hominem attacks between atheist and theist I'm inclined to keep my views to myself.lukebarneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03245704613008522157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-37944336396768852072013-06-03T00:12:39.512-07:002013-06-03T00:12:39.512-07:00Given that Hawking is often quoted out of context ...Given that Hawking is often quoted out of context in order to lend an appearance of legitimacy to these sorts of arguments ( an example is discussed here - http://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/11/16/the-creationist-quote-mine-of-hawking-on-expansion-rate-of-the-universe/ ), I'm not going to indulge you in your William Lane Craig-like attempt to trundle a bunch of names past as if they support your argument.<br /><br />The appearance of Fine Tuning is not argued. What is argued is the attempt to use this appearance of Fine Tuning to "prove" the existence of a god. As Smolin points out ( here - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/author/lsmolin/ ) both "god did it" (theistic theory) and "it's just the way it is" (anthropic multiverse theory) are possible explanations, so the universe being fine tuned (if it is in fact fine tuned), doesn't prove either the existence or non-existence of a god.<br /><br />It's interesting to note that you looked past this, it inclines me to think that you just might be a "god did it" theorist.neopolitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02501854905476808648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-55628738992807351732013-06-02T23:59:06.428-07:002013-06-02T23:59:06.428-07:00So, Luke, are you confirming or denying that you a...So, Luke, are you confirming or denying that you are a theist with creationist (or anti-evolutionary) leanings who is using science at the very edge of our comprehension to push your god?<br /><br />I can now see that you got the article published, congratulations and thanks for the update.neopolitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02501854905476808648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-69253339535025368952013-06-02T20:50:50.234-07:002013-06-02T20:50:50.234-07:00I defined FT as "In the set of possible physi...I defined FT as "In the set of possible physics, the subset that permit the evolution of life is very small." This is a claim about theoretical physics, one supported by a mountain of papers - see my paper. That is the claim that Stenger is almost alone in opposing. The controversial claim is whether FT supports or implies the existence of God, a claim which I haven't addressed in the paper or on my blog. I'll leave that to the philosophers.<br /><br /><br />* "All the other options that excluded us might have been possible, but if it weren’t possible for us to be here, then we wouldn’t be here to be amazed. And it doesn’t matter how unlikely it is, because once an event has taken place, the likelihood of that event having taken place is 100%."<br /><br />Go learn probability theory. If that paragraph was true, then no data could ever be used to test any theory, and all of science would be in vain. The probability of an event is hypothesis dependent. That's why we can use events to test hypotheses. The question is not whether our universe is life permitting - it clearly is. The question is: why is our universe life-permitting? Our existence is (probably) not the answer to that question. Given that life seems unlikely to form in a universe whose parameters and initial conditions are effected indifferently to the requirements of life, we should go look for a different hypothesis as to how our universe managed to be life dependent. Maybe there are lots of universes with different properties. Maybe there are deeper laws that we are ignorant of. Maybe our universe is a simulation performed by scientists in a meta-universe. lukebarneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03245704613008522157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-27360203622662060502013-06-02T20:50:18.261-07:002013-06-02T20:50:18.261-07:00* "If there was, in the field of particle phy...* "If there was, in the field of particle physics, such obvious evidence for the fine-tuning of universe for life (or for intelligent life as Barnes argues) then there would be more physicists who would have noticed it". <br /><br />What, like these non-theists?<br /><br />Wilczek: life appears to depend upon delicate coincidences that we have not been able to explain. The broad outlines of that situation have been apparent for many decades. When less was known, it seemed reasonable to hope that better understanding of symmetry and dynamics would clear things up. Now that hope seems much less reasonable. The happy coincidences between life’s requirements and nature’s choices of parameter values might be just a series of flukes, but one could be forgiven for beginning to suspect that something deeper is at work.<br /><br />Hawking: “Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. … The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it.”<br /><br />Rees: Any universe hospitable to life – what we might call a biophilic universe – has to be ‘adjusted’ in a particular way. The prerequisites for any life of the kind we know about — long-lived stable stars, stable atoms such as carbon, oxygen and silicon, able to combine into complex molecules, etc — are sensitive to the physical laws and to the size, expansion rate and contents of the universe. Indeed, even for the most open-minded science fiction writer, ‘life’ or ‘intelligence’ requires the emergence of some generic complex structures: it can’t exist in a homogeneous universe, not in a universe containing only a few dozen particles. Many recipes would lead to stillborn universes with no atoms, no chemistry, and no planets; or to universes too short-lived or too empty to allow anything to evolve beyond sterile uniformity.<br /><br />Linde: the existence of an amazingly strong correlation between our own properties and the values of many parameters of our world, such as the masses and charges of electron and proton, the value of the gravitational constant, the amplitude of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the electroweak theory, the value of the vacuum energy, and the dimensionality of our world, is an experimental fact requiring an explanation.<br /><br />Susskind: The Laws of Physics … are almost always deadly. In a sense the laws of nature are like East Coast weather: tremendously variable, almost always awful, but on rare occasions, perfectly lovely. … [O]ur own universe is an extraordinary place that appears to be fantastically well designed for our own existence. This specialness is not something that we can attribute to lucky accidents, which is far too unlikely. The apparent coincidences cry out for an explanation.<br /><br />Guth: in the multiverse, life will evolve only in very rare regions where the local laws of physics just happen to have the properties needed for life, giving a simple explanation for why the observed universe appears to have just the right properties for the evolution of life. The incredibly small value of the cosmological constant is a telling example of a feature that seems to be needed for life, but for which an explanation from fundamental physics is painfully lacking.<br /><br />Smolin: Our universe is much more complex than most universes with the same laws but different values of the parameters of those laws. In particular, it has a complex astrophysics, including galaxies and long lived stars, and a complex chemistry, including carbon chemistry. These necessary conditions for life are present in our universe as a consequence of the complexity which is made possible by the special values of the parameters.lukebarneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03245704613008522157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-87920509712235818132013-06-02T20:49:31.987-07:002013-06-02T20:49:31.987-07:00So much bullshit, so little time.
* "Note t...So much bullshit, so little time. <br /><br />* "Note that this article is located at arxiv.org, which means it has been “endorsed” by someone but it hasn’t gone through the full peer review process." <br /><br />http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8794857<br /><br />This was pointed out on the forum, but no correction here I see.<br /><br />* "Provided arguments against evolution". Bollocks. I wrote a book review on a popular level book on Evolution which began: "My review will be in three parts, the first of which will give me the chance to display my ignorance of biology. Such ignorance should not be underestimated – many of the questions I ask below are not rhetorical. I just don’t know enough to answer them." I have nowhere criticised evolutionary theory because I am not a biologist. I have questions about evolution, but only because of my ignorance of the subject.<br />lukebarneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03245704613008522157noreply@blogger.com