More on Fine Tuning

[Edward Grefenstette <pha04eg@sheffield.ac.uk>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


Dear Rab,

Quite sorry to dump more stuff on you while you're busy, but I'm  
quite sure you'll find the time to answer David and I once all your  
essays are sorted out.

I find the points David is making to be quite interesting, and would  
like to further comment on the one on education. I believe you have  
successfully proven that we have no reason to believe intelligent  
design is not possible, or at very least it would be wrong to censure  
it. However the concept of teaching it irks me as well for the  
following reason: even the more abstract things of modern  
theoretical  science have some grounding in the basics of science,  
which themselves are based on experience (or experimentally  
verifiable to a certain degree of certainty). However I would like to  
reiterate (and perhaps reformulate a little) David's question: what  
is there to teach? Indeed I would agree that a teacher would be  
perfectly reasonable in answering "Yes, but I'm not sure." to the  
question "Is it possible that some conscious entity created us". But  
beyond that what can he say? He can bring up the debate, sure enough,  
but can he expand that far?

Now lets get to the point of taking the initiative: would it be  
useful to actually teach the basis of the debate outside of the  
context of - let's say - RE or philosophy class? Would there be a  
point to scientist mentioning that this is an alternative explanation  
to the "randomness" (or ontological independence) of the big bang?  
I'm fairly certain that the Big Bang's "theory" status supposes this  
already, and come to think about, there are a lot of things in  
science where there could be another explanation that has no  
justification, but remains plausible.

For example, the satyrical paper "The Onion" produced an article  
arguing "Intelligent Falling" should be taught in school as opposed  
to gravity. Indeed according to the logic supported in your paper,  
one CAN argue that one deity pulling things down is simpler than  
bizarre concepts of fields and gravitons and the such. However we  
have more empirical evidence on a simple level supporting more  
complex models. They remain models, and that should be said, but I,  
in short, believe it is a waste of time mentioning other valid  
possibilities outside of debate classes where they belong, in the  
education sector.

----

Now to move on to an objection that sort of came to me the other day.  
I'd like to focus on your analysis of how perfect that "set of twenty  
numbers" that is in a way the reason our universe is not over- 
expanded and cold, or the size of a pinhead. I believe it would not  
be unfair to say that is the root of the argument for fine-tuning.  
Now my question is, are we not facing circular reasoning here? Indeed  
had the numbers been different, the universes would have been the  
size of a pinhead and never expanded. However what determines that  
this non-expansion would have been so? Those same numbers, I believe.

For example: Fine-Tuning-supporting Scientist A argues that the moon  
would crash into the earth would the gravitational constant be  
different, as moon's velocity would no longer be sufficient to  
maintain its orbit under the influence of a greater gravitational  
attraction. However what determines what the sufficient velocity  
would be in the first place? The answer is, a value proportional to  
the gravitational constant. Now you can see that even if the  
gravitational constant were to mysteriously change tomorrow, we would  
not notice the effects, and the moon would remain in its regular  
orbit. [If there are any physicists out there who are more talented  
than I at this sort of thing (which isn't really hard), or at least  
less distracted, and notice the above to be false in anyway, please  
do tell. However I think I got it right].

In short, the value of the numbers is a result of their being an  
equilibrium allowing the existence of our universe, not the cause of  
it. If so, what was there to design?

Shoot away.

-- Edward.


Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm