Of course, you can overstretch (and overthink) any analogy. That is why the law recognizes diminished capacity for those who cannot understand the effects of their actions. We can only outline the possibilities. (If there are very many observations then the prior probabilities dont matter much, but in such cases one is effectively using a maximum-liklihood approach rather than a Bayesean one. Awesome but he kind of contradicts himself when he says theism shouldnt expect anything because theism is ill-defined, but then he rattles off a list of things we should expect from theism vs. things we should expect from naturalism. One explanation is that this is pure accident and that there is no deeper reason for the coincidence.

If we find a better model without free parameters that constrains the physical constants, then the fine tuning problem goes away. So Page and others have examined the effects of changing this constant. An interesting argument and one that adds to the fine body of work that attempts to prove or disprove the existence of an omnipotent interferer. I enjoyed his list of rebuttals. And the phenomenon is undoubtedly very real and constitutes an ever-present and priceless component of human experience. However heres a thought, perhaps atheism is only acceptable to persons who live a fulfilling and comfortable existence, -for whom work, for example, is more akin to a hobby. Would you care to guess whether that person is a physicist or a theologian? Possibly, but in order to do it, three conditions should be met: One should invent a better cosmological theory, one should invent a better theory of fundamental interactions, and one should propose an alternative explanation for the miraculous coincidences., ..[O]ur observed universe is highly non-generic, and in the past it was even more non-generic, or finely tuned.. The question is, how unlikely is *that*? Take a year off first. Of course not, because you cant do science that way. I dont think free will is real, but we all seem to have this strong illusion. [Carroll considers this his most important point. All the worlds a stage, and all the men and women merely players. Thus the importance of definitions. Carroll is a fluid and eloquent speaker, anticipating and then answering his audiences objections before theyre even uttered. Until recently, cosmologists had assumed that the constant was zero, a neat solution. And the same thing is true for all our other equations and fundamental constants. Here Carroll takes apart the argument that the so-called fine tuning of the physical constants of the Universe constitutes evidence for God (the FTA). Over the last few decades, the subject of fine tuning has attracted some of the sharpest minds in physics. The problem as I see it is that we just got lucky isnt an explanation. Youre mistaking no mathematical dependence on axioms of the theory with can be multiple values. You cannot conclude the latter from the former; that is a logical error. So they have a different problem. The atheists true target is this unjustified leap from God (as meaning the inexplicable) magically changing into the omniscient God of an Established Religion. I am a more advanced machine than the robots we are currently producing but only in degree. The only way someone could convince me of this argument is with the relevant evidence, as in the end the question of free will is a scientific question. This is Sean Carrolls #3.

And indeed, the book is already on Amazon, scheduled for publication by Dutton in May. term, free will?. I might try to fix it at some pointtoo busy with other things right this moment, though. But the actual reality is that the entire process is perfectly causal and deterministic, and none of it under any conscious control at all. Unless you have empirical evidence for what values the physical constants of the universe could attain. If the distance is much shorter or longer then life as we know it doesnt exist. From a prior probability point of view, it could be that we just got very very lucky, and we wouldnt notice if we hadnt. The content is provided for information purposes only. But the problem is, a lot of commenters on here seem to have misconstrued Seans excellent rhetoric when hes debating WLC. Various scientists have calculated that even the tiniest of changes to these constants would make life impossible. Under their belief system, any universe at all can support (or perhaps a better term would be coexist with) intelligent life. (1.5) Anthropic principle + nothing else. I would argue that Carroll is right in his opening statement where he says Im not sure there even is a fine tuning argument.. So far, all the available evidence leads me to conclude that theres no such thing as free will even our emotions are not free (they are the product of our brains, genes, hormone levels, upbringing, etc). But it is very unclear how that impacts the fine tuning argument. For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines). Im off to see the fireworks! Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. The datum provides no discriminitory power between H1 and H2. Where is the fine tuning in the distance of the sun from the earth? If you ask a winner of such a lottery, they wont know how many tickets were sold. A program that we had no part in designing and are therefore not responsible for. This is a different problem though. We have moral responsibility because we can foresee the effects of our actions on others.. That we are the necessary result of the settings we find, not that the constants were set so that we could exist. I dont think there is enough information to provide an explanation. And we think (if we are thinking clearly) perfectly plausible and often true chains of reasoning. So any talk of the Universe being fine-tuned for this or that is just so much meaningless babble. Its just as Torbjrn writes above: the rock took the path it did, and the universe looks the way it looks. Huge variety of universes (possibly infinitely many) DO all exist. "When parameters required for life seem to turn up in suspiciously narrow regions we seek explanations of this as either coincidence or cosmic conspiracy. We dont know yet, but its important to lay out the options to help us find our way., http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/07/08/how-finely-tuned-is-the-universe/. May you recover fully and quickly. But, whatever tomorrow may bring, I shall have no choice in the matter. By the anthropic principle, the probability of the datum is 1, regardless of the number of universes: At least I dont. customer-service@technologyreview.com with a list of newsletters youd like to receive. Finding that these regions could be broader, or that other life-permitting regions exist, weakens the need for such explanations. are spatially flat.. Brilliant as usual, Carroll is eloquent, quick, and shattering. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy Technically, the posterior probabilities are robust to the prior. How could I not do my best? The problem arises because of the models we have so far. So what value of the cosmological constant best encourages galaxy and star formation, and therefore the evolution of life? It doesnt tell you it cant. Some are faster. Haldane, and Steven Pinker. So the observable universe didnt just happen; it is either picked out by some general principle, perhaps something to do with the wave function of the universe, or its generated dynamically by some process within a larger multiverse. Intelligent life. Even less sexy, it means a solid social infrastructure, including education and a safety net and mental health facilities, so you dont even get crime in the first place. Not a good way to start the year. Hes saying God did it is not a good explanation. #3 is best stated as: To be clear, its not a paradox its just a problem that admits several possible answers, and we dont know the correct one. In the real world, I put pineapple in the yoghurt, and I had no choice but to do so. The few moral nihilist I know all seem to be consequentialists; they have no other means to justify their actions.

Foundational Questions Institute, FQXi. Show me the same for all the others. So, like we all do everyday, he considered the likely outcomes IF he took option 1 vs option 2 e.g. This suggests that the universe may not be so finely tuned; it may be able to produce life under a much wider range of circumstances than first thought. Ive never liked this argument either. [P(datum given H2)]=1. Our lives are dwarfed like never before by the immensity of space and time, but they are redeemed by our capacity to comprehend it and give it meaning. Without that it gets nowhere. It doesnt tell you anything about c at all, except for a statement of what its observed to be. PERIOD. Kudos on the organizers for starting to include nonbelievers, who, after all, probably have something more substantive to say. But the stumbling block was there, and I stumbled, still doing the best I was able to despite stumbling. What reason allows is the very special group behaviour that the selfish theory denies. Excellent. Another idea is that there is some deeper law of nature, which we have yet to discover, that sets the constants as they are. Yet, our ability or inability to reprogram ourselves is a function of our existing program. Even if you formulate some redefinition of the term that applies to a real-world phenomenon, its only likely to be used to place blame and therefore justify retribution. Maybe they do the same for him. Whether Carrolls #1 is valid is open to argument. the applied science of psychiatry needs to address religion as organized schizophrenia. Most of it is just barren space and what little specks of dust are to be found in between, they are hardly welcoming to life. Quote from Hicipedia, by the way. And to think, in the old Joan Crawford days, it was all done with make-up, lighting, and soft-focus lenses. And, of course. So P(datum given H1)=1. Every ticket has the same chance of winning, and there may be 0, 1, or many winners. Not once did I ever hear my son appeal to his magical contra-causal powers when he explained his thinking on the subject because, of course, that didnt play at all, nor could it contribute at all, to solving the real world problems The outcome under consideration is a very natural category with a broad range. Sean isnt saying that theres nothing interesting about the apparent fine tuning that we see, hes not saying physicists are not working on it, hes not saying nothing to see here. Ive never been bamboozled by fine tuning as its only interesting when viewed in the rear view mirror. H1: Generate One Universe, p=0.5 One of our sides most valuable (A real-life example of such a lottery is the numbers racket, where the payout is around 600 to 1 if you correctly predict 3 effectively random digits.). it depends on the starting assumption that humans are special.. Or fast to slow. But the recent evidence that the universe is not just expanding but accelerating away from us, suggests that the constant is positive. Within the multiverse framework, it is not so surprising that humans should have evolved in one of the parallel realities in which conditions happen to be habitable for us. Anthropic arguments cant do that unless all the other ways actually exist. Copyright notice for material posted in this website, Worlds unluckiest person: man dies from cancer contracted from his tapeworm, Sean Carroll debunks the fine-tuning argument for God, Sean is giving the prestigious Gifford Lectures in October of next year in Glasgow, originally endowed to promote the study of natural theology, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe#Examples, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKDCZHimElQ, http://darwinskidneys-science.com/2015/07/01/does-carbon-production-in-stars-reveal-design-in-nature/, The primacy of indigenous ways of knowing, A Leftist schoolteacher tells us that things are at least as bad as weve heard, Freddie deBoer disses New Atheism while attacking psychic phenomena and hooey. With Carroll, I would guess its an unpublished theoretical physics paper that elegantly describes in a single equation how the entire universe functions. You have a winning lottery ticket, but you dont know the odds of winning. See Seans comments that I posted above, when hes talking about physics, rather than debating a theologian. A lot of species have evolved inherent morals that are not abstractly contrived but observably useful, so nihilism is unfactual. To put it charitably, that is sheer speculation. They are forgetting that the free parameters can all vary at the same time. In fact, he says that any positive value of the constant would tend to decrease the fraction of matter that forms into galaxies, reducing the amount available for life. What use free will, of any flavor, in such deliberations? And yet, what is the conclusion of the argument? Scientists who talk about fine tuning due to the free parameters make a variety of mistakes, but the most egregious one in my opinion is that they simplify things to much. Huge variety of universes (possibly infinitely many) DO all exist. Now how much that measure is reasonable (it _is_ invariant) is arguable at a guess. Perhaps you should read, quite carefully, what he actually said, as opposed to what you would like to think he said, and refrain from imposing your unfounded assumptions. His point is, I believe, that we think the universe was made for us, because we would not exist with different constants, missing the points that a) we are the way we are because they are tuned as they are, and b) other life-forms could have evolved with a different fine-tuning (who might think the universe was made for them). He never fails to blow my mind. In stark contrast, though I see vastly more complexity and sophistication in the decision-making process than there is in a thermostats operation, I see no freedom in either. Because I met that exact simile while unwinding form the drive at Hili-awful oclock this morning. And hopefully you wont mind the discussion of evolution, although it focuses on abstract principles rather than dealing with the messy reality of evolution here on Earth. Compatibilists are not seeking something that is free of deterministic constraints. two courses of action: 1. Many atheists, myself included, call themselves humanists yet the society, indeed global morality of such thoughts are not replicated in natural systems. If not, it should be! We have no idea what variety of self-aware questioning beings might arise in universes with different physical laws. But thats just it we have been trying really hard for decades to discover this. The very question requires us to regard humans as special; but that is the whole issue under consideration. Reblogged this on Nina's Soap Bubble Box and commented: Did I have any choice of whether or not to put some pineapple in the yoghurt I ate for breakfast this morning? Answer: Because there is something and we are here. I would argue that there isnt. H2: p=1. Were having trouble saving your preferences. If you continue to get this message, Your feedback is important to us. Outside of such religious contexts, the incoherency of free will is worse than useless. But the equations of stellar structure may have more solutions than most people realize. But some, no matter how scientific, might be afflicted by depression that makes them perpetually cynical, fatalistic, and functional nihilists. Vaal is an advocate for Compatibilism, the proposition that Free Will is a real phenomenon that is compatible with the natural laws as we already understand them. I will be partaking in some beer tonite. Every organization is now collecting data, but few are truly data driven. We dont really know that the universe is tuned specifically for life, since we dont know the conditions under which life is possible. Today, Page says this idea is potentially falsifiable and says we already have evidence that does the trick. I guess the religious perversion of probability theory is what gets me.]. There may be better models for how to build universes that dont have free parameters. My son recently had to decide between He is in cahoots with Anderson Cooper and Will Smith. I miss the mobs with burning torches marching toward the castle chanting: Rehab no! Thats not a sufficient amount of knowledge to say your odds of winning are so low that they pose a deep philosophical problem. Seans arguments are always so clear and articulate, they make me almost feel sorry for his opponents. That raises the question of why they are so finely balanced. To be honest, Ive never found the puddle argument very persuasive. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form. (Using the mail interface with the built-in Mail.app.). People who argue for free will inevitably point to that mental decision-making process as the phenomenon in question. We use the invariant measure on solutions to Einsteins equation to quantify Assuming we discover why the constants have the values that they do, we can still ask the reasons for those reasons, and its turtles all the way down. THATs why we dont feel in the grips of an illusion when Natural morality is easy to account for, especially since the advent of secular Western civilizations which operate mainly independent of authoritarian creeds. Since Ben had his say, I just had mine, Ill leave it at that). See it as a problem with the prediction of the current models, if you like. Nobody knows the range or how many discrete values lie within the range. We have an illusion of freedom, yes, but its the freedom of the puppet to love its strings. We dont have a model that naturally constrains the physical constants. Hmm Ive been running El Capitan since it was released without that problem. A rare event no long has a low probability after it has already occurred. Adams doesnt come close to answering that; he just assumes it as a given. 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe is an uninhabitable mess. They will talk about how if you vary X by some small amount Y, the universe would be inhospitable for life. H2: Generate Multiverse, p=0.5, Data: At least one universe exists, with life, Posterior probabilities (approx): Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The decision-making process your son went through is very real and very important. You wont like my compatibilist take on free will, but maybe Ill convert you! But IF he ]. If humans are not special, then the universe is not fine tuned. Im got Use smart quotes and dashes checked in my keyboard preferences. Indeed, it may well be the most precious thing there is about being human, for it defines who we are as individuals. Our theories do not say these parameters are free, they dont say anything about their freedom or lack of it at all. This strikes me as unknowable. . I like to think of the issue modeled as a billiard table with balls whizzing this way and that. So it seems to me there is an interesting problem, whose answer is probably the multiverse. Theres also Tom Cruise. Ignoring the empty space between the planets, not much of each planet is hospitable to life anyway. Apparent fine-tunings may be explained by dynamical mechanisms or improved notions of probability. Thats just not true physicists think there is. No, thats not quite right. You comments are getting munged. Its a problem that arises because the best models that we have for how to build a universe have a lot of free parameters, and seem to allow a vast number of possible universes, most of which would be incompatible with life. The Big Picture is an unprecedented scientific worldview, a tour de force that will sit on shelves alongside the works of Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Daniel Dennett, and E. O. Wilson for years to come. The slow gives way to the fast. reach out to us at What is the range of values? I did not get that part. The special quality that leads to the probabilistic fine tuning problem defines life as anything self-aware that can ask questions about its own universe. Bayesean inference using only one observation datum (below) requires credible prior probabilities; otherwise one is severely prejudging the outcome. It could be that there is no conspiracy at all," says Sloan, whose research is also featured in the report. So the mere existence of the issue presupposes its resolution. Anyone else want to give it a go? [P(datum given H1)]=0 Perhaps it would be clearer if it were called the apparent fine tuning problem, since one of the proposed solutions is that there isnt really fine tuning, i.e. The report then outlines arguments that fine-tuning is an illusion, noting that life may take a very different form than naively imagined, and that if multiple physical parameters are considered to vary simultaneously, it could alleviate any apparent fine-tuning problems. Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats. players IMO. Thats just the issue for physics and cosmology: with all the work that has gone into string theory, we cant find a model that doesnt look like this, that doesnt have the free parameters.

The only thing they can derive from this is that we dont have a good explanation for it yet; they dont get to fill in specific versions of their preferred deity and call it a day.

I should add that Sean is giving the prestigious Gifford Lectures in October of next year in Glasgow. It may be that the conditions in our universe are, in fact, the only possible conditions, and we just havent found the correct model yet.