The Fine tuning argument's hidden assumptions with Neil Manson , the Sci Phi show 7

preview_player
Показать описание
In this episode of the Sci-Phi show we examine some hidden assumption of the fine tuning argument with Professor Neil Manson a philosopher who specialises in design arguments for God.
We consider the claim that multiverse is a logical fallacy and delve into Neils paper"How not be generous to fine tuning skeptics."
With myself Phil Halper and Alex Malpass.
Neil can be found at this website:
Timeline
00:00 Introduction
1:57 multiverse and the inverse gamblers fallacy
7:58 whats wrong with inverse gamblers fallacy
18:44 survey of cosmologists
22:27 Neils paper
31:20 fine tuning vs God
41:00 fine tuning vs idealism
52:20 fine tuning vs miracles
57:00 fine tuning vs science
1:11:00 probability problems
Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

This channel and Robinson's are the best. Dont miss his interview with Professor Suskind

LuciFeric
Автор

Physicist here,

Here is another response to the so called fine tuning of the physical constants. The number Pi comes up all the time in physics in all sorts of equations. Suppose you didn't know where Pi comes from and just thought it was a random meaningless number. If you changed the value of Pi by just a litle bit in the equations of physics then you would mess with the strength of forces and the interactions beatween particles. Wow, Pi must be finely tuned then, right? No, Pi is defined as the ratio of a circle's circumfrance to its diamater, it is what it is and it also happens to work its way into many physics equation. For all we know, it could turn out that all the physical constants come from things like geometic ratios just like Pi. Right now it only looks like the fundmental constants "could have been anything" because we don't yet know what defines them. The fine tuneing argument is once again just a god of the gaps argument. The thesits would be smarter to just make an apriori metaphysical claim that they don't bleeive that math can exist without god in the first place, rather than dying on the hill of claiming that some specific gap in our present understanding of phyiscs will never be filled by further scientific and mathematical discovery.

TheZzpop
Автор

Econometrician/ data scientist here:

First comment: I love how he shows this argument relies upon questionable assumptions from other arguments. I’ve been observing for quite some time that theists’ gish gallop of “arguments” for god are mutually inconsistent upon further examination. We should remember though that, according to their world view, they are “sinful representatives”, if their argument fails then it’s a reaffirmation of their own sinful nature, which reaffirms the belief in god. Inconsistency is not a problem. You can even see this during this interview; gods moral perfection is inconsistent with omnipotence. You must assume one horn of euthyphro dilemma in order for fine tuning to be plausible .

Second comment: these arguments about the apriori probability of what “god would do” literally beg the question and reveal the problem with arguments based on plausibility. Arguing about “what god would do” and concluding something is more plausible than something else presupposes the conclusion the argument was attempting to prove. This argument is viciously circular; god is assumed to be necessary for fine tuning and the probability assignment is conditional on gods existence and completely arbitrary. In the real world, when we reason about prior probabilities with limited information, we rigorously test these assumptions with sensitivity analysis against multiple background assumptions. What does the Richard Swinburne type do? He pulls a probability out of his ass and insists we must agree without any form of verification/validation. If we are in a situation where prior information is significantly lacking we must assess our assumptions and reason critically about subjective probabilities, not just assume the thing we wanted to prove. Imagine if you were a cost estimator for some large project and stakeholders needed some estimate, and you said “well, the cost must be $X because suppliers are ‘inherently’ such-and-such, therefore X”. You would probably get fired immediately for gross incompetence. You would at least have to seriously qualify this conclusion and place massive error bars around that estimate to reflect the uncertainty. But theists insist that this “proves” god exists.

I just can’t imagine if people were to reason like this in the real world where stakes are high. Take another example in the field of system reliability. Suppose your employer asked you, the engineer, for an estimate of the probability of failure. Instead of conducting a survival analysis, You hand a report that says “the probability should be X because it just seems more plausible than Y”. They would think you’re a joke. Arguments like this are a bastardization of Bayesian analysis.

a-font
Автор

Great guest! One of the most interesting discussions I've heard so far on the fine-tuning argument 👌 Thanks! 😊

TheWeb
Автор

Thanks for this!! I
Am so glad your brought on Dr. Manson! Thanks for covering the inverse gamblers fallacy as well! Great video!!!

andystewart
Автор

42:55 I love Alex's face when you start talking about the gnostics and Barbelo, lol

belialord
Автор

An audience questions/ philosophical 'hot' takes show would be pretty cool

francisa
Автор

The coarse tuning argument is really interesting.

martifingers
Автор

Riveting thought-provoking discussion. Well done. You guys should consider Part 2 to this discussion. Neil himself mentioned about a little more he wanted to explore. Some more questions & queries. *Are things fine-tuned at all?, or perhaps they just appear to be fine-tuned. Victor Stenger. *If there is fine-tuning for permitting of life, it’s not a very good job by a Perfect Creator given the minuscule amount of life on just one speck of galactic dust (Earth). *Does the inverse gambler’s fallacy even apply to obviate a Multiverse theory if other evidence and postulates suggest its existence such as Eternal Cosmic inflation (Borde/Guth/Vilinken theorem) and String theory’s 10 to 500 power types of universes. *Why do we assume carbon-based life as we know it is the only life there can be under fine-tuning? Perhaps these trillions of universes in the Multiverse landscape are also either fine-tuned or coarse-tuned for OTHER types of life and intelligence. *Perhaps the universe is the only one and borne out of necessity, i.e. it can only be one way under a Grand Theory, as touched on in the video. We just don’t know enough to rule this out. * Perhaps the universe is the only one and indeed arises from Pure Random Chance Brute Natural Fact as the source. How? Why? Because we simply don’t know enough about Probability. There may be different forms or laws of probability. Epistemological probability? Metaphysical probability? A type of probability beyond human knowledge, perception and cognition? Etc. Questions, questions.

garybala
Автор

Summary: had the parameters of the universe been different we would have had a different universe with a different outcome, and god-botherers would argue that the outcome was special so required a creator.

frogandspanner
Автор

Yes Euler equation exp [i*pi] = -1 was first presented to me as something to marvel at, yet easy to show once you accept that a complex number can be expressed as a point on the complex plane

macroman
Автор

Excellent, many thanks.

Became slightly fixated waiting to hear two words that were never mentioned though: "Anthropic Principle" (not important of course:-).

In reference to the fundemental constants, I highly recommend the excellent book by Sir Martin Rees: "Just Six Numbers".

J
Автор

Really liked Neil! Id absolutely watch more content with him

aaronchipp-miller
Автор

23:25 looks like Neil has photos of Alex and Phil on his pinboard. Nice 👍

methodbanana
Автор

I loved this episode, and maybe a possible future episode is the new logical problem of evil?

inquiresabound
Автор

Really good discussion. Everyone was careful to use too much technical jargon and to keep things as accessible as possible.

martifingers
Автор

Any argument based on this current instantiation of a Universe being special would have to demonstrate that specialness, and that would require intention - which assumes an intender, which is circular.

Probability cannot be used in arguments where intention is required.

frogandspanner
Автор

Never really thought about this argument before despite always having a suspicion that theists were sneaking something past me when using the fine tuning argument ( which I find unconvincing for other reasons---though I do consider it to at least be an attempt at a serious argument) Like so many good ideas, listening to this gave me one of those "Why didn't I think of that? " moments. 10/10. Ta to all.

tamjammy
Автор

55:00 that would be a kind of evolution of universes situation, where only life permitting universes survive making life eventually inevitable?

HarryNicNicholas
Автор

What’s your take on Weisberg’s Argument from Divine Indifference?

Anduril