Luke Barnes: Puddle Analogy of Fine Tuning

Cosmologist, Luke Barnes, shows why the puddle analogy of fine tuning is not analogous at all.

Links

Support Help Me Believe

Haden's Books:

Podcast:

Blog:

Social

Facebook:

Twitter:

Instagram:

[albertmiller]

Adams points to the idea that when coincidence is given undue credit and assumes an entirely grotesque gravitas as an empowering legacy, disillusion is, in essence, complete.

[fluid_factory]

With irony, we find ourselves listening to debate using our properties. Regardless of the circumstance, don't be the container, be the fluid.

[kjustkses]

Another famous quote.

If you get your philosophy from a comedian then you shouldn’t be surprised if it turns out to be a joke.

[oakriver]

"Any universe will do to support life?" No, of course not. Just the way flat ground or a dome shape won't hold what we'd call a puddle. Would you agree that there are many different options for universes that could support life (just like many hole shapes)? If other options are possible, I don't think we can conclude this universe was fine-tuned for us.

[chronographer]

I think the analogy still works, because it's saying the puddle doesn't know what other worlds could support a puddle. Just like we didn't know what other worlds could support life, and we now know it's very many, not just the earth. On the universe scale it becomes more interesting, but still, we don't know what other universes could still support some form of consciousness, even if it comes in a form very different to ours. You, like the puddle, are assuming that *you* are the desired outcome, not just a *natural consequence* of the physical rules of the system. Like Luke said, the physics of water determined the puddle could exist, (given the right conditions of rain). Similarly the physics of the universe determined that life could exist, given the right conditions here on earth.

The other issue is the 'fine tuning' argument assumes that there can be other universes, or at least that the fundamental properties of our universe could be meaningfully different. So the multiverse is already granted by the premise that these constants are 'tunable', let alone tuned.

[Simon.the.Likeable]

So, if we find silicone based life forms somewhere in addition to Earth's carbon based examples, will that mean that the universe has been fine tuned twice? (Like a guitar is tuned to either standard e or drop d, same guitar=same universe)

[dedmo]

Could God have fine tuned the universe in any other way, and still have made it able to support life?

[hjs]

Fine tuning is nonsense from a mathematical point of view. One confuses the question before the event with the state after the event. Example: For the lottery player it is highly unlikely to win in the next draw. But after the draw there will be a winner, that is certain. If one then asks why did the winner and not someone else win and answers this with the probability before the draw, then this is mathematically wrong, because he considers one of the possible events as special just because it occurred. Circular reasoning.
In fine-tuning, the error in thinking is to consider our universe as special. And why? Because we are alive? This is not an argument, but chauvinism. If things had turned out differently, no one would be around to ask the question either, would that be bad? What if it had come a little differently, that is, with life but without man, would that be bad? We see ourselves as the center and therefore think that everything has to do with us.
The mold on the pudding might also think that the environment is perfect for its existence, so man made the pudding moldy on purpose....
Fine tuning is the arrogance of man.

[northernlight]

I like Luke but i dont agree with his reasoning. The puddle analogy is just a simplification of a consept.