Our Universe: one of many or specially designed?

[QED]

Design amounts to a process of selection. Human designers design things by making intelligent selections. Our Universe has a number of critical parameters that have no apparent reason for their values, but if these values were even slightly different, we wouldn't exist. This suggests to some that the values were carefully selected by a sentient being who had the intelligence to know the exact values required for our existence.

I've illustrated this scenario in the following picture:



Here our Universe, with it's critical values, is all that exists -- besides its sentient, designer-creator.

However, other forms of selection are possible. The simple act of observation can create its own selection Effect. In the illustration that follows I have drawn our Universe surrounded by numerous other universes. Within this ensemble the vast majority could be expected to have parameters that would not support life (at least in a form that would be recognizable to us). But a tiny number might. We could, therefore, have selected our own Universe as one from many, simply as a consequence of it having a favorable set of parameters for our existence.



If we are only considering the empirical evidence furnished by scientific observations then both scenarios would seem to be functionally equivalent. How then can we claim that the apparent fine-tuning implies a designer-creator when we can see this potential for ambiguity?

[island]

QED, it is not possible to misunderstand the meaning of words when Richard Dawkins and Lenny Susskind both (*conditionally) admit that the universe "appears designed".... and when Lenny Susskind talks about how the anthropic principle without a multiverse makes us "hard-pressed to answer the IDists".

*aint worth mentioning because it doesn't supercede the appearance of design of the observed universe without justification beyond semi-supported theoretical speculation.

Lenny did say that 'he doesn't think that physicists will see it that way', so maybe he does know that there is a valid strong anthropic interpretation that does not entail "design", (surely he knows of the Wheeler/Davies approach), but if that is true, he did not say so, other than that.

What he and Richard made very apparent instead, is that the universe is observed to be strongly anthropically constrained. Lenny went as far as to call it an "undeniable FACT, that the universe appears designed". The appeal to authority, in this case, is absolutely justified, and you guys lose.

QED, I'm repeating stuff for your benefit, but that ain't a good sign.

[island]

You seem to disagree and feel that the mere mention of a multiverse is a betrayal. I think it's a timely reminder of our true ignorance of our situation.

No, I've repeatedly stated that there is a "more-apparent" reason for equal time.

That gives more credit to the secondary suspect than they appear to deserve, but I'll go that extra mile as soon as long as scientists, neodarwinians, and "skeptics" quit "conditionally" abusing the anthropic physics to their own selfish end.

[otseng]

Also, the inference of design derives from the empirical data and is not an assumption made beforehand.

Aarrrrhh!! No. Now how are we going to avoid an ... o yes it is ... o no it isn’t debate?

It seems so common sense to me. Perhaps if someone else could jump in and argue for your case, I might be able to see your point from a different angle.

we are dealing with forensics. That is, we have a set of data as a result of something that happened in the past. And we are trying to determine what happened.

Ok let me use someone else’s analogy. Flew wrote about the invisible gardener. You might already be familiar with this story.

No, never heard that story.

But, to make it applicable to our discussions, the garden would be a meticulously manicured garden. And the question would then be, "Did a gardener create it or is it just one of a multitude of gardens that happens to be very ordered?"

Bill: Whoa what a contrast! The clearing is obviously not like the rest of the jungle. There must be some special conditions that created the clearing.

And instead of modifying the story to be a less ordered clearing, I think it should be modified to be a more orderly garden.



And again, what we seek is an explanation of how it got there.

[Furrowed Brow]

And instead of modifying the story to be a less ordered clearing, I think it should be modified to be a more orderly garden.

Ok I see a glimmer of a possibility of defining the chasm that divides us.

If we look at an orderly garden like the garden you show in your post then I'd say a gardener has been there at some time. Why?' It contains symmetries, and a selection of fauna that look like other tended gardens, and not like wild jungles or forest etc. Other gardens where the gardener is actually observed planting, so we know what kind of results to expect when a gardener is involved.

If we researched things a bit more we might find that a large percentage of the fauna are perhaps not native to that part of the world. Now they could have all got there by accident but in balance of probabilities they got there by intent. So there are several ways we can look at the garden and find evidence of a gardener.

If we turn our attention to the universe as we observe it. Those same forms of analysis that stand us well for inferring a gardener are now no good. We could compare the garden to jungle and forest. But we cannot compare the universe to anything other than itself. We can scrutinize the fauna of the garden to see if they are native. But as we have only one universe anything observed within it will be native. If we see symmetries it is meaningless to say they are tuned or designed, because we have no alternatives to compare and contrast with. Now if you say Ah but we know if the physical constants were different there would be no life then that would be like saying the garden is an oasis surrounded by desert. But so what? What if the alternative is desert. That don't make the oasis designed, tended or created by fine tuning.

So to see the work of a universal gardener is not a viewpoint that can be derived from objective analysis of the evidence. For there is no objective analysis available. To say the physical constants line up in such a way that there must be life or could be life is to say the constants stack up to life. And that is it. Anything stronger is ill judged.

[Cathar1950]

I have to disagree with your appeal to authority.
I don't see it as justified or winning.
I don't know how the universe would not appear design as we are part of it.
It still looks like it is us that are designed for the universe.
Given the small amount of time our species has been here and the number of species that have out distanced us it seems almost self centered and vain.
As species come and go you can almost see divine obsolescence in the design.
I see a coloring book published as an after thought with limited colors.

[otseng]

If we see symmetries it is meaningless to say they are tuned or designed, because we have no alternatives to compare and contrast with. Now if you say Ah but we know if the physical constants were different there would be no life then that would be like saying the garden is an oasis surrounded by desert. But so what? What if the alternative is desert. That don't make the oasis designed, tended or created by fine tuning.

Of course we don't have any physical alternatives to compare our universe with. But, we are able to compare it to theoritical alternatives. Our understanding of physics now allow us to construct on paper the alternatives. If we did not have this capability, then I can concede your point. But, since we do, it is entirely meaningful to infer design.

Also, to bring it back to the OP. The question for debate is not "does the fine-tuning of the universe need to be explained?" or even "is there even fine-tuning in the universe?" QED and I have already agreed that there is and that it demands an explanation. And the question for debate is it a result of "one of many" or "specially designed"? I think discussions would more fruitful if we can concentrate on this. Especially since this is what the OP is asking for.

[QED]

We could always start a separate topic to debate whether or not the apparent fine-tuning demands an explanation. Let's assume it does for the purposes of this debate.

It seems to me that the Strong Anthropic Principle requires an assumption that nobody can fully justify. It relies upon us taking evidence at "face value", to admit our surprise at the way the "numbers" have conspired together in unexpected ways to deliver a long-lived universe with the only manageable number of large dimensions and everything else in place for carbon-based life to appear.

Yet all this data comes from observations unlike any others we generally make. When we look at some phenomenon or other we generally see it framed in some wider context. This allows us to make justifiable statements about things such as surprise, expectation, naturalness etc. as we have a background to contrast and compare our referent. But the universe, or properties of the universe as a whole, are unique in having no such background that we can access. So these basic statements can only be made in conjunction with assumptions about that background -- including the assumption that there might not be a background. That would be the assumption that leads us to conclude a supernatural creator.

[Furrowed Brow]

QED and I have already agreed that there is and that it demands an explanation.

Da ya mean I'm gonna have to take the both of you on.

[Confused]

If we are only considering the empirical evidence furnished by scientific observations then both scenarios would seem to be functionally equivalent. How then can we claim that the apparent fine-tuning implies a designer-creator when we can see this potential for ambiguity?

Also, to bring it back to the OP. The question for debate is not "does the fine-tuning of the universe need to be explained?" or even "is there even fine-tuning in the universe?" QED and I have already agreed that there is and that it demands an explanation. And the question for debate is it a result of "one of many" or "specially designed"? I think discussions would more fruitful if we can concentrate on this. Especially since this is what the OP is asking for.

I am not sure the OP actually agrees that there is fine tuning, only the appearance of one. But that is nit picking. If you wish to concentrate on why there is the appearance of fine tuning using only empirical data as well as is it a result of "one of many" or "specially designed" once again using only empirical data, then I fail to see how you can answer any of these questions. Yes, we have constants in our universe that give the appearance of fine tuning, as does the cascading clotting factors. However, as we have shown with the various other uses of the proteins used in clotting factors and how the cascading effect is only one factor of their capabilities, it effectively shows that while it appears to be fine tuning, it isn't. The cosmological constants are what they are. We have no more empirical data to point to fine tuning than to intelligent design. But to look at it in a biological view, one might may the argument that fine tuning is in fact the cascading effect, similar to that of the clotting factors. One constant develops and other constants that are already in existence could well adapt to this constant to cascade on down so that all the constants eventually work. That trickle down effect. We have empirical data of this in biological functions. And they require no intelligent designer using a gentle hand to fine tune things. Rather, nature simply reacts to one thing that leads to another, etc......

In regards to empirical data of other universes vs only ours or if ours is special while others are not. Otseng is right. Currently we can only hypothesize about other universes that could contain their own set of constants, laws of physics, weather per se. But remember, there was a time when we could only hypothesize that neutrons and protons weren't elementary particles. With the advancement of technology, we now know them to be not elementary particles.

[otseng]

But the universe, or properties of the universe as a whole, are unique in having no such background that we can access. So these basic statements can only be made in conjunction with assumptions about that background -- including the assumption that there might not be a background. .

Likewise, the "one of many" makes an assumption that a creator does not exist.

However, the "specially designed" explanation does not necessarily "assume" that other backgrounds do not exist, but simply states that there is no evidence for it. Whereas there are independent arguments/evidence for a creator in addition to the apparent fine-tuning of the physical constants. If there were no other independent arguments for a designer, then it would probably have equal footing with the "one of many" explanation. But, since there exists multiple other evidences for a creator, then it has more support than the "one of many".

QED and I have already agreed that there is and that it demands an explanation.

Da ya mean I'm gonna have to take the both of you on.

I think a separate thread would be best for this.

I am not sure the OP actually agrees that there is fine tuning, only the appearance of one. But that is nit picking.

No, you're correct. At the minimum, there is the appearance of fine-tuning. I think on this point is what QED and I agree on. I alone would go farther and actually state that it is fine-tuning.

Currently we can only hypothesize about other universes that could contain their own set of constants, laws of physics, weather per se. But remember, there was a time when we could only hypothesize that neutrons and protons weren't elementary particles. With the advancement of technology, we now know them to be not elementary particles.

I think this could then be testable prediction of the designer explanation. Namely, we will never have any empirical evidence that multiverses exist. If we ever come across any empirical evidence of multiverses, then it would falsify the designer explanation.