Universal Design: Logic or value judgment?

[Furrowed Brow]

In the thread One of many or specially designed Otseng and myself found ourselves opposed. Otseng believed that study of physical phenomena and the physical constants provided evidence that the universe is finely tuned for carbon based life, and that this fine tuning is evidence of design. Otseng felt that this position was strengthened because multiple universes are not observable, and that we should only take the universe as it is observed to guide us.

As a counter point, rather than debate the “observed evidence” I insist this debate needs strangling at conception. I say this because I think the interpretation of fine tuning has nothing to do with the “evidence“, or even the rejection of multiple universes, and everything to do with semantics and the logic of argument.

So for the sake of argument. Assume [1] that there are no multiverses. That [2] there is just this and only this universe. Also assume that [3] the physical constants are very very finely balanced for carbon based life. So finely balanced that this universe provides the only possible permutation of values to the physical constants that can lead to carbon based life. Also assume [4] that only carbon based life counts as what can be meant by life. Given all the these assumptions I still maintain that it is invalid to argue that the universe is designed, and that it requires an aesthetic bias to see the universe in that light.

Here are some basic reasons as to why I’d say that:

A/ The above assumptions guarantee that if there is life then we will see the universe with the exact values to the physical constants that we in fact do see. This is the week anthropic principle. Which I believe is a truism.

B/ If there is only one way to generate/create carbon based life then it is impossible to infer the fingerprints of a designer on that particular permutation of values. Whether the universe sprung from nothing, is eternal or designed by a creator it is impossible to tell.

C/ If one finds its suspicious that the values of the physical constants just happen to be the right ones for carbon based life, then so what? They are also the right ones for galaxies, black holes, puddles and rocks. By what objective criteria absent of value judgement do we single out life as a special case?

So given the above assumptions 1 through to 4. Is it valid to infer that the universe is designed?

[otseng]

A/ The above assumptions guarantee that if there is life then we will see the universe with the exact values to the physical constants that we in fact do see. This is the week anthropic principle. Which I believe is a truism.

I do not believe the AP is a truism. Truism would refer to a self-evident fact that would be too obvious to mention. However, AP has arisen from recent scientific discoveries. Prior to this time, it was not self-evident that the physical constants were necessary to be within a narrow range in order for life to exist. Now that we know the constants need to be within a small range, we do accept it as a fact now. But, since it was not evident before, it cannot be considered a truism.

B/ If there is only one way to generate/create carbon based life then it is impossible to infer the fingerprints of a designer on that particular permutation of values. Whether the universe sprung from nothing, is eternal or designed by a creator it is impossible to tell.

True, we cannot infer much from only one set of data. However, we do know the theoretical results of the permutations of the constants. So, though we only have one empirical data set, we are able to analyze the theoretical data set and determine that alternate values will not be able to support life.

C/ If one finds its suspicious that the values of the physical constants just happen to be the right ones for carbon based life, then so what? They are also the right ones for galaxies, black holes, puddles and rocks. By what objective criteria absent of value judgement do we single out life as a special case?

If life did not arise, then it'd be quite a strange universe. It would seem odd to have a universe (and assuming no other universes exist) that would only consist of stars, planets, and other stuff and be totally void of any life. There would not be a single bacteria. No intelligent creature to ponder the universe. No alien civilizations trying to conquer each other. It would be totally dead.

But, life is not just singled out. If the constants were changed, not only would life not be here, but elements, chemicals, stars, planets, and galaxies would also not exist.

So given the above assumptions 1 through to 4. Is it valid to infer that the universe is designed?

So, yes, it is valid to infer design.

[olivergringold]

Why is carbon based life special? By "finely tuning" the universe for carbon based life, are we not excluding silicon based life? Or ununulinulium based life? What makes carbon anything beyond arbitrary? There is no design because there is no designed...we are simply a by-product of the laws in this particular universe. If said laws were different, a different variety of life-form, with different components at a different distance from a differently sized star, would be contemplating the plausibility of their design. Just because we're here that doesn't mean that we're supposed to be here...indeed, it doesn't mean that anything is supposed to be anything...it just means that we're here.

If life did not arise, then it'd be quite a strange universe. It would seem odd to have a universe (and assuming no other universes exist) that would only consist of stars, planets, and other stuff and be totally void of any life. There would not be a single bacteria. No intelligent creature to ponder the universe. No alien civilizations trying to conquer each other. It would be totally dead.

That is a rather pompous proclomation. We can't ponder the universe any more than a rock can. We are limited to our five senses, and anything that does not fall within their bounds is unknown and unknowable to us, unless otherwise translated into our fraction of an existence. We cannot see X-Rays unless we shift them into the visible spectrum, we cannot detect high or low pitched frequencies, unless we adjust them to our audible ranges, we cannot "sense" gravity, cannot grasp energy and cannot imagine even half of what we find. All of these things are merely understood by science through interpolations and configurations using the most basic and simplistic of inputs.

It is often said that the Intelligent Designers hold a God-based world view, and the atheist holds the Man-based world view, but thinking that we are somehow unique or praiseworthy in our statures or accomplishments is a fallacy beyond description for those who Believe. The true atheist understands that, on the universal scale, we are a less than a pinprick...less than anything that even warrants a description. We just are, no different from the way that a rock is, and we are fortunate enough, be it by pure chance or by product of the spinning cogs of the greater universe, to explore what can best be described as our most immediate surroundings with even the slightest degree of comprehension. It is a privilege, to be certain, but it is not by "design." For further reading, I suggest GOD: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor J. Stenger, or Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker.

[otseng]

Why is carbon based life special? By "finely tuning" the universe for carbon based life, are we not excluding silicon based life? Or ununulinulium based life? What makes carbon anything beyond arbitrary?

Carbon is not arbitrary. And it's not a result of carbon chauvinism either. It is by examining the properties of carbon and other elements and determining that it is the optimal element for life. More in this post in the Nature's Destiny thread.

There is no design because there is no designed.

Wouldn't this statement be considered a truism?

We can't ponder the universe any more than a rock can.

I'm pretty sure I can ponder the universe more than a rock can.

For further reading, I suggest GOD: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor J. Stenger, or Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker.

I haven't read God:The Failed Hypothesis, but I have read The Blind Watchmaker. And to be honest, it was a big letdown. I cannot understand why Darwinists recommend the book so highly.

[olivergringold]

Carbon is not arbitrary. And it's not a result of carbon chauvinism either. It is by examining the properties of carbon and other elements and determining that it is the optimal element for life. More in this post in the Nature's Destiny thread.

You fail to miss the point that it's only optimal here, with our gravitational constants, our chemical properties, and our lifeforms. Changing the constants or the nature of chemical bonds, as could easily have happened in any other arbitrary arrangement of our universe, means that carbon is no longer a carbon as we know it. I do not pretend to be esoteric, but the best way I can try to communicate to you what I'm trying to get across is that you have to consider hypothetically that our Universe isn't, and that another Universe is. Carbon would not necessarily be optimal for life, and therefore life probably wouldn't be based off of carbon.

Wouldn't this statement be considered a truism?

Only if there is no evidence of a lacking design. There are plenty of aspects about the universe we live in, and even the planet we live on, which suggest that if there was a designer, their capabilities were remedial at best.

I'm pretty sure I can ponder the universe more than a rock can.

Only to the extent that your senses allow. That statement was made to emphasize that our senses are so limited and so meager that to consider ourselves greater than rocks is, in the grand scheme of things, a great deal more self-posturing than our accomplishments have earned.

I haven't read God:The Failed Hypothesis, but I have read The Blind Watchmaker. And to be honest, it was a big letdown. I cannot understand why Darwinists recommend the book so highly.

The primary point of the book, no matter how overly lengthy it was, is that a universe with design requires more explanation than a universe without one. I, for one, was not in the least bit let down by his examinations of biology.

[QED]

Hello olivergringold. I've not bumped into you before! Welcome to the DC&R forums

Carbon is not arbitrary. And it's not a result of carbon chauvinism either. It is by examining the properties of carbon and other elements and determining that it is the optimal element for life. More in this post in the Nature's Destiny thread.

You fail to miss the point that it's only optimal here, with our gravitational constants, our chemical properties, and our lifeforms. Changing the constants or the nature of chemical bonds, as could easily have happened in any other arbitrary arrangement of our universe, means that carbon is no longer a carbon as we know it. I do not pretend to be esoteric, but the best way I can try to communicate to you what I'm trying to get across is that you have to consider hypothetically that our Universe isn't, and that another Universe is. Carbon would not necessarily be optimal for life, and therefore life probably wouldn't be based off of carbon.

I think otseng is trying to make the point that if we stick to the only universe we know about, carbon can be objectively shown to be the most ubiquitous element as a "backbone" for molecular bonds -- and that has some special significance. At the range of temperatures and pressures here on Earth it certainly is the most ubiquitous, and I might accept without too much proof that it could be quantifiably optimal in this kind of role over all temps and pressures in the universe -- but even then, so what?

Out of all the elements with their highly varied properties we shouldn't be surprised to see one that stands out as a "winner" among all others for this kind of award, and even more-so, we shouldn't be surprised that we find ourselves made out of this stuff. There might be a physicist somewhere, who's biological base is boron, swimming in a liquid ammonia sea contemplating how much more energetic life-forms based on carbon would be. He might even be green -- with envy!

[Furrowed Brow]

I do not believe the AP is a truism. Truism would refer to a self-evident fact that would be too obvious to mention.

OK the anthropic principles has several formulations. Check these four quotes out:

The weak anthropic principle states that in a universe that is large or infinite in space and/or time, the conditions necessary for the development of life will be met only in certain regions that are limited in space and time. The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe their locality in he universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence…..

…the weak anthropic principle. The argument can be used to explain why the conditions happen to be just right for the existence of (intelligent) life on the earth at the present time. For if they were not just right, then we should not have found ourselves to be here now, but somewhere else, at some other appropriate time.

….Some, however, go much further and propose a strong version of the principle. According to this theory, there are either many different universes or many different regions of a single universe, each with its own initial configuration and, perhaps, with its own set of laws. In most of these universes the conditions would not be right for the development of complicated organisms; only in the few universes that are like ours would intelligent beings develop and ask the question: “Why is the universe the way we see it?” The answer is then simple: If it had been different, we would not be here!

The strong anthropic principle goes further. In this case, we are concerned not just with our spatio-temporal location within the universe, but within the infinitude of possible universes.…The argument would be that if the constants or the laws were any different, then we should not be in this particular universe,, but we should be in some other one!

The weak anthropic principle is associated with a single spatio-temporal universe, and the strong anthropic universe is associated with the possibility of an infinity of possible universes.

When Hawking’s says intelligent beings finding themselves in a region of a universe suitable for life, should not be surprised about this. I think this is a truism.

In the context of the OP, we are assuming that this is the only possible universe that can support carbon based life and only carbon based life counts as life. Thus a carbon based intelligent life should not be surprised to see they live in a part of a universe that is suitable for carbon based life. And I think that is a truism.

Where the assumptions of the OP differs from the version of the APs expressed by Hawking’s and Penrose is that we are assuming that there are no other places and times, nor alternative universe. Only this observed universe counts. And even under that assumption it is still a truism to say that as carbon based intelligent life we should not be surprised about the fitness of the universe for carbon based life. Another truism.

True, we cannot infer much from only one set of data. However, we do know the theoretical results of the permutations of the constants. So, though we only have one empirical data set, we are able to analyse the theoretical data set and determine that alternate values will not be able to support life.

I’ve built that point into our starting assumptions. So for the sake of the argument I am not disagreeing with this point.

But, life is not just singled out. If the constants were changed, not only would life not be here, but elements, chemicals, stars, planets, and galaxies would also not exist.

I’m not going to disagree with that point either. But then there would be other stuff, other forms of existences, and maybe some will be akin to green pea soup. In that case the same basic point expands to those alternatives. By what objective criteria do we single out the universe with carbon life, galaxies, rock and puddles as a special case?

If life did not arise, then it'd be quite a strange universe. It would seem odd to have a universe (and assuming no other universes exist) that would only consist of stars, planets, and other stuff and be totally void of any life. There would not be a single bacteria. No intelligent creature to ponder the universe. No alien civilizations trying to conquer each other. It would be totally dead.

By what criteria do you define “strange”. And by what criteria do you infer that a live universe is of a different status to a dead universe? Why can’t a dead universe be designed? Because it contains no life? By what objective criteria do you judge a live universe to be more preferable than a dead universe?

Now before you start thinking I’m crazy. I happy to say life is preferable. But I can’t prove that with logic or physical evidence. It is as I keep saying a value judgment. And the point to my criticism of your stance is that it is invalid to infer a value judgement from any set of premises that are value free. So for you argument to be valid it has to be circular, with its premises already containing the value you want to conclude. But a value judgment is not objective. Thus the design argument is not objective and circular.

[olivergringold]

Hello olivergringold. I've not bumped into you before! Welcome to the DC&R forums

A pleasure to meet you as well.

Out of all the elements with their highly varied properties we shouldn't be surprised to see one that stands out as a "winner" among all others for this kind of award, and even more-so, we shouldn't be surprised that we find ourselves made out of this stuff. There might be a physicist somewhere, who's biological base is boron, swimming in a liquid ammonia sea contemplating how much more energetic life-forms based on carbon would be. He might even be green -- with envy!

This is one of my favorite paragraphs ever. QFT.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Otseng felt that this position was strengthened because multiple universes are not observable, and that we should only take the universe as it is observed to guide us.

So, let me get this straight:

A guy who wants us to believe there's an unobservable thing that we have not a single shred of evidence for is ruling out an unobservable thing that we do have evidence for (namely, our universe)?

That's a special pleading which is a type of logical fallacy.

Design can never be a long term answer to anything because eventually the desinger requires a designer.

[Fisherking]

Design can never be a long term answer to anything because eventually the desinger requires a designer.

If the designer began to exist, yes. If the designer is eternal, no.