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?

[olivergringold]

As my refutation in the Rare Earth thread goes unanswered, proof for the MAP is in short supply.

[Furrowed Brow]

Ok I think the idea behind MAP is something like well isn’t it strange that life can only appear here on Earth and no where else and in no other alternative universe. Well it certainly is then a unique result. But uniqueness doe not imply design.

By itself, uniqueness might not conclude design. But uniqueness is certainly an indicator of design. And if it's true that life is only found on Earth in the entire universe, at the minimum it would demolish the mediocrity principle.

I’d say no on both counts. The winner of the lottery is unique, but the winner him or herself is not designed to be the winner. The number Pi is unique, but it seems odd or inappropriate to say its value is designed. My son is unique as he is my only child, and he is very special to me - but that is my value judgment, whilst his uniqueness does not make him designed.

The mediocrity principle is the notion in the philosophy of science that there is nothing special about humans or the Earth.

A bit of a semantic tangle here I think. If one is using special as a synonym for uniqueness then yes, the winner of the lottery, Pi and my son are special by that measure. But if by the mediocrity principle it is meant that humans do not have a raised or elevated place in the scheme of things, and in this sense they are not special, then there is a difference in how we use the words unique and special.

If uniqueness is the measure then plutonium will be more special and thus more valuable than human beings. So I'd say humans are special, but not because of their uniqueness in the universe. Some things might be rarer still. So even if we admit they are unique there is then still nothing special about humans (or the Earth) - unless of course one is making a value judgment.

[otseng]

The conditions of the universe and the Earth are within a precise range so that complex, intelligent life can exist on Earth and that life cannot arise elsewhere in the universe.

The mediocrity principle is the notion in the philosophy of science that there is nothing special about humans or the Earth.

These two statements are pretty much on opposite ends of the spectrum. If one is true, the other cannot be. You cannot have life only on Earth and yet also say that there is nothing special about the Earth.

So, if one is proved to be true, the other is falsified.

[Goat]

The conditions of the universe and the Earth are within a precise range so that complex, intelligent life can exist on Earth and that life cannot arise elsewhere in the universe.

The mediocrity principle is the notion in the philosophy of science that there is nothing special about humans or the Earth.

These two statements are pretty much on opposite ends of the spectrum. If one is true, the other cannot be. You cannot have life only on Earth and yet also say that there is nothing special about the Earth.

So, if one is proved to be true, the other is falsified.

Can you prove that there is only life on the earth?

[otseng]

Can you prove that there is only life on the earth?

No, I cannot prove it. But, I believe it has a stronger case than the position that life exists elsewhere.

[Goat]

Can you prove that there is only life on the earth?

No, I cannot prove it. But, I believe it has a stronger case than the position that life exists elsewhere.

Considering the vastness of the universe, and the evidence that organic chemicals, and water are very common in the universe, why do you say that?

[otseng]

Can you prove that there is only life on the earth?

No, I cannot prove it. But, I believe it has a stronger case than the position that life exists elsewhere.

Considering the vastness of the universe, and the evidence that organic chemicals, and water are very common in the universe, why do you say that?

We could dedicate an entire thread on this topic. But in the meantime, two excellent books that we have threads on addressing life on other planets are: Nature's Destiny and Rare Earth. Though these books do not specifically state that there are no life on other planets, the latter strongly suggests it and the former argues for the tight constraints for life. And hopefully some time in the future we can cover the book The Privileged Planet as well.

[ST88]

The conditions of the universe and the Earth are within a precise range so that complex, intelligent life can exist on Earth and that life cannot arise elsewhere in the universe.

The mediocrity principle is the notion in the philosophy of science that there is nothing special about humans or the Earth.

These two statements are pretty much on opposite ends of the spectrum. If one is true, the other cannot be. You cannot have life only on Earth and yet also say that there is nothing special about the Earth.

So, if one is proved to be true, the other is falsified.

This is not true. They can both co-exist in a finite universe. Just as many parts of a meadow are boggy, but only one spot is boggy and peaty at the same time, the universe can also have pockets of carbon, but only one area where it can interact with water successfully. The idea of the lack of "specialness" in this case is that there is no selection mechanism. It is still just dumb luck that life arose here even if it's the only place where there is life. We should expect that if there is such a narrow, precise range of conditions, that these conditions might be somewhere given the range of probability. But there is nothing else that need be "special" about this place other than its suitability.

[otseng]

This is not true. They can both co-exist in a finite universe. Just as many parts of a meadow are boggy, but only one spot is boggy and peaty at the same time, the universe can also have pockets of carbon, but only one area where it can interact with water successfully. The idea of the lack of "specialness" in this case is that there is no selection mechanism. It is still just dumb luck that life arose here even if it's the only place where there is life. We should expect that if there is such a narrow, precise range of conditions, that these conditions might be somewhere given the range of probability. But there is nothing else that need be "special" about this place other than its suitability.

Are you saying that if life is only on Earth in the entire universe that there is nothing special about that?

[ST88]

Are you saying that if life is only on Earth in the entire universe that there is nothing special about that?

"Rare Earth" scenarios claim that there are hundreds nay hundreds of thousands of variables that all contribute to the arising of life on Earth. The "Specialness" of the Earth, then, would be having all of the variables aligned for it to happen, and because space is finite, we should expect very few places where there are Earths. "Mediocrity" scenarios claim that there is nothing special about the Earth that would make life impossible elsewhere.

I agree with both positions.

The difference here is philosophical. Let's say there are 100,000 variables necessary to align. Current lottery mechanics imply that the 100,000 variables will align in 1 spot. 99,999 will align in, say, 1.1 spots. 99,998 will align in 1.3 spots. etc. and on down the line until we check in at 99,000 to see that alignment becomes likely in several more places. If there are 70 99% Earths, what will it take to make them into 100% Earths?

You may call the shift from 99,999 to 100,000 (or even 99,000 to 100,000) "specialness". But what if those variables are based on the time of observation, such as "Is not in the path of any known apocalyptic asteroid" or "Is not subject to random currents of concentrated gamma rays," etc. Then it becomes a game of time-based expectations. If life is wiped out on Earth by an apocalyptic asteroid at ANY time in the future, it slips back to 99,999 (more likely back to 80,000 or so if the impact is big enough). The moon will spin out of its orbit. Earth's magnetic field will cease someday as the core spins down. The sun will implode. That is, there is nothing special about the Earth that makes it impervious to suddenly being "not special".