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]

"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.

OK, I see what you are saying. I agree that it is possible to believe in both the Rare Earth hypothesis and the Mediocrity Principle at the same time.

But, what I'm proposing in the Mighty Anthropic Principle is that life is impossible elsewhere. Thus, it is impossible for the MAP and the Mediocrity Principle to be true simultaneously.

[Goat]

"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.

OK, I see what you are saying. I agree that it is possible to believe in both the Rare Earth hypothesis and the Mediocrity Principle at the same time.

But, what I'm proposing in the Mighty Anthropic Principle is that life is impossible elsewhere. Thus, it is impossible for the MAP and the Mediocrity Principle to be true simultaneously.

So, if we find life on Mars, or titan, then your "Mighty Anthropoic Principle' is falsified??

[otseng]

So, if we find life on Mars, or titan, then your "Mighty Anthropoic Principle' is falsified??

If a Martian or a Titanian is found, MAP would be falsified.

[ST88]

But, what I'm proposing in the Mighty Anthropic Principle is that life is impossible elsewhere. Thus, it is impossible for the MAP and the Mediocrity Principle to be true simultaneously.

The MAP is very different from arguing from a Rare Earth point of view. Rare Earth does not necessarily make the case that Earth must be alone. It makes the case that it would be most unusual to find exactly the same circumstance in which we find ourselves. So to use the Rare Earth vs. MP paradigm to make the case for the MAP vs. MP paradigm would not be valid.

If life is impossible elsewhere, we must ask ourselves why. Is it the variable problem? If so, then this is not an argument for a designer. At best we are back to a bi-polar position: either the astrophysics variables are exceedingly, perniciously aligned, or there is an intelligence out there quashing other Earth conditions.

[otseng]

The MAP is very different from arguing from a Rare Earth point of view. Rare Earth does not necessarily make the case that Earth must be alone.

Yes, MAP is different from Rare Earth. But, I don't believe Rare Earth was ever brought up in this thread before you mentioned it. I introduced MAP because of the ambiguity of all the current definitions of the AP.

It makes the case that it would be most unusual to find exactly the same circumstance in which we find ourselves.

I think it makes sense in light of the discoveries from astrobiology recently. But, I'm not so sure it was so clear years ago.

So to use the Rare Earth vs. MP paradigm to make the case for the MAP vs. MP paradigm would not be valid.

I don't believe I've ever directly compared Rare Earth vs MP. Nor have I used it to argue for MAP vs MP.

If life is impossible elsewhere, we must ask ourselves why. Is it the variable problem? If so, then this is not an argument for a designer. At best we are back to a bi-polar position: either the astrophysics variables are exceedingly, perniciously aligned, or there is an intelligence out there quashing other Earth conditions.

There is another position. There is an intelligence that designed the universe and the Earth so that complex life can exist on Earth.

And as I've mentioned in Rare Earth, if the MAP is true, it would invalidate the Mediocrity principle and even the Copernican principle. Would you agree with this?

[QED]

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

Not in the sense that you seem to think. It could be, for instance, that life is first to take on here, and will follow elsewhere at a later time. That we won the race and that you happen to be one of the lucky team members is no more special than you being you (or Prince Charles being heir to the throne). Some conscious being has to be the first to have such a capacity -- how can any of us say that we should not expect to be the first?

There is another position. There is an intelligence that designed the universe and the Earth so that complex life can exist on Earth.

Do you mean by this that the specification of every planet and star has been carefully designed such that Earth is uniquely reserved for life? This asks us to accept that the aggregation of interstellar dust into stellar systems is micro-managed to a stupendous degree. I think instead you have to mean that physics isn't capable of generating organic chemistry without outside intervention (at least to get it going initially).

[otseng]

Not in the sense that you seem to think. It could be, for instance, that life is first to take on here, and will follow elsewhere at a later time.

Space and time would not be a limitation. If we had a machine that could travel to any point in space and time and was able to visit every single spot on every single planet in all of the (observable and unobservable) universe for all of time (past and future) and find one extraterrestrial life, then MAP would be falsified.

Do you mean by this that the specification of every planet and star has been carefully designed such that Earth is uniquely reserved for life?

What I'm saying is that life requires such precise tuning that Earth had to be specially designed in order to host life. It's not that the other planets were specifically "detuned" for life, but that the Earth alone was "tuned" for life.

I think instead you have to mean that physics isn't capable of generating organic chemistry without outside intervention (at least to get it going initially).

That would be true too.

[ST88]

I don't believe I've ever directly compared Rare Earth vs MP. Nor have I used it to argue for MAP vs MP.

ARG! I had a really really good paragraph that addressed exactly this, and it somehow got left off of my last post. And now this scintillating commentary is lost somewhere in the jumble that is my head. It had to do with the MAP being Rare Earth on steroids. And then it all goes blank. I hate it when that happens, and it seems to be happening more frequently as I eat less and less ice cream.

If life is impossible elsewhere, we must ask ourselves why. Is it the variable problem? If so, then this is not an argument for a designer. At best we are back to a bi-polar position: either the astrophysics variables are exceedingly, perniciously aligned, or there is an intelligence out there quashing other Earth conditions.

There is another position. There is an intelligence that designed the universe and the Earth so that complex life can exist on Earth.

That is really the same as the quashing hypothesis. To assume MAP is true, you would first have to assume that there was a designer, so it can't be used as evidence for a designer.

debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=110266#110266]Rare Earth[/url], if the MAP is true, it would invalidate the Mediocrity principle and even the Copernican principle. Would you agree with this?

If MAP is true, then there would either be a designer or a perniciously Rare Earth.

[QED]

Do you mean by this that the specification of every planet and star has been carefully designed such that Earth is uniquely reserved for life?

What I'm saying is that life requires such precise tuning that Earth had to be specially designed in order to host life. It's not that the other planets were specifically "detuned" for life, but that the Earth alone was "tuned" for life.

I don't think this works. "Goldilocks" zones have definite widths and the sheer number of galaxies with solar systems is such that more than one Earth-like planet can be expected to show up in such bands. Atmospheres, oceans, rocks and sands are also to be expected. Thanks to carbon's natural affinities and the general distribution of heavy elements synthesised in stellar processes organic compounds are to be expected.

So I can't see how a special environment could have been tuned-up that wouldn't naturally occur elsewhere in the universe. I can only imagine the statistics somehow failing to deliver the first accidentally self-replicating compounds and requiring a bit of nano-engineering to create polypeptides or whatever.

[otseng]

To assume MAP is true, you would first have to assume that there was a designer, so it can't be used as evidence for a designer.

I wouldn't say that it assumes that there was a designer, but it does assume that there could be a designer. The validity of MAP rests on other arguments rather than simply the assumption that a designer could exist.

I can only imagine the statistics somehow failing to deliver the first accidentally self-replicating compounds and requiring a bit of nano-engineering to create polypeptides or whatever.

If it is improbable for a self-replicating compound to accidently form, then what other natural explanation is there? What nano-engineering are you referring to?

"Goldilocks" zones have definite widths and the sheer number of galaxies with solar systems is such that more than one Earth-like planet can be expected to show up in such bands.

One of the biggest factors is the hurdle of abiogenesis that you mentioned. I believe that abiogenesis is impossible. So, with this factor alone I can conclude that life would not exist elsewhere.