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?

[Goat]

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.

Unfortunatly for MAP, the concept of MAP is also assuming a more naturalistic explaination could not exist. It is also hard to prove.

[otseng]

Unfortunatly for MAP, the concept of MAP is also assuming a more naturalistic explaination could not exist.

I don't know why this comes up so often. But, we can only make conclusions on what we know so far. We cannot make any conclusions on what might come up in the future. And based on what we know so far, MAP is supportable by current empirical evidence. To appeal to the future doesn't diminish in any way the validity of MAP.

[The Duke of Vandals]

I don't know why this comes up so often. But, we can only make conclusions on what we know so far. We cannot make any conclusions on what might come up in the future.

Either you don't really believe that to be true or you're not a Christian. Which is it?

[otseng]

I don't know why this comes up so often. But, we can only make conclusions on what we know so far. We cannot make any conclusions on what might come up in the future.

Either you don't really believe that to be true or you're not a Christian. Which is it?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[QED]

I don't know why this comes up so often. But, we can only make conclusions on what we know so far. We cannot make any conclusions on what might come up in the future. And based on what we know so far, MAP is supportable by current empirical evidence. To appeal to the future doesn't diminish in any way the validity of MAP.

But beyond a certain point, the past is just as unknowable as the future. It's just as fallacious to base conclusions in ignorance of either. You seem to hold the opinion that it is reasonable to base conclusions only on what we have empirical evidence for. But in matters having truly cosmic scope, that evidence will inevitably be a function of some unseen prior state and it's interpretation will necessitate assumptions about that state.

[ST88]

Unfortunatly for MAP, the concept of MAP is also assuming a more naturalistic explaination could not exist.

I don't know why this comes up so often. But, we can only make conclusions on what we know so far. We cannot make any conclusions on what might come up in the future. And based on what we know so far, MAP is supportable by current empirical evidence. To appeal to the future doesn't diminish in any way the validity of MAP.

"Appeal to the future" doesn't constitute flawed thinking. While it may be true that we have not found life elsewhere, there is currently no reason to make the assumption that life ONLY exists here. If we study 1 square meter of a grassy meadow and do not find any ants, we are free to make the hypothesis that there are no ants anywhere in the meadow. However, to do so would not be practical. Not because we already know the nature of grassy meadows and ants (though that is part of it), but because we have not explored the entire meadow.

As a hypothesis, MAP is valid -- to be sure -- because it makes a claim that is testable. In this you are correct. However, it is only testable assuming that future discoveries or technologies will be able to assist us in determining this. Remember that the way to test this hypothesis is to look for life in another location. If we find it, MAP is invalidated; otherwise, we keep looking. (Heads I win/Tails we flip again) In other words, your hypothesis is only valid with an appeal to the future.

[otseng]

You seem to hold the opinion that it is reasonable to base conclusions only on what we have empirical evidence for.

I've been thinking about exactly how to respond to this. And I think I'd like to first say thanks. I'm sure you didn't intend this statement to be a compliment, but I think it indirectly is.

One of the requirements for participating on this forum is to be able to provide supporting evidence to back up claims. And it is something that I try to aspire to when trying to support my wild ideas. And your statement makes an implicit acknowledgement that my claims are based on empirical evidence.

But, to address your statement, of course I do not believe that conclusions should only be based on empirical evidence. By being a person of faith, that would be obvious. But in terms of debating, I believe the side with the most evidence has the advantage.

The charge is often made by non-theists to theists that there are no empirical evidence for the existence of a god. But, can I then charge back with "it is not reasonable to base conclusions only on what we have empirical evidence for"?

If conclusions cannot be made only on empirical evidence, then an additional factor in making a conclusion would then be an element of faith. That is, if we have no evidence of something, yet still believe it to be possibly true, then it would require a step of faith.

[QED]

You seem to hold the opinion that it is reasonable to base conclusions only on what we have empirical evidence for.

I've been thinking about exactly how to respond to this. And I think I'd like to first say thanks. I'm sure you didn't intend this statement to be a compliment, but I think it indirectly is.

Well the water is very deep indeed around here. None of us can touch the bottom with our feet. I don't think someone deserves a compliment for drawing a particular ontological conclusion from incomplete data. It's OK to describe the world in so far as the data reaches from one step to another, but sooner or later things are left dangling.

One of the requirements for participating on this forum is to be able to provide supporting evidence to back up claims. And it is something that I try to aspire to when trying to support my wild ideas. And your statement makes an implicit acknowledgement that my claims are based on empirical evidence.

For that I do compliment you. But one piece of evidence will always be missing -- just as all conclusions are drawn from premises which eventually reach an unsupportable assumption. The trick in debating here is pushing this assumption out beyond a level that we're happy to remain in ignorance of.

I've often tried to get across the fact that all the philosophers and theologians who believe they've arrived at God may in fact have discovered something entirely different -- but something all the same. As far as I can see the empirical evidence for this thing being the God of the bible is very flimsy. It mostly rests on drawing anthropic analogies but rarely attempts to justify why we should believe the universe runs along such familiar lines.

The charge is often made by non-theists to theists that there are no empirical evidence for the existence of a god. But, can I then charge back with "it is not reasonable to base conclusions only on what we have empirical evidence for"?

But in matters having truly cosmic scope, that evidence will inevitably be a function of some unseen prior state and it's interpretation will necessitate assumptions about that state.

The Theist is insisting on their assumption being accepted at the exclusion of all others. The very act of describing oneself as a theist implies this. A non-theist will acknowledge the existence of a plurality of different assumptions.

If conclusions cannot be made only on empirical evidence, then an additional factor in making a conclusion would then be an element of faith. That is, if we have no evidence of something, yet still believe it to be possibly true, then it would require a step of faith.

Of course, which is why there should be no pressure on anyone to share another's faith. But I think we all have a duty to point out where a belief cannot be true.

[otseng]

Well the water is very deep indeed around here. None of us can touch the bottom with our feet.

Agreed.

But one piece of evidence will always be missing -- just as all conclusions are drawn from premises which eventually reach an unsupportable assumption.

Agreed.

It mostly rests on drawing anthropic analogies but rarely attempts to justify why we should believe the universe runs along such familiar lines.

Could you restate what you mean by "should believe the universe runs along such familiar lines"?

But in matters having truly cosmic scope, that evidence will inevitably be a function of some unseen prior state and it's interpretation will necessitate assumptions about that state.

The Theist is insisting on their assumption being accepted at the exclusion of all others. The very act of describing oneself as a theist implies this. A non-theist will acknowledge the existence of a plurality of different assumptions.

I think this is the nature of debating. There will be several explanations placed on the table by all the parties. And then we try to argue whose position is stronger.

The possibility of a natural explanation is certainly not ruled out beforehand by theists. But, it needs to be have sufficient supporting evidence in order to win the argument.

Take for example the universe being elliptical non-Euclidean. Though this is widely accepted among cosmologists, I do not see enough evidence to support this. To me a far more acceptable view is that it is Euclidean.

But I think we all have a duty to point out where a belief cannot be true.

Agreed.

[QED]

It mostly rests on drawing anthropic analogies but rarely attempts to justify why we should believe the universe runs along such familiar lines.

Could you restate what you mean by "should believe the universe runs along such familiar lines"?

Sorry, yes, I can see now that I was being a bit cryptic. If you don't mind I'll quote John Barrow (who has recently scooped the 1.4 Million Dollar Templeton Foundation prize and now appears to support the notion of some kind of intelligent design) where he goes into some detail about the same common problem with the cosmological and teleological arguments that I had in mind:

At some point we have to just accept some postulates fro which we can give no reason why they should be true. Thus the nature of logic itself requires the principle of sufficient reason to be false.

Nevertheless, by insisting that the Universe is rational —which really means that the Universe has a causal structure which can be ordered by the human mind, and further that the ultimate reason for the existence of the Universe can be understood by human beings—the defenders of the cosmological argument are taking an Anthropic Principle position. In its insistence that there is an actual hierarchy of causes in the Universe which is isomorphic to the pyramid of causes constructed by human beings, the cosmological argument is analogous to the teleological argument, for the latter argument assert that the order observed in the Universe is isomorphic to the order produced by human beings when they construct artifacts. In both arguments the mental activities of human beings are used as a model for the Universe as a whole.

The Theist is insisting on their assumption being accepted at the exclusion of all others. The very act of describing oneself as a theist implies this. A non-theist will acknowledge the existence of a plurality of different assumptions.

I think this is the nature of debating. There will be several explanations placed on the table by all the parties. And then we try to argue whose position is stronger.

The possibility of a natural explanation is certainly not ruled out beforehand by theists. But, it needs to be have sufficient supporting evidence in order to win the argument.

I find that hard to understand. Wikipedia, for example, defines Theism as follows:

Theism is the belief in one or more gods or goddesses. More specifically, it may also mean the belief in God, a god, or gods, who is/are actively involved in maintaining the Universe.

Can there be anything natural in a Universe created by God? Every sub-atomic particle has presumably been forged and set in motion by this creator of everything so what possible argument (admissible to a theist) can we bring to the table for there being natural causes for any observable phenomena -- let alone for all of it?