Teleological Argument vs. Weak Anthropic Principle

[QED]

As an introduction to this long-overdue debate I could not sum up the position of the Teleological Argument vs. the Weak Anthropic Principle any better than this:

The teleological argument, or argument from design, is considered by many to be one of the strongest arguments for the existence of god(s). Many proponents of this argument point to the improbability of a universe existing with properties compatible with the existence of observers as evidence that the universe was designed. This fine-tuning argument argues that the probability of the universe existing with the features compatible with our existence is prohibitively low and therefore necessitate a divine designer.

In many other debates Harvey takes the Teleological Argument as evidence for God and here he denounces the WAP calling it a "conceptual scheme for the denial of the evidence for God":

This only demonstrates the tendencies of atheists to construct conceptual schemes to try and deny the evidence for God--not the actual doing away of the evidence. If anything, the arguments for a beginning have only increased since Hoyle uttered his comments.

By "conceptual schemes that deny the evidence of God" you're probably referring to the WAP. Well, unless you have tangible evidence other than the eminent suitability of our environment to our existence, then yes, this observation is denied as evidence.

The WAP doesn't explain why something exists as it does,

Agreed -- it doesn't set out to do this. What it does tell us is that there can be circumstances where we should not be surprised at what might otherwise seem like remarkable coincidences. It is this element of surprise that is the motivation for seeing the apparent fine-tuning as a deliberate and purposeful act. Harvey's take on this is as follows:

it just explains how it is that under certain circumstances things could have been slightly different.

This sounds like an attempt to play down the importance of the WAP, which other than telling us that things could have been different, tells us that sometimes we should not be surprised at remarkable coincidences when our existence depends on them. So when he follows up with an example:

For example, in our air the percentage of nitrogen and oxygen is approximately 78/21%, but the WAP doesn't tell us why there are people that breathe air--it just explains how it is that under certain circumstances things could have been slightly different. Perhaps there could have been people who breathe a slightly different percentage of composition of air. That's not to say that the WAP explains how there could have been people had there been no air.

The real importance of the WAP in this example is that it shows that there is nothing remarkable about the fact that the ratio of gasses in the atmosphere is just right for us to breathe. I think Harvey should have emphasised this more in his example. Instead it looks as though he has chosen, once more, to stress the fact that the WAP offers no actual explanation for why there is an atmosphere. Clearly if there wasn't, we wouldn't be debating the point and that in itself might be evidence for God -- but Given that we would probably also be able to contemplate different ratios for the gasses (i.e. other ratios that could also support intelligent life) then the particular ratio we have now should not be viewed as being "tailored to us", rather it is far more probable that we are "tailored to it". Likewise, it can be argued, it is also unnecessary for the universe to have been tailored for us.

So, the WAP is not sufficient reason to deny Hoyle's insight that the big bang insinuated God's existence. In my view, since Hoyle's time the big bang has been perceived differently by the atheist because the atheist has had no choice but to perceive it differently to remain an atheist. As part of that re-perceptual process they have ignored the significance of the evidence. But, who are we really kidding here? In my opinion it's not that most atheists aren't aware of the significance of a beginning, it's that they purposely choose to not be aware of this evidence. That's enmity of God, and that's why I say that most atheists have this enmity. That's okay to have enmity for a concept if it helps them get over their puppy who was run over when they were five, but I think that enmity is a motive to ignore evidence--tons and tons of evidence.

So the question for debate is this: Does the WAP cast serious doubt on the "tons of evidence" that so convinces Harvey and others -- when our environment may just be one of many, perhaps most of which would be unsuitable for life?

[QED]

The mistake that I see most commonly being made here is to equate the tautology to insignificance by ignoring the fact that the anthropic coincidences aren't simply tautologous, they are strange and unusual enough to cause leading physicists, like, Leonard Susskind, to make statements like:

'The "appearance" of design is undeniable...' or others to note that... "We may occupy a preferred place or preferred time in the Universe"

But look at the qualifications in those statements -- "appearance" [of design] -- may occupy [a preferred place]. It remains stubbornly ambiguous and I think most people do acknowledge this. At the heart of this problem is knowing when we should be surprised at something and when we should not. If there was any arrogance to be found wouldn't it be in those who insist on there being no ambiguity and who tell us that we should or should not be surprised?

I sense that you might not be too happy with Barrow and Tipler (I may be totally wrong of course!) -- but I noted a degree of scientific honesty in their pointing out that the WAP might be used to exclude a creator God even if every Tree, Rabbit etc., had "made by God" clearly stamped upon it!

We have no natural turbulance generated mechanism that explains why the universe doesn't have a higher rate of entropy than it does.

So the point that you're missing is that the AP is telling us something about that mechanism... and the most special implication is that we are it.

This is an unfamiliar concept to me, perhaps you could explain it in a bit more detail or link me up with a reference.

[island]

But look at the qualifications in those statements -- "appearance" [of design] -- may occupy [a preferred place]. It remains stubbornly ambiguous and I think most people do acknowledge this.

No, it's not ambiguous if you don't allow unproven theoretical speculation into the mix, which is the reason why Lenny also said:

Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics.

So, what is being *passively acknowleged* is that scientists are fully preindoctrinated to dogmatically ignore this evidence, or Lenny would not have said this first:

Amanda Gefter:
If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?

Leonard Susskind:
I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world.

Sorry, (natural explantions" not withstanding), the expressed willful intent to deny evidence that we're not here by accident is not science, it's dogma, pure and simple, so there is no ambiguity and no valid argument about this. Of course... ideologically motivated anitifanatics don't see it this way either, so there are a whole boatload of arguments that are PREDESIGED to make things look more ambiguous than they really are. A bunch of people pretending that the evidence doesn't exist, doesn't make it not so, and a bunch of people inventing a bunch of universes or Leprachans that *might* exist elsewhere if the conditions are just right, doesn't cut it either, in a carbon chauvanistic universe where carbon chains and molecules form more readiliy than the next most plausible life-element, (silicon), even in silicon rich environments... LIKE EARTH.

I sense that you might not be too happy with Barrow and Tipler (I may be totally wrong of course!) -- but I noted a degree of scientific honesty in their pointing out that the WAP might be used to exclude a creator God even if every Tree, Rabbit etc., had "made by God" clearly stamped upon it!

hmmm, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I support ID, when in reality, I actually support that Lenny doesn't know the difference between evidence for intrinsic finality and evidence for ID. Which means that you probably also can't imagine how we can possibly be here for some purpose that doesn't include god or ID.

We have no natural turbulance generated mechanism that explains why the universe doesn't have a higher rate of entropy than it does.

So the point that you're missing is that the AP is telling us something about that mechanism... and the most special implication is that we are it.

This is an unfamiliar concept to me, perhaps you could explain it in a bit more detail or link me up with a reference.

You don't know what the flatness problem is, or you don't understand its ramifacations?... [/i]

[QED]

No, it's not ambiguous if you don't allow unproven theoretical speculation into the mix, which is the reason why Lenny also said:

Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics.

So, what is being *passively acknowleged* is that scientists are fully preindoctrinated to dogmatically ignore this evidence, or Lenny would not have said this first:

Amanda Gefter:
If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?

Leonard Susskind:
I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world.

Sorry, (natural explantions" not withstanding), the expressed willful intent to deny evidence that we're not here by accident is not science, it's dogma, pure and simple...

Forgive me for stopping you here; it's obvious to me that you've been studying this matter at some length and I myself am hoping to gain a more balanced perspective of the AP, so I want to properly understand the points that you're making.

You speak of "evidence that we are not here by accident" which is being willfully denied in an unscientific fashion. This evidence is presumably the predisposition of the universal physics towards carbon based life. What you effectively seem to be saying is that what casts doubt on this as evidence is the unscientific supposition of some larger probabilistic state space. Now I'm not sure if it's reasonable to refer to such suppositions as unscientific -- I really don't know. But your claim is a great deal stronger -- that there is evidence that we are not here by accident.

You see, I can easily understand the potential for self-selection effects and I'm always wary of them coloring our perceptions. Neither is it dogma to say that we are causally restricted to a subset region of space time imposed by our present light cone. This horizon exists as a function of the finite speed of light and is creating an ever moving boundary. Coupling these two facts alone would seem to place us in a rather ambiguous position without any further speculation along the lines of MWH.

But of course we would have to accept that if we restrict ourselves to that which can be observed directly then we must draw radically different conclusions. Unfortunately the history of science does not give us much encouragement for this type of approach.

..., so there is no ambiguity and no valid argument about this. Of course... ideologically motivated anitifanatics don't see it this way either, so there are a whole boatload of arguments that are PREDESIGED to make things look more ambiguous than they really are. A bunch of people pretending that the evidence doesn't exist, doesn't make it not so, and a bunch of people inventing a bunch of universes or Leprachans that *might* exist elsewhere if the conditions are just right, doesn't cut it either, in a carbon chauvanistic universe where carbon chains and molecules form more readiliy than the next most plausible life-element, (silicon), even in silicon rich environments... LIKE EARTH.

I'm captivated by that passionate glint in your eye! But every last remarkable coincidence is seemingly at the mercy of the WAP. It matters not how many we hold up in amazement -- they are all potentially self-selected.

hmmm, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I support ID, when in reality, I actually support that Lenny doesn't know the difference between evidence for intrinsic finality and evidence for ID. Which means that you probably also can't imagine how we can possibly be here for some purpose that doesn't include god or ID.

Sorry, IF sounds very much like ID to the unwashed -- perhaps an explanation is in order.

You don't know what the flatness problem is, or you don't understand its ramifacations?...

I simply didn't make the connection between "a natural turbulence generated mechanism that explains why the universe doesn't have a higher rate of entropy than it does" and the flatness problem.

[island]

No, it's not ambiguous if you don't allow unproven theoretical speculation into the mix, which is the reason why Lenny also said:

Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics.

So, what is being *passively acknowleged* is that scientists are fully preindoctrinated to dogmatically ignore this evidence, or Lenny would not have said this first:

Amanda Gefter:
If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?

Leonard Susskind:
I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world.

Sorry, (natural explantions" not withstanding), the expressed willful intent to deny evidence that we're not here by accident is not science, it's dogma, pure and simple...

Forgive me for stopping you here; it's obvious to me that you've been studying this matter at some length and I myself am hoping to gain a more balanced perspective of the AP, so I want to properly understand the points that you're making.

You speak of "evidence that we are not here by accident" which is being willfully denied in an unscientific fashion.

Wait. Stop. This is important. I noted that *Lenny* "was speaking of evidence that indicates that we're not here by accident"... if we can't lose the significance of the evidence in a multiverse of potential. Regardless of any and all arguments to the contrary, what is critically important here is that you acknowledge that I also very clearly pointed out how he had publicly admitted that scientists are predispositioned to ignore this evidence.

This isn't just a little bit important to this whole matter, so it is also very important that you recognize this for me, so that I can know that I'm not talking to one of them!... or I cannot trust that you will not do the same thing. That is, of course, an exagertion, because I don't really have any reason to see you in this light, but don't you see how this makes further discussion moot, if you can't trust that the scientist, (or even the branch) that you're talking to isn't going to deny that a smoking gun and a dead body make for a suspicious combination that MERRITS FURTHER INVESTIGATION TO SEE IF THE IMPLIED MURDER HAPPENED.

This is what it's really all about, because common sense tells you that scientists should first exhaust every avenue to see what physics might be common and functionally relevant to us and the universe rather than to express intent to willfully ignore the implication while grasping at every other imaginable possibility under the sun that they can think of in order to avoid the implication that this is more than just an "uncanny coincidence".




[An honest admission that I have reasonably proven the widespread existence of this problem among scientists concerning the AP, and the detrimental consequences that this pre-existing prejudice potentially has on science... goes here]

This evidence is presumably the predisposition of the universal physics towards carbon based life. What you effectively seem to be saying is that what casts doubt on this as evidence is the unscientific supposition of some larger probabilistic state space. Now I'm not sure if it's reasonable to refer to such suppositions as unscientific -- I really don't know. But your claim is a great deal stronger -- that there is evidence that we are not here by accident.

You see, I can easily understand the potential for self-selection effects and I'm always wary of them coloring our perceptions. Neither is it dogma to say that we are causally restricted to a subset region of space time imposed by our present light cone.

This horizon exists as a function of the finite speed of light and is creating an ever moving boundary. Coupling these two facts alone would seem to place us in a rather ambiguous position without any further speculation along the lines of MWH.

But of course we would have to accept that if we restrict ourselves to that which can be observed directly then we must draw radically different conclusions. Unfortunately the history of science does not give us much encouragement for this type of approach.

My point is that this doesn't supercede the implications of empiricism without first exhausting every method of investigating how these implications might be relevant to the physics of our universe.

..., so there is no ambiguity and no valid argument about this. Of course... ideologically motivated anitifanatics don't see it this way either, so there are a whole boatload of arguments that are PREDESIGED to make things look more ambiguous than they really are. A bunch of people pretending that the evidence doesn't exist, doesn't make it not so, and a bunch of people inventing a bunch of universes or Leprachans that *might* exist elsewhere if the conditions are just right, doesn't cut it either, in a carbon chauvanistic universe where carbon chains and molecules form more readiliy than the next most plausible life-element, (silicon), even in silicon rich environments... LIKE EARTH.

I'm captivated by that passionate glint in your eye! But every last remarkable coincidence is seemingly at the mercy of the WAP. It matters not how many we hold up in amazement -- they are all potentially self-selected.

But again, my point is that this isn't what causes the amazement, and that answer is not the one that is called for because of this, so it's not right for science to *automatically* assume that it is.

hmmm, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I support ID, when in reality, I actually support that Lenny doesn't know the difference between evidence for intrinsic finality and evidence for ID. Which means that you probably also can't imagine how we can possibly be here for some purpose that doesn't include god or ID.

Sorry, IF sounds very much like ID to the unwashed -- perhaps an explanation is in order.

Any physical need for us to be here will accomplish the same thing, so it should also be recognized that this obvious fact makes for the default scientific position... before you jump to ask what evidence that might be.

You don't know what the flatness problem is, or you don't understand its ramifacations?...

I simply didn't make the connection between "a natural turbulence generated mechanism that explains why the universe doesn't have a higher rate of entropy than it does" and the flatness problem.

Yeah... that's why I winked@ya... I figured that you simply weren't thinking it through because it's not something that's commonly pointed out, although Sean Carroll commonly does.

The miminum entropy configuration of our universe is the MOST NATURAL configuration that our big bang should produce per the least action principle... because....................... [fill in the blank, but notice that uncertainty and multiverses don't most naturally go here].

Causality responsible physics does, so again, my point is that you don't *automatically* reach for non-causal rationale in order to ignore that the implications of the AP are that our existence has something special to do with this, because you are just asking to miss the reason why the forces are constrained in the manner that they are, if you do, while risking that you'll miss the rest of the story due to preconceived prejudice against any and all physics that derives anthropic/biocentric preference.

[HughDP]

Island, with all due respect, that completely misses the point. You are looking for rhyme and reason in something isn't designed to provide that.

All the WAP says is that we should not be surprised to find physical 'laws' and coinicidences that are contributory to our existence within the world we observe.

It does nor purport to explain a universal 'how'; it merely says that it's balatently obvious that we will notice coincidences simply because without such coincidences we wouldn't be here to notice them!

It does not deny a teleological argument, it simply adds an adjunct that tempers it in relation to we observe the 'coincidences'.

[island]

Um, no, that isn't what Lenny and others have noted from the unusual nature of the cosmic ecobalances;

It means that a Copernican Cosmological Principle DOES NOT WORK.

Like Brandon Carter and others before him pointed out, (before Tipler and Barrow popularized it):

At the conference in Cracow, in 1973, Brandon Carter said that the AP respresents a line of thought against exaggerated subservience to the Copernican Cosmological Principle that he believed was potentially fertile, but that it needs further development.

It is equally arrogant to assume a purely copernican universe as it is to conclude that we are at the center of the universe, because it does not logically follow from the ecobalanced nature of the anthropic coincidences and the large scale observational evidence, that life is as completely insignificant as the copernican principle would demand by extension. Carter called this anti-centrist approach, "dogma"... which in its most extreme form led to the "Perfect Cosmological Principle".

Modern anti-centrists and religious "anti-fanatics" are no less arrogant due to their pre-existing pre-dispositioning toward appealing to causality-lacking answers. Carter's observation clearly indicates that they still dogmatically deny the evidence in order to chase the same "random" extreme to the exact same meaningless dead-end. They have an *unbelievably* good imagination when it comes to avoiding any implication for anthropic preference, but absolutely none when it comes to embracing the idea:

Carter Said:
Our situation is not necessarily central, it is inevitably privileged to some extent.

This point is critically important to this, (although, widely ignored), because the physics that defines the anthropic principle readily extends to, and cannot be restricted from incuding planets that inhabit every spiral galaxy that evolved within the same "layer/habitable-zone" of conditions, (time and location-wise), as our own galaxy, (in terms of the commonality and continuity in the evolution of the same basic raw materials that were produced by our observed carbon chauvinistic universe). In this case, the principle is "biocentric", meaning that life is *more-generally* important to the physics of the universe at this particular time in its history, and so it will *necessarily* be every bit as common to the universe as the physical need for it demands.

In this same scientific context, real HONEST scientists will ask questions like; 'I wonder if intelligent life does something that *cumulatively* affects the physics of the universe and makes it necessary to the process?'

[island]

Point of fact:

John Wheeler's urging was most influential in Carter's decision to put forth the AP, so it is expected that Wheeler already had his true *special* anthropic constraint on the forces in mind before Carter formalized the principle.

My point here is that Wheelers derivation proves that scientists do think in terms of a true anthropic preference, so denying that the physics carries this special inferrence requires willful ignorance of the facts.

My answer with all due respect to John Wheeler is that you'd have to be independently wealthy to think that we're here to observe the work...

My personal contribution would be a lot of hard evidence that... it is highly probable that a true anthropic constraint on the forces of the universe will necessarily include the human evolutionary process, which indicates that there exists a mechanism that enables the universe to "leap", so we should look to theory for ways that our high-energy physics contributions in cumulative conjuction with other similar mecahisms... enables this to happen.

What is it that we do that directly affects the symmetry/flatness of the universe?

What a coincidence/NOT

[HughDP]

In this same scientific context, real HONEST scientists will ask questions like; 'I wonder if intelligent life does something that *cumulatively* affects the physics of the universe and makes it necessary to theprocess?'

Yes, of course they will, but that's got nothing to do with the anthropic principle.

Theists will look for God in the smallest rumble of a radiator pipe, but the anthropic principle is not about God; it's not about atheism; it's the most blatant statement of fact one can get. If we weren't here we wouldn't see the coincidences. Simple.

There is no point to prove other than in the minds of popular arguments that generate pointless discussion about it.

It's so simple a fact that I cannot believe there's even the slightest objection.

[QED]

I have to agree with Hugh about this being "matter of fact" material. We always need to bear in mind the potential for self-selecting effects but I also agree that when the picture is incomplete we mustn't fall into the trap of using any supposition that favours whatever philosophical prejudices we might bring along with us. And that certainly means we should be keeping a look out for anything and everything that might provide a causal connection -- no matter how bizarre.

Island, I've been trying to understand the notions behind the Final Anthropic Principle recently -- without much success. I have to confess to getting confused by the various frames of reference assumed by the different authors contributing to this field. I have noted a certain amount of ambiguity which makes one suspicious at the motivation of the individuals concerned. I can't help but notice a certain amount of paranoia in your own replies here and I have every sympathy with you. Surely it should be possible to understand the concepts in a theologically neutral way?

Now as to your tantalizing question "What is it that we do that directly affects the symmetry/flatness of the universe?" my immediate reaction is that we (and potential life elsewhere) have probably only been a feature of this universe for a relatively short period. I've seen some fairly convincing arguments that intelligent life such as can be found on this planet is a very rare commodity, so I'm at a loss to see how your idea (if I understand it right) might work.

[HughDP]

Now as to your tantalizing question "What is it that we do that directly affects the symmetry/flatness of the universe?" my immediate reaction is that we (and potential life elsewhere) have probably only been a feature of this universe for a relatively short period. I've seen some fairly convincing arguments that intelligent life such as can be found on this planet is a very rare commodity, so I'm at a loss to see how your idea (if I understand it right) might work.

That's quite an important point actually. But doesn't it play to the WAP anyway? We may be rare but we are, in fact, here.

It's the coincidence factor.

Today, I had a plumber out (at great expense), but that's hardly surprising as I have pipes in my house. One can question why I have pipes in my house in the first place but - given that I do - it shouldn't surprise me that I need a plumber.

That's the WAP as I see it. Given the current situation, I shouldn't be surprised at coincidences that follow. The situation being that the coincidences follow naturally and can't themselves be seen as unusual. We can still argue the 'first cause' of those coincidences of course, but once we set ourselves up for a coincidence it is far more likely it will follow.

I think the point is that those coincidences are not in themselves indicative of anything.

As I see the WAP, we're here: fact. Don't be surprised that we can breathe air, eat food and pay for expensive plumbers. Why we're here could be debated on a number of reasons, but the coincidences we now notice are not viable arguments alone to justify those reasons.