New Miscellany (General)

by dhw, Saturday, February 15, 2025, 08:44 (19 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolution

DAVID: He is a magnificent designer, using a messy evolution system. […]

dhw: Magnificent designer of organisms. Messy, inefficient designer of systems. See also the next item.

dhw: You have not responded, but the implication could hardly be clearer, and is one of several examples of inefficiency with which you inadvertently ridicule your all-powerful, all-knowing God.

DAVID: I view it differently. An all-knowing God will chose the best system to achieve His goal.

You insist that the method he used (designing and having to cull 99 out of 100 species) to achieve the goal you impose on him (us and our food) was messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Those are the adjectives you used, so how come you view it differently from the way you view it?

T-cells and immunity

DAVID: Same reply to your theodicy question. Proportionality. Almost everyone lives.

dhw: That does not explain how your all-powerful, all-knowing God can invent a system which is not perfect, i.e. does not “cover all”, but leads to millions of deaths before intelligent humans can "cover" the gaps left by the inefficiency you keep imposing on your God. Stop dodging!

DAVID: No dodge: God is not an inefficient designer. No need to repeat answers above.

You say he's a magnificent designer of organisms and an inefficient designer of systems (evolution and immunity). If a designer designs an inefficient design, he is an inefficient designer.

Fine-tuning

DAVID: Do you fully understand what the CMB tells us? It is the embryo of the universe? All the same with no oddball areas. An embryo can only follow its design. When fine tuning was a hot topic thirty years ago, no expert voiced your contrary point.

dhw: Do you know the meaning of "fine tuning"? Definitions for you: “to adjust precisely so as to bring to the highest level of performance or effectiveness”. (Merriam-Webster) - or. “to make very small changes to something so that it is as good as it can possibly be.” (Oxford) […]. Ours is the only planet is which all the adjustments have been made. We know nothing about adjustments in the unknown 95% of the universe.

DAVID: For the whole universe to exist all the factors must be fine-tuned, to exquisitely narrow points of accuracy. Earth's life allowing adjustments are a different issue entirely..
And:
DAVID: Apparently you weren't following the discussions thirty years ago. The whole universe exists because of the fine-tuning factors, about 20+ of them. It is all very sophisticated physics. "Universes" by John Leslie will explain it.

dhw: Apparently you have totally misunderstood the focus of the debate:

DAVID: No I haven't.

You have argued twice that fine-tuning applies to the existence of the universe, instead of to the existence of life in the universe! You even say the adjustments (= fine tuning) which have produced life on Earth are a different issue!

DAVID: You have argued fine-tuning is only on this galaxy. It is universe-wide.

I have argued that although all the ingredients for life are present in the universe, “fine- tuning” refers to all the adjustments that have to be made in order for them to produce life. The only galaxy we know of in which this fine-tuning takes place is ours. Meanwhile, two quotes correcting your blunder:

STANFORD Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
“Various reactions to the universe’s fine-tuning for life have been proposed: that it is a lucky coincidence which we have to accept as a primitive given; that it will be avoided by future best theories of fundamental physics; that the universe was created by some divine designer who established life-friendly conditions; and that fine-tuning for life indicates the existence of multiple other universes with conditions very different from those in our own universe. “

DAVID: I don't accept the multiverse alternative.

I'm pointing out that fine-tuning does not refer to the existence of the universe but to the existence of life. And I'm disputing the claim that the whole universe is fine-tuned to produce life, because the only life we know is confined to our planet.

dhw: A quote from Paul Davies:

Physicist Paul Davies said: "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life. But the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires".

dhw: The latter links up with my own arguments, so perhaps now you will deign to respond to them instead of ignoring them.

DAVID: All the quotes are correct. They accept fine-tuning is universe-wide to allow life. Remember you wanted it limited to this galaxy.

Thank you for indirectly acknowledging your blunder in insisting that fine tuning referred to the existence of the universe instead of to the existence of life. I don’t “want” anything. As Davies points out, the universe contains all the ingredients necessary for life, which is obviously true. But once more: that does not mean the whole universe is fine-tuned to produce life, since the only life we know of is in our galaxy.