New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning (General)

by dhw, Tuesday, February 18, 2025, 08:59 (16 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning

The focus of the fine-tuning debate is on whether the universe is fine-tuned for life. Clearly if the universe did not exist, there would be no life, and if the universe did not contain all the factors necessary for life, there would be no life. But I maintain that the “fine-tuning” consists in the selection and combination of all those factors, both biochemical and environmental. The only place we know of that has brought all of them together to create life is Planet Earth, and so I find it absurd to claim that the whole universe is fine-tuned for life. Only if we find life elsewhere will be able to say that a particular heavenly body is also fine-tuned for life.

David’s response to these points is initially to ignore them completely, and to focus solely on the existence and uniqueness of the universe itself, as follows:

DAVID: The 20+ factors are so interrelated, if one is off a tiny bit, the whole universe collapses.
DAVID: Fine-tuning has two meanings: a fine-tuned group of factors allowed this particular universe to exist. Secondarily the same fine-tuning allows life to appear. This means this universe is unique.
DAVID: The universe is a single unit. It does not differ from itself anywhere. Life is a totally separate issue.

I doubt if anyone would disagree that the universe exists and depends on a number of factors for its existence, and is itself and nothing but itself. But why must we confine the discussion to the existence of the universe? I have always been under the impression that you believed in a God who created the universe, and that your God had a purpose, and his purpose was to create us and our food, and to do that he had to create life. But now apparently “life is a secondary issue”! However, let’s look at the following exchange:

QUOTE: “The researchers said they plan to test their alternative model, including questioning the unique status of the proposed evolutionary "hard steps." The recommended research projects are outlined in the current paper and include such work as searching the atmospheres of planets outside our solar system for biosignatures, like the presence of oxygen.”

DAVID: This study presumes fine-tuning for life is everywhere in the universe. Life can then appear in any spot that evolves life hospitability as it did on Earth. With universal fine-tuning life can be invited anywhere. [dhw: I’m not sure what you meant by “invited”. Invented, perhaps?)

dhw: It presumes no such thing. It recommends research into atmospheres to see whether they are indeed fine-tuned for life, although even if individual factors are present, that still doesn’t guarantee there will be life. The only way you can prove that ANYWHERE is fine-tuned for life is if you find life!

DAVID: This unique universe is fine-tuned as it exists based on all the unique interrelated factors physicists describe. That it allows life is a secondary issue, not primary as you make it.

A complete dodge. You have supported the argument that the universe is fine-tuned for life, and the moment I point out the obvious fallacy, you scuttle back to the uniqueness of the universe and life being a “secondary issue”. There is no “primary” and “secondary” issue. We can agree that the universe is as it is, and that it contains all the factors necessary for life. So now you can move on and explain to me how you know that the whole universe is fine-tuned for life even though Planet Earth is the only place we know that is fine-tuned for life.

Bird brains

QUOTES: "The genetic tools they use to establish their cellular identity vary from species to species, each exhibiting new and unique cell types." This all indicates that these structures and circuits are not homologous, but rather the result of convergent evolution, meaning that "they have independently developed these essential neural circuits through different evolutionary paths.[/i]"

“Our studies show that evolution has found multiple solutions for building complex brains," explains Dr. García-Moreno. bbb"Birds have developed sophisticated neural circuits through their own mechanisms, bbbwithout following the same path as mammals.”

dhw: Evolution does not find anything. Evolution is a process, not an agent. The emphasis is always on how cells/cell communities develop or change their functions as they respond in their different ways to the conditions they are exposed to. You will no doubt tell us that every variation was divinely planned 3.8 billion years ago, or dabbled ad hoc. Shapiro suggests that all such changes are made by intelligent cells/cell communities that work out their own solutions (if they are clever enough – otherwise, they go extinct). You and I both reject Darwin’s theory of random mutations. Of the three explanations, I must confess I find Shapiro’s by far the most convincing, and to forestall your usual objection, his theory does not exclude your God, who may have designed the intelligent cell in the first place.

DAVID: Cells are not intelligent enough to design a new type of organism.

Yes, I know you prefer your theory of ad hoc divine dabbles or the first cells being provided with 3.8000,000,000 years’ worth of instructions.