New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning (General)

by dhw, Monday, February 24, 2025, 11:00 (10 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The universe is as it is because of certain factors, and if the universe did not exist as it is, life would not be possible. There is no disagreement. But fine tuning for life must include whatever factors change inanimate matter into living matter!

DAVID: The 20+ physical factors presented in this universe are not biochemical in any way. We do not know enough about the biochemistry of the origin of life to know if physical fine-tuning is involved. Stop lumping the biochemistry of life with the physical attributes of this universe that allow life. The physical structure of this life allowing universe is a separate issue from the biochemical steps that start life.

“Allowing life” is not the same as fine-tuning for life, and it is a distortion of language to say that fine-tuning for life has nothing to do with the processes that lead to life! I would say that the 20+ physical factors represent some of the necessary conditions for life, but the fine-tuning is what turns inanimate matter into animate beings. Your next statement directly contradicts oher statements:

DAVID: The physical makeup of this universe allows life wherever there is a hospitable
climate.[…]

Compare this to “The entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear.” Does the entire universe offer a “hospitable climate”, or is such a climate limited to individual heavenly bodies? Please answer.

dhw: You have spent years and written books pointing out the uniqueness of our planet, and you insist that your God’s only purpose for creating the universe was to design us and our food. How does this equate with life “popping up” wherever there is a hospitable climate?

DAVID: Of course God would put life in hospitable places.

But according to you, his one purpose was to put life (and specifically us plus our food) on Earth. If he exists, do you not think his putting life on Earth entailed his conscious fine-tuning, as opposed to “Life can pop up anywhere with a hospitable climate” and: “We do not know how life decided to appear.”

DAVID: Anywhere the climate is hospitable in this universe life can appear. Only on Earth, so far.

Thank you for agreeing that life can only appear if conditions are suitable. It follows that since conditions are not suitable everywhere in the universe, the entire universe is not fine-tuned for life. And “only on Earth, so far” confirms that so far, the only place in the universe that we KNOW is fine-tuned for life is Earth.

You have just posed a highly relevant article:

Bacteria fix nitrogen in oceans

DAVID: nature is balanced. Without cyanobacteria and nitrogen-fixing bacteria we would not exist.

And we would not exist without oceans. Physical and biochemical components combining as part of the fine-tuning of life, which you now agree is NOT to be found in the entire universe.

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.”

“Birds have developed sophisticated neural circuits through their own mechanisms, without following the same path as mammals.”

dhw: You explained this as being due to a 3.8-billion-year-old programme of instructions; we both reject Darwin’s random mutations, and I prefer Sheldrake’s theory of cellular intelligence.

DAVID: Sheldrake's theory?

Oops! A slip of the brain! I meant Shapiro, of course.
'
dhw: You then repeated your mantra:

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

dhw: So your God provided the first cells with programmes for every species, every strategy, every response to every new threat/opportunity, to be passed on through billions of years even into our present and future. I get it. I just don’t believe it.

DAVID: Immunity proves it. One system makes antibodies for everything!
And:
DAVID: One simple immune system makes antibodies for every enemy. Take a piece of the invader, add a killer portion to it and an antibody appears.

dhw: You have managed to change the subject from bird brains (see above) to the immune system, and you have dodged the fact that your theory also embraces every species, strategy, lifestyle, response to new threats/opportunities etc.

And you still dodge the implications and complications of your theory compared to Shapiro’s.

DAVID: That the antibodies we produce are sometimes inadequate does not answer the point of the simplicity of the system which is adequate 99.9% of the time.

Same problem as theodicy, though I don’t know where you get your 99.9% from. I still propose that the deaths of millions of people are not to be dismissed, and that it might be less insulting to your God if the “system” was autonomous but fallible cellular intelligence rather than divine but fallible 3.8-billion-year-old instructions.