Blue Comments from Iain.
The argument that we would not be here if the conditions were
different but we are here and so there is no surprise they are like that, is
circular and unhelpful.
I'd never say the Universe is no surprise. It is totally incredible and
amazing every time I understand some of it.
It is also not circular and reasoning should never be considered unhelpful
if it doesn't agree with your way of putting it.
The three probability comparisons you give are all different from what I am
explaining to you and I'd like to try again and explain exactly why.
-The 20 marksmen who shoot and miss a condemned man.
-The dropping scrabble
pieces on the floor and they all land in a meaningful sequence (write some thing
distinct.
-Firing an arrow and hitting a bull’s eye at 3,000,000 miles.
The reason these are all making the same arguement is that after the result
it is possible to assess the probability of that result, and the probability of
them happening in a single shot time frame is astronomic. To be able to gauge
just how unlikely -
How unlikely is a trained marksman to miss at 10 yards?
You could try throwing down the scrabble pieces again as often as you want
to try and get them to spell a long, meaningful phrase.
If you had the power to fire a conventional bow and arrow to Mars in an
attempt to hit a 2 mm spot you can realize how unlikely that is.
These are all single shot (or not much more than single shot) attempts at
achieving a very improbable goal. In each case suppose there were a near-infinite number of attempts at achieving it. Arrows fired at the target on Mars:
100,000,000,000 fired in every microsecond on a near infinite timescale. When we
have a near-infinite number of attempts all of these become extremely likely to
happen much more than once.
This is not the same position as being aware on this planet and looking at
this universe and saying this is very unlikely. The reason is that we are
unable to assess the other possibilities.
We sitting here looking at our universe see that it fits with our
existence. But we are not able to assess all the universes that could
have come into existence. On a human timescale 14.5 billion years seems
immense; on another timescale it could be miniscule. Time is a dimension
and it is calculated that before the big bang it didn't exist. At the same
time (time is probably the wrong term but whatever it's called) as this universe
came into existence an infinite number of universes could also have been trying
to come into existence and all of them failing (like the wrong combination of
cards) because they had some combination that wouldn't work. Before this
universe came into existence there could have been an infinite number of
previous universes very different from ours that may or may not have had
intelligent life. It is impossible for us to know.
We just don’t know about what came before the universe (we also don’t know
what might come after) and while we can speculate about multiverses, time on
a different scale before this universe, multi-dimensions all with their own
attempts at universes that fail, infinite attempts at universes before this
one, infinite attempts at universes coming into existence within this
universe. We just don’t know. When we don’t know something but there
could be many possibilities it is not reasonable to claim that God must have
done it. We just don’t know.
My argument seemed incomplete without those last two paragraphs that I had
written previously, I don’t think I can be any clearer in trying to restate them
so I have carried them forward. Hope you don’t mind.
Martin Rees in his book Just 6 Numbers dismisses
it - which is why he plumps for the multiverse idea. He likens it to a man who
is condemned to death and has 20 marksmen who shoot him. All of them miss. He
opens his eyes and says - ah, they all missed. Well I am alive so they must have
missed - so there is nothing to ponder about that! It is clearly wrong for that
man to walk away without imagining the chances of such a thing happening. Martin
Rees goes for the multiverse because of the probabilities against one universe
having just the right conditions - it allows him and others more slack with the
statistics; (we are just lucky from an almost infinite number of failed
attempts). The multiverse idea however is proposed for non-scientific motives -
it is proposed because of an aversion to attributing something in nature to God.
This is a philosophical position and has nothing to do with science. There is no
empirical evidence for it and it goes against the principle of parsimony or
Occam's razor.
There are basic differences in the way you and I view things. I do not
know Martin Rees; I have not read his book but undoubtedly he is a clever chap
just as you are. However I do not give unsupported statements from him any
credence unless it is supported by evidence and reasoning. So referring to
what someone else in authority says means nothing unless it is supported by the
full reasoning that led to their conclusions.
What evidence do you have that the only reason that the multiverse idea has
been proposed is that it was to disallow God?
I think you are misusing Occam’s razor. You are using it to try to
disallow another consideration in the argument.
In separate statements have made claims against my argument that it is lazy,
circular, and unhelpful. Yet you have not given any reasons why you claim
this. It is a bit like calling someone names without justification.
I am personally very very struck by the fine-tuning argument for
God - as you can see. I see it as one of the most startling bits of evidence we
have if you are looking for statistics and facts.
An individual can be incredulous about something but it doesn't add any weight
to the validity of the argument they are making. It is facts and reasoning
that count.
Next: Antony replies...