Q&A: Challenge to Fine-Tuning — What Are the Probability Space and Distribution?
Challenge to Fine-Tuning — What Are the Probability Space and Distribution?
Question
Your claim about the laws of nature leading to the spontaneous creation of low entropy contains two basic assumptions: that the space of possible laws of nature is infinite and continuous.
Why?
You assume a uniform distribution. How do you know it is a uniform distribution?
How do you know this is even a random variable with a probability space? How do you know it is continuous rather than discrete?
But let’s assume for a moment that there is a continuous space of possibilities. What is its probability distribution?
On what basis does the person asking this determine that the characteristic width of parameter X is significantly greater than 0.000001%?
Maybe the characteristic width of that parameter is only 0.00000000001%?
In that case, the probability of getting a parameter that allows life in the universe is practically 100%.
That’s not really fine-tuning if the probability of getting the desired result is 100%, right?
There is no substantive basis for the claim that you need a designer in order to get a probability distribution that differs from a uniform one. We see non-uniform distributions in nature all the time.
If anything, you would need a designer in order to get a uniform distribution. That is not really a natural state. Even coins and dice do not tend to be truly fair unless a great deal of effort is invested in making them.
The fine-tuning argument is not valid if you cannot answer the question, “What is the probability distribution?” It is just meaningless gibberish.
Full disclosure: the writer is a physicist at NASA
Answer
One of the problems with physicists and mathematicians, whether they are at NASA or not, is that they ignore philosophical questions and focus on calculations. There is no question of a distribution here at all. Even if there is some distribution, someone created it. Your claim that there are strange, non-uniform distributions in nature is irrelevant to the discussion. They too came into being somehow. In my view, God created them too, so that proves nothing for our purposes. Therefore the question is directly about the results (= the universe), with no connection to whatever distribution underlies them. The distribution is part of the universe that I am examining.
We are trying here to decide between two hypotheses: 1. The universe was created randomly, blindly (by whom? or by what?). 2. It was created by an intentional agent. If it was created randomly, there is no distribution governing the result, because that distribution itself is part of the universe and requires an explanation. We would then ask who created it and why.
As for our issue, the question is whether it is plausible that a universe created in some random way would come into being with laws exactly like these. If you want to say that in the background there is a distribution causing the laws to be such-and-such, then I will ask who created that distribution. In the final analysis, de facto the perspective is like a uniform distribution, but not because I know that this is the distribution. Rather, when I ask about the distribution itself, that is the philosophical default. Lack of knowledge is expressed in the assumption of a uniform distribution. Think of a coin about which you have no information at all, whether it is symmetric or not. You must bet on which side it will land on, or else they kill you. What probability would you assign to heads? I assume 50%. Not because you have any information whatsoever about the coin, since you do not. Precisely because you do not. In the absence of information, you assign equal probability to each outcome.
The fine-tuning argument only says that our world is special. That is a fact. From there on, the question is philosophical: what is the meaning of this uniqueness? Who created it, and can it come about by chance or not? Your claim is similar to the following: I see something very special and exceptional, and I wonder how it happened. You answer: it happened entirely by chance. I say that it is not plausible that chance would produce something so special. You answer me: that randomness is governed by a distribution according to which the probability of the special thing coming into being is 1 and everything else is 0 (the density of a delta function over this case). Now I ask: so who created that distribution, and through it the special thing? After all, whoever determines that the distribution will be a delta function has thereby determined the result. When you talk about the distribution, you are only describing the way that creator produced the special product. It is not an alternative explanation for the existence of a creator.
As an aside, I cannot resist the following remark. Your “full disclosure” seems very odd to me. Usually, full disclosure is meant to remove suspicion or put possible biases of the writer on the table. And even that is only if he is giving me information that is not accessible to me, in which case I have to trust him. In such a case he should disclose if he has a personal stake in the matter, so that I know to be suspicious of the information. For example, if someone tells me that so-and-so is corrupt, but he himself is competing against him in a tender or for some position, then of course he should disclose that when giving me the information, so I know to treat it with suspicion. But if he has evidence that I can examine showing that so-and-so is corrupt, then his disclosure is completely irrelevant. It does not matter who he is or what his relationship is to the person in question; the evidence speaks for itself. Likewise, when someone raises a philosophical argument or any other argument that can be examined on its own merits, full disclosure is entirely irrelevant. It does not matter who or what you are, so long as anyone can examine the argument and form an opinion about it. Even if you are a shoemaker from Netivot, your mathematical argument may be excellent, and even if you are a physicist from NASA, your argument may be mistaken, as indeed I think is the case here. The argument stands on its own, and everyone can examine it and decide what they think. Here, the “full disclosure” does the opposite: instead of preventing bias, it tries to create it. The innocent reader who does not understand the concepts you used is supposed to accept the claim because you are a physicist at NASA. In other words, you are trying to bias the readers’ opinion, and you even call it “full disclosure.” Strange.
Discussion on Answer
Your very first sentence already contains a serious error.
You assume there is something special about uniform distributions because that makes sense to you.
Your failure here is that you assume uniform distributions are special and therefore they are the natural state, and if we see something else then it is a sign that something happened.
That is not true. It comes from your view of yourself as the crown of creation.
In practice, you start from the assumption that God exists in an attempt to prove that He exists.
That is just a tautology.
It really represents the hidden assumption of yours that creates this whole problem from the outset.
You assume that you are special.
You assume that the universe and reality have to make sense to you personally,
that they have to work according to laws that fit nicely in your head.
That is where all your failures come from.
You claim that the universe is special, but that claim rests on the assumption that you are special.
In practice you are saying, “The universe is special because it is special.” That is a tautology.
As long as you start from the assumption that you are the crown of creation and that the universe must function in a way that makes sense to you, it is impossible to make progress.
K,
That is a different question. I dealt with it in my book The First Existent. Briefly, scientifically it is now known that this did not always exist. Beyond that, matter does not seem like the kind of thing that exists eternally. Obviously we are not familiar with creation ex nihilo, from the point when everything was created onward.
Hello Roi.
It is hard for me to discuss this when you have not read and/or not understood what I wrote.
There is not in my words, and certainly not in the first sentence, even the slightest hint of the claim that a uniform distribution is special. Where did you see that?
I do indeed assume that life, meaning me, is a special and complex form of entity. That has nothing whatsoever to do with my habits or with seeing myself as something special. I do not assume that I am something special. I state it. There are objective scientific measures for this. Life is a state of super-low entropy compared to any inanimate object whatever. I dealt with this at length in my book.
I also do not assume that God exists; I prove it.
The basis of your claim is that a uniform distribution is special, since it is the default.
If it is the default, then it is special.
You have two basic assumptions that in practice say God exists, and these are:
1) A uniform distribution is a unique distribution that serves as the default for everything in the absence of constraints.
2) Everything is random and its space of possibilities is infinite and continuous unless there are constraints.
Those are two very, very strong assumptions.
For that matter, your axioms are several orders of magnitude more complex than mine.
I will repeat again. I am not claiming that a uniform distribution is special, and you have never found in my words even the slightest hint of such a thing.
It seems to me we have exhausted this.
Could you please clarify a point that has suddenly become blurred for me? Up above you dealt with the creation of a universe out of nothing and said that on the side that this is possible, all universes have equal probability: “that is the philosophical default. […] In the absence of information, you assign equal probability to each outcome.” But below column 473 you explicitly distinguished that when there is a mechanism but its mode of operation is unknown, then “in the absence of other information I might assume a uniform distribution, but I would not build anything on that,” whereas in hypothetical creation out of nothing there is no mechanism at all, and then the assumption of a uniform distribution is a claim that this is how it must be and not merely a default.
There is confusing terminology here. I am not talking about a uniform distribution. I am talking about an equal chance for all possibilities. That sounds like the same thing, but it is not. There is no distribution here. This is a philosophical consideration, one of plausibility rather than probability. When there is no information and nothing at all that affects reality, the assumption is that all possibilities are on the table. Not because of a distribution, but because there is nothing else. You can call it a uniform distribution, but that is misleading terminology. The point is that if the state is a complete vacuum—not only that you have no information about it, but there is no such information, there is nothing there—and now something is created or exists there, then an explanation is needed for why it was created or exists at all, and an explanation is needed for why it is as it is. And if it is special, that cries out for explanation. Presumably something is responsible for it.
See the example I gave above. A special world came out, and I claim that there is probably something that created it. Then someone else comes and explains to me that this is because the probability density over world-structures is a delta function concentrated around our world. Is that an alternative explanation? Obviously not. The question now is why that is the density. You cannot construct probabilistic explanations when you are dealing with the emergence of everything from a vacuum. There is no defined event space in the prior state. There is a space of possibilities.
I gave an example of this with a coin about which you have no information at all and you have to bet. You will bet on 50% without having a drop of information. Simply because of the symmetry created by your lack of information.
In the absence of everything, it is not true that a uniform distribution is necessary. My claim is that in such a situation there is no distribution, and therefore one assigns equal weight to all possibilities, but not equal probability. Probability is not defined in such a situation. It is like saying that the length of a point is 0. A point has no length, because it is zero-dimensional. And likewise it is not correct to say that a blind person sees everything as black. He does not see at all.
You claim that a special world came out, and already here you have two unjustified basic assumptions.
Within the three words “a special world came out” there are 2 gigantic basic assumptions that you have never justified.
“came out” — meaning there are lotteries
“special” — meaning the probability is low
As stated, these are massive basic assumptions. Do you want to explain them?
Because I do not agree with you about them, and therefore the rest of your argument is simply irrelevant because it relies on them.
Equal weight for all possibilities is a uniform distribution.
Roi,
Your argument starts nicely—like many arguments that try to attack the fine-tuning argument—but slowly falls apart into a series of confusions between probabilistic and philosophical concepts, and between causality and ignorance.
1. Mixing probability with metaphysical content
You claim: “Equal weight for all possibilities is a uniform distribution.” Not true. That is a careless flattening. Equal weight is not identical to a uniform probability distribution. In the case of a universe coming into being from nothing, there is no defined probability space at all. This is a situation in which no physical law is defined, and therefore one cannot speak of a “distribution,” only of principled assumptions regarding what will count as “plausible” when there is no information whatsoever. That is precisely the philosophical starting point.
2. The assumption of “there are no lotteries”
You wrote: “The word ‘came out’ assumes there are lotteries.” Again, confusion. The use of the phrase “came out” (similar to using the concept of probability in hypothetical problems) reflects lack of knowledge, not the existence of a physical lottery process. Just as a person bets on the result of a coin he has never seen, so the philosopher asks about the plausibility of the existence of such a universe, out of absence of knowledge.
3. A basic philosophical error: probability under lack of information
When there is no mechanism and no law of nature, you cannot claim any probability. And then—precisely because of that—philosophy assumes equality of weights. That is not a “strong assumption” but a minimal default, the Principle of Indifference: if there is no preference for a certain state, there is no justification for preferring it.
4. Your argument is itself a disguised tautology
You write that Michi assumes the world is special—but that is not an assumption; it is an empirical assertion: this world, with “physical constants astonishingly precise,” allows intelligent life. That is not an assumption. It is an observation. Your claim of “who says it is special?” is like responding: “Why are you excited that you found a needle in a haystack? Maybe there is always a needle exactly in the center of the haystack.”
5. On philosophy dressed up as mathematics
You presented yourself as a physicist at NASA—but you did not manage to make a simple distinction between observational statistics and epistemic, philosophical analysis. A real physicist knows when he stops speaking as a physicist and starts trespassing into metaphysics. You wrote: “This claim comes from your feeling that you are the crown of creation”—but again, that is emotional reading, not an argument. That feeling is irrelevant. The very existence of an intelligent capacity that investigates itself, in an environment astonishingly precise in allowing its existence, is an amazing observation that demands explanation.
6. And finally—hidden failures in logical syntax
You wrote:
“You assume there are lotteries, therefore one can speak of probability.”
But the assumption is not about a lottery—it is about possibilities. And that distinction is critical. The fine-tuning argument does not claim that the universe underwent a random process in the physical sense, but that the space of possibilities is so rich—and our universe so rare—that the question arises of how it was selected.
In the end,
you claimed that the world is not special? Look at the very fact that you are able to formulate a complex response using symbolic language, operating with reflective consciousness, and grappling with concepts like universe, law of nature, probability, and metaphysics—is that not “special”?
If that is just a random product, then the logic driving you to write the response is also a blind result. So why should something devoid of meaning make claims about meaning?
The scientist from the bathroom,
with soft toilet paper in one hand and reason in the other.
1. The definition of a uniform distribution is equal weight for all possibilities.
That is the mathematical definition.
Go argue with mathematics. Good luck.
It is well known that most philosophers are not proficient in logic, mathematics, or skeptical thinking. That will not help you here; I do not accept ignorance as an argument.
2. You cannot ask about probabilities out of absence of knowledge, as stated.
You are assuming something.
You pretend you are assuming nothing, but you are making massive assumptions. This is a well-known philosophical strategy and the main reason so much of philosophy is illogical nonsense.
3. Again, same thing. A basic misunderstanding of probability.
As stated, that is the problem with philosophers.
They think they do not need to understand anything or learn anything in order to acquire knowledge.
4. That is not an empirical assertion; it is an assumption with a million more hidden assumptions. I explained why.
Your lack of understanding in mathematics is not a logical argument.
5. A real physicist knows that metaphysics is the way ignorant philosophers make themselves feel good about their unwillingness to delve into complex topics.
There is no such thing as “metaphysics.”
Just as there is no such thing as “qualia” or “spiritual essence” or “soul” (in the spiritual sense and not as a label for a person’s inner world).
6. Again, a basic misunderstanding of probability.
You listen to philosophers too much.
They do not understand mathematics, so they pretend that logic and mathematics do not exist and invent problems and solutions that have no connection to reality.
You simply have one very, very basic mistake.
You do not know logic, you do not know mathematics.
You assume you do not need to know.
That is your mistake.
Hello Roi,
What is the probability that the sun will rise tomorrow?
Best regards,
The engneer
A second response to Roi
Your impressive list of nose-in-the-air superiority on the one hand, and shallowness of analysis on the other, reminds me of a charming parable: a person who declares himself a tennis expert while at the same time smashing the racket into a concrete wall and scolding everyone about why the ball is not coming back.
Let us go point by point:
1. “The definition of a uniform distribution is equal weight for all possibilities.”
Lovely. Except that you forgot to distinguish between a defined probability distribution and a philosophical consideration in a pre-probabilistic situation.
When there is no defined probability space, as in a “metaphysical vacuum” in which “fine-tuning” supposedly occurs, there is no distribution on which to apply mathematics. The attempt to “prove” that someone is assuming a uniform distribution just because he assumes nothing is equivalent to saying that someone who closes his eyes is claiming that there is objective darkness.
2. “You cannot ask about probabilities out of absence of knowledge…”
Again, wrong. The assumption of equality among possibilities is a classic methodological tool, not an assumption about the world. It is precisely the maximum-information assumption, Jaynes’s principle of maximum information, that guides us when there is no prior knowledge. Every basic book on probability theory notes this.
3. “This is the problem with philosophers. They think they do not need to understand anything…”
At this point you have moved on to pure ad hominem. Not only is the logical fallacy glaring, but in doing so you yourself confirm Michael Abraham’s claims about the tyranny of scientific condescension: instead of explaining, you simply place yourself above everyone else and trample the very idea of reasoned argument.
4. “That is not an empirical assertion, it is an assumption with a million hidden assumptions…”
You are confusing a priori assumptions with empirical implications. Every science is founded on background assumptions. The difference between scientific method and good philosophy is recognizing and formulating the assumptions explicitly—not evading them in the name of “I’m just a mathematician.” The philosophical default is what makes it possible even to begin thinking. Without it there is no question and no problem.
5. “There is no such thing as metaphysics…”
Here again you are mistaken twice:
First, every real physicist studies the ontology of science. Even David Deutsch and Roger Penrose speak about this explicitly.
Second, to say that “metaphysics does not exist” is itself a metaphysical claim, just as the claim “there are no absolute truths” contradicts itself.
6. “You do not know mathematics…”
And here—you fell into the trap you set for yourself. What is your assumption? That you are speaking to an ignoramus. But notice—Michi did not make a mathematical claim; he asked a philosophical question about the plausibility of the emergence of certain laws of nature. That is a question no formula will solve for you without crossing into the territory you despise: the philosophy of probability.
Long story short,
Roi, if you want to pretend to represent rationalism, start by understanding what rationality is. It is not an aggressive style, not the name of your workplace, and not a general hatred for the word “philosophy.”
Give an argument. Spell out your assumptions. Respect the objects of discussion. And do not expect mathematical proofs in spaces where even simple propositional logic has not yet been agreed upon.
The universe really is “special,” even if not in your eyes. But your refusal to grapple with the question itself suggests that perhaps you are simply afraid—not of the conclusion, but of the possibility that there is a deeper question that the natural sciences alone do not solve.
Rabbi Michi—I hope I understood you correctly. Did you mean this: even if it is possible that after infinitely many attempts our world was created, the very fact that there is a law that allows the world to come into being is the amazing thing?
Did I understand correctly?
The very fact that many worlds are created requires explanation. Who created and operates this world-generator? And there are further layers that I will not go into here. That is not the discussion here.
Who is this David-Michael Abraham? Is that Michi, or someone named David? Or Michi’s uncle David? And while we’re at it, when it says “Michi team,” is that also Michi? Or one of Michi’s team, but not necessarily Michi—sometimes someone else from the team writing in Michi’s name?
Only I answer on this site.
The Rabbi ignores the option that the universe, or some part of it, always existed and from there developed through the Big Bang. That makes the option of creation unnecessary. Just as we know of nothing that was created from nothing, only something from something.
Glass ← sand ← rock ← minerals ← planet Earth ← the solar system ← an interstellar gas cloud ← supernovas ← stars ← elements ← the Big Bang ← ?
The ? could be a factor that always existed (before that there was no time), and at some stage developed into a Big Bang.
————————————–
Full disclosure:
The questioner is not a physicist at NASA but an engineer near a space-products line 🙂
And speaking of NASA, Elon Musk is wiping the floor with you guys when it comes to handling your junk in space.