Division and the Space of Possibilities – Fine Tuning
We know that in many cases, the range of options is limited.
For example, a coin can have two values, heads or tails. Suppose we tossed a coin and it came up heads. Would anyone be impressed that out of an infinite number of possible outcomes, we got heads? Probably not, because there were only two options to begin with, and this is one of them.
Or a die, which has 6 outcomes, we rolled the die and got 4.
Can someone say, "How did we get the number 4 out of millions of numbers in the world?" But in reality there weren't millions of possibilities, I couldn't get minus 17, I could only get results between 1-6. So any result between 1 and 6 is neither surprising nor special.
Now I suppose the argument of the fine tuning proponents is that someone designed the coin or die so that these are the possible outcomes.
And what about natural, physical values whose space of possibilities or probability distribution is not flat?
Spectral lines are formed from energy transitions within atoms (or ions) and they create a very bright line with a wavelength (or color) that is unique to the transition.
For example, oxygen has spectral lines in green (557 nm) and red (630 and 636 nm).
These are very specific numbers, but in practice the exact wavelength of each photon emitted in such a line is Completely random.
Again, the possibilities are endless. There is a greater than 0 probability of getting 580 instead of 557 for the green emission.
The important question in such a case is again – What is the distribution function??
When we understand the distribution function, it no longer "impresses" us that out of an infinite number of random values we actually get specific values.
Now the fine-tuning people will say that someone designed these values too – the Creator.
Like the cube, so are the physical constants and all the values derived from them. But that's the claim they're trying to prove...
Therefore, the fine-tuning argument is fundamentally circular:
A. I assume that there are infinite possibilities with equal distribution, and if the space of possibilities is limited, someone must have limited it.
B. Special values were obtained (which allow evolution)
C. Someone limited or designed these values
Your first assumption, that the space of possibilities is infinite and if it is finite someone has limited it, is the desired assumption. You could just as easily have assumed in advance that there is a designer without claiming anything.
- Your starting point is fundamentally wrong. The problem is not the small number of possibilities. Even if there were a million possibilities for some numerical outcome, for example a lottery of a number between 1 and a million, you would not be surprised if you got 109,569. The reason is not the number of possibilities but that the outcome is not special, and after all, one of these outcomes should have been obtained. Therefore, in this case, we would not be surprised by a random outcome. But if we got a result like 111,111, I assume that eyebrows would be raised. The reason for this is not its low probability (because it is the same as the probability of any other outcome) but its uniqueness. I have explained here many times in the past that it is important to distinguish between rare and exceptional in this matter. This is precisely the explanation of statistical mechanics for entropy. The ordered and special state has a probability like any other microscopic state, but it is special, and therefore being in it is low entropy. The result 111,111 is a special result and its entropy is low (like a state of a chain of length 7 in which each cell can be populated with a digit from 0 to 9. A turtle in which all cells have the same number has low entropy).
- I also do not assume any distribution, uniform or non-uniform, in my argument. You yourself explained that a distribution would not solve the problem, because then I would ask who created it itself ("divisions all the way down," as the well-known joke goes). Therefore, I should assume that the beginning was made without any guiding hand and without any prior information, and the result de facto is like a uniform (flat) distribution, but in a negative way. I once demonstrated this with two different experiments: You have a die that you know is fair. You assume a uniform distribution. Now you have a die that you have no information about. What distribution would you assume if you had to bet on the other one? Probably uniform (in the absence of other information). In the absence of information, we assume a uniform distribution, and if something special comes out, we marvel, that is, we assume that something created it. This is exactly the argument of fine tuning.
- In any case, you will understand that the issue of spectral lines or cases of non-flat distribution are not relevant to the discussion.
- Therefore, there is nothing circular here. The argument is that something special (not determined by its probability/rarity, but by its uniqueness/exception. See Section 1) requires a cause. A primary cause must be found at the basis of any distribution, and therefore distributions are not an alternative explanation. Conclusion: Someone created all of this.
- Of course, as I have written many times, every valid logical argument assumes what is wanted (assuming what is wanted is not a fallacy). Therefore, you can always argue this against logical arguments, and this argument is no exception.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer