Fine Tuning

Fine Tuning

Saying that the universe has certain features such that, had it only slightly different features than those, biological life would have been impossible.

The Theistic Hypothesis

There exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good being who created the universe. 

The Atheistic Single Universe Hypothesis

Theism is false, there exists one and only one universe, and it has the laws of nature and constants it does simply as a matter of brute fact.

Prime Principle of Confirmation

Whenever we are considering two competing hypotheses, H1 and H2, an observation, O, counts as evidence in favor of H1 over H2 if O is more probable under H1 than it is under H2. Moreover, the degree to which the evidence counts in favor of one hypothesis over another is proportional to the degree to which the observation is more probable under the one hypothesis than the other.

The Fine-Tuning Argument

(1) The existence of fine tuning is not improbable under theism

(2) The existence of fine tuning is very improbable under the atheist casing universe hypothesis

(C) The fine tuning data provides strong evidence to favor the theistic hypothesis over the atheistic hypothesis

\
\*Uses the Prime Principle of Confirmation

5 Objections to the Fine Tuning Argument

1. The More Fundamental Law Objection
2. The Anthropic Objection
3. The Other Forms of Life Objection
4. The “Who Designed God?” Objection
5. The Multiverse Objection

The More Fundamental Law Objection

(and response to the objection)

Maybe there’s a more fundamental law that determines the values of the constants. So it’ snot unlikely after all that they would fall within the life-permitting window.

\
Response: This just pushes the improbability back a step. It’s now very improbable that the fundamental law has the constraints in a life permitting way.

The Anthropic Objection

(and response to the objection)

It’s not surprising that we exist, since if we didn’t exist, we wouldn’t be here to talk about it.

\
Response: it is surprising that we exist. (Firing Squad Analogy)

The Other Forms of Life Objection

(and response to the objection)

Maybe different values for the constants wouldn’t have allowed for forms of life as we know it. But maybe they would have allowed for alternative forms of life.

\
Response: Ant sort of life is going to require there to be a minimum amount of organized complexity. In many cases, the possibility of organized complexity of any sort depends on the values of the constants falling within narrow windows.

The “Who Designed God?” Objection

(and response to the objection)

In a wonderfully designed universe, surely God is also wonderfully designed. But if God didn’t require a designer, then there is no reason why such a relatively les wonderful thing as the universe needed one.

\
Response: Sometime you should posit a more complex designer to explain some phenomena. Suppose we found a biosphere on Mars perfectly set up for human habitation. Surely we should question that there was a designer of it.

The Multiverse Hypothesis

Ours in one of numerous universes (maybe infinitely many) whose fundamental constants vary at random. There are also enough of these universes that it is almost certain that life permitting universes will occur every once in awhile

The Atheistic Multiverse Hypothesis

Both atheism and the multiverse hypothesis are true

Two Version of the Multiverse Objection

The Competing Hypothesis Version

The Screening Off Version

The Competing Hypothesis Version of the Multiverse Objection

The fact that the universe is fine tuned for life does give us some evidence for theism. But it also gives us some evidence for the atheistic multiverse hypothesis. It’s a complete wash at which hypothesis the evidence best supports.

The Screening Off Version of the Multiverse Objection

Fine-tuning gives us some evidence for the theistic hypothesis. However, if we knew that the multiverse was true, that would screen off the evidential support that the fact that the universe is fine tuned for life gives to the theistic hypothesis. So to the extend that we find the. multiverse hypothesis probable or plausible, we should be circumspect about how strong;y the fact that the immerse os come timed for life supports theism.

\
(Knowing no multiverse- fine tuning is strong evidence for theism. Knowing there is a multiverse - fine tuning is weak evidence for theism. )

The Inverse Gambler’s Fallacy (and how it relates to the multiverse)

Guessing, incorrectly, that because the roller got the desired roll of double sixes there must have already been a few rolls because it’s so unlikely that they would roll the ideal roll on the first attempt. (Incorrect because each roll has an equal chance of rolling double 6s).

People who think fine-tuning is evidence for the multiverse are committing a fallacy.

Objection to the Inverse Gambler’s Fallacy Objection

It ignores the observation selection effect

The Alternate Dice Scenario

The gambler is put asleep until a double six is ruled.

Observation Selection Effect

Occurs when the conditions necessary for observation themselves ensure or make the observation of a certain phenomena more of less likely than the phenomena itself would otherwise be.

Is the multiverse fine tuning example more like the alternate dice scenario or the inverse gamblers fallacy example?

Alternate dice scenario ; there is an observation selection effect in play since only life supporting universes have observers.

The Pod People Scenario (and what the claim is about the multiverse)

Someone is put to sleep in a pod, knowing they are one of an unspecified number of people that was a unique partner who will roll a dice. If double sixes are rolled by their partner, they will wake up. When Jane wakes up, she infers there are multiple sleepers and rollers

The claim is, that unless the existence of multiple universes makes it more likely that we “woke up”, there is no relevant observation selection effect.

Argument About Fine-Tuning in Relation to Theism and Atheism

E: this universe is fine tuned for life

T: Theism

AN: Conjunction of atheism and naturalism

(1) P(E/T) is not extremely low.

(2) P(E/AN) is extremely low.

(C) Thus E favors T over AN

Collin’s Responses to the Multiverse Objection

1. The multiverse generator itself would need to be fine-tuned.
2. The universe generator must not only select the parameters of physics at random, but must actually randomly create or select the very laws of physics themselves.
3. The multiverse doesn’t explain the other features of the universe that theism does explain.

What is the take away from the Deadly Blue Widget Case?

Even if we know there’s a multiverse, it still favors fine-tuning.