Fine-Tuning?

[Vraith]

DAMN this double/triple post glitsch has to go away.

[Fist and Faith]

I think you guys are too poetic. I think the properties of the universe allow molecules, atoms, and smaller things to combine in many ways. And when things are combined in some of those ways, the conglomerate has properties we call 'life'. Some even have properties we call 'consciousness'. But I don't see reason to believe things are driven toward life, or consciousness. Or that what we classify as inanimate is actually alive or conscious in some way.

[Vraith]

But I don't see reason to believe things are driven toward life, or consciousness. Or that what we classify as inanimate is actually alive or conscious in some way.

Me either. I just think life/consciousness is one of the many many many things that emerge naturally in complex universes.

[Zarathustra]

Well, I've finally made it to the very paragraph that prompted Peter to start this thread. Now I can see why it prompted him. I've been reading along, thoroughly enjoying the book and feeling that I had a handle on everything that was being said ... right up until that paragraph, and the next, and then the next few as well. Damn, this guy's reasoning can be abstruse!

Here it is again:

"Nevertheless, regardless of whether the fine-tuning constitutes an appearance of design or not, it does consitutute a legitmate and significant scientific problem, for the following reason. If the truth is that the constants are not fine tuned to produce life after all, because most slight variations in them do still permit life and intelligence to evolve somehow, though in dramatically different types of environment, then this would be an unexplained regularity in nature and hence a problem for science to address.

Reading the paragraph in context (and then rereading a time or two more), I think I was wrong in some of the details in my response. For instance, I said:

I think he means that if life exists in both of these situations (e.g. 1. our universe with our current constants; 2. our universe with slightly different constants), then the "regularity" would be that which stays the same in each case, namely, the presence of life (ignoring for now all the contingent ways that form of life would be different).

Now I understand that by "regularity" the means the fine-tuning itself, and not the presence of life in either case as I interpretted above. In other words, if the universe was fine-tuned to produce life (i.e. by a Designer), then this itself would explain the fine-tuning. But if it's not, it's a problem for science to explain, because such a regularity leads to stars and planets, and thus a slight variation in the variables would have made those things impossible--which would then be the "dramatically different types of environment" in which life could conceivably evolve, as he speculates. So the problem is: why does the universe look like this, instead of something else? Why does it have precisely these variables, and not others? These variables lead to the regularity we see around us (stars, planets, galaxies, complex elements), instead of random distributions of hydrogen and nothing else, or a universe that quickly collapsed back on itself after the Big Bang.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Now I understand that by "regularity" the means the fine-tuning itself, and not the presence of life in either case as I interpretted above. In other words, if the universe was fine-tuned to produce life (i.e. by a Designer), then this itself would explain the fine-tuning. But if it's not, it's a problem for science to explain, because such a regularity leads to stars and planets, and thus a slight variation in the variables would have made those things impossible--which would then be the "dramatically different types of environment" in which life could conceivably evolve, as he speculates. So the problem is: why does the universe look like this, instead of something else? Why does it have precisely these variables, and not others? These variables lead to the regularity we see around us (stars, planets, galaxies, complex elements), instead of random distributions of hydrogen and nothing else, or a universe that quickly collapsed back on itself after the Big Bang.

The "scientific" answer isn't very scientific (at least the way I will be phrasing it): we got lucky. What if there were other universes which formed at the same time this one was? Their fundamental values were different and they have already blinked out of existence or collapsed on themselves while ours attained relative stability. What if there were other universes before this one where the same thing happened?

Science is sometimes insufficient when trying to figure out *why* something is a certain way. Why do we have five fingers rather than four or six? Does nature just favor odd numbers? We would have just as much manual dexterity with four fingers as we do now--consider how often your middle two fingers wind up doing exactly the same things at the same time.
Similarly, we can't figure out why things like the gravitational constant is what it is without being able to simulate alternate realities on a computer. All we know is that if that constant suddenly increased by even a miniscule amount it wouldn't be long before the Moon crashed into the Earth and at that point we would other things on our minds than why constants have the values they do.

A similar puzzle is pi. Isn't is odd that the ratio of circumference to diameter is, in our base-10 number system, transcendental? (Best definition of transcendental number: a number which is not the root of any polynomial having integer coefficients of any degree) Truthfully, if you picked a number "at random" then you are more likely to get a transcendental result than a rational one (the set of rational numbers is countably infinite; the set of transcendentals is uncountably infinite) but that fact notwithstanding it just seem strange--that which we call a circle is a human invention and so we just happened to randomly choose a shape with that property? That is too weird.

[peter]

Hashi, you and Deutsch would differ in the extreme in your expressed view that there are some things that science is just 'insufficient' to answer [the 'why' notwithstanding].

He takes the view that such a position is a retreat into 'it was the Gods what done it' and similarly chides Richard Dawkins and Martin Rees for their 'not only is the Universe stranger than we know, but it is stranger than we can know' position, which is essentially the same thing. [Hashi - don't shoot me down; I'm not saying I agree with this, I'm just repeating it. ]. For Deutsch, the scientific method has 'infinite reach' and will be capable of answering any and every question put to it.

But back to the actual mechanics of 'fine-tuning', I'm not quite sure what the ultimate significance of it was, but didn't Deutsch follow on with a bit where he said that in actuality the fine-tuning was not really as fine as it appeared at first sight, and that for each of the universal constants [20 or so? - I can't remember] there would infact exist a range [albeit small] of values which would allow atrophysicists to exist [why astrophysicists - something to do with the anthropic principle?], and in all likelyhood the chances were that in any given universe where they did [astrophysicists that is] the likelyhood was that many if not most of the 'settings' to which fine-tuning applies would be found to be at or near the very edge of the range that permitted this. I lost what the significance of this point was in respect to the 'fine-tuning' argument, but Deutsch definitely seemed to think it had a bearing.[Whether 'for or against' the idea that the universe is fine-tuned for life, I couldn't say; you can tell how much of this book I'm taking on board can't you ].

[By the way Z. - glad to hear that the book is 'hitting the spot'. I was a bit worried that the 'biological slant' of the early chapters might loose your interest [why I don't know] but if you made it to the 'fine-tuning' chapter you are now pretty into the physics area of the book where some pretty thought provoking stuff awaits.]

[Zarathustra]

I love discussions about evolution. The biology stuff was great. I liked his arguments that the evolution of conceptual knowledge (memes) had important similarities and differences with the evolution of biological knowledge (genes). And this was important for the issue of fine-tuning because the arguments that worked against spontaneous generation and creationism in the biological realm can't be applied to the fine-tuning problem, because the laws of physics didn't evolve via natural selection. So it's a significant problem.

The anthropic principle doesn't really help, he thinks, but I'm not sure about his reasoning. He says that we can't think of all the other universes with different laws the same way as mutations rejected by natural selection, because the laws in those universes would be bad explanations. And he defines "bad explanations" as those that can be easily varied and still retain their original explanatary worth, however little that was (e.g. like mythologies which can be varied). But if those different laws explain their own universes, why are they bad?

Nor does it help merely to say it's a coincidence (he says, and I agree). If we were content with that type of explanation, we wouldn't have to come up with evolution in order to counter the argument by design for biology (or watches), we could just say that animals and watches form in nature by luck. However, that's spontaneous generation, which is little better than superstition.

And you're right about the "inifinite reach" of science idea. That's the whole point of the book (The Beginning of Infinity). He goes up against some of my favorite thinkers here: Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking.

Right now I've just finished the chapter about the reality of abstractions. I largely agree with his reasoning, except as it applies to morality. While moral choices have objective effects on physical reality, I don't think this means good and bad are objectively real. It's still a matter of preference. Nor do I think we decide what our preferences are after deciding what is morally good. If that were the case, our sense of right and wrong wouldn't so often conflict with our preferences--what we'd rather do. In fact, there would be no moral quandaries of these types.

He seems to treat the reality of morals the same way he treats the reality of theoretical entities which play a crucial role in good explanations, but morality isn't an explantion. At best, it's a prediction (e.g. about what to do next, what kind of life to want), which he has previously distinguished from explanation. Wait ... I think I just realized what he means. There are certain events which happen that can't be explained without referencing the morality of the individuals who play a role in those events. So since the morality is part of the explanation, and any entity which is crucial in a good explanation must be treated as real, then morality is objectively real.

However, I think this reasoning still doesn't work due to his own criteria of "bad explanations," since moral reasoning can easily be varied to justify whatever outcome people might want.

There seems to be quite a bit of circular reasoning in this chapter, especially in his concluding paragraphs. For instance, he says that abstractions can cause physical effects, but then admits that causality itself is an abstraction. So he argues that abstractions play a causal role in a physical sense only by denying the physical sense of causation.

[Vraith]

I guess I'm gonna have to try and get hold of this book.
But on this part...

in actuality the fine-tuning was not really as fine as it appeared at first sight, and that for each of the universal constants [20 or so? - I can't remember] there would infact exist a range [albeit small] of values which would allow atrophysicists to exist

Surely have mentioned this before, and I recently saw a snippet [just an abstract, behind a paywall, unfortunately] of an "upgraded" version. They've got a large number of pretty deep models now where they've varied the "constants"...some by nearly 50%, and multiple "constants" and evolved stable universes. I know I posted about that before..but these are more numerous, robust, and detailed from what I could tell from the abstract.

[peter]

I've just deleted a whole schpeel of crap I typed re where Deutsch goes in respect of fine tuning and the anthropic principle because I cannot begin to do it justice - suffice to say that pertaining to his abtruseness I suspect the ride is going to get a whole lot bumpier! [When he starts to apply Cantors work on infinite sets to the multiverse and how this in turn impacts upon fine-tuning and the anthropic prilnciple..... ]. I hope Z. [whose grasp on the work is clearly going to exeed mine by some degree] will post some of the 'jucier' aspects of this when he reaches them.

Deutsch is clearly a very [very] intelligent guy and there are times [a lot of them in fact] where I have no choice but just to hang on while he runs away from me like a bolting horse. But then I get him back under controll and for a while it's all good again. I also was slightly puzzled by his referal to things such as morality as objectively real but alas don't posess the degree of critical ratiocination required to unpick his train of reasoning. I'll go back and, in the light of Z.'s observations see if I can throw some light on this.

[nb Deutsch is a top-notch thinker - but even they can make mistakes, especially when weaving as delicate a constuction of ideas as he does. Z.'s approach of healthy scepticism is appropriate - and important - because it is only by exposing the 'cracks in the argument' that we can sepparate the wheat from the chaff. The motto of the Royal Society Nullius in Verba [Take no one's word for it] is entierly appropriate here.]

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Hashi, you and Deutsch would differ in the extreme in your expressed view that there are some things that science is just 'insufficient' to answer [the 'why' notwithstanding].

It all goes back to Stand on Zanzibar. The central plot of that book is that there is a highly advanced supercomputer which is used to solve a variety of the world's problems and its predictions are eerily accurate when the people in charge implement its suggestions. (as far as I can recall--it has been a long time since I read it) However, when presented with a scenario that all its other data tells it is impossible--there is a group of people who have zero crime and all live in harmony with one another--it rejects observed reality and refuses to run the calculations for the scenario. It is not until one of the psychiatrists who originally helped program the computer tells it "this situation is *real*--we don't know why but we will tell you as soon as we figure it out" that the computer processes the data and proceeds normally.

In short, there are plenty of things which are true even though we may not know why. Unfortunately for Mr. Deutsch, there are going to be things we never figure out because to do so would require meta-knowledge or observations about this universe made from either a higher dimension (we have 11, you know) or from outside the universe (good luck with that). I don't blame him for wanting to know everything or thinking that science will be able to explain everything but I suspect he is overestimating our abilities. He cannot tell us why a sphere is the most efficient shape (for a given volume it has minimum surface area and for a given surface area it has maximum volume...at least in three dimensions), only that it is.

Similarly, in my opinion evolution is dumb luck. Nature throws all potential solutions at a problem and then waits to see which ones succeed. Dinosaurs were an amazingly successful solution until a freak accident brought about the situation by which they met with catastrophe. We are a better solution because we don't require as much food, don't require sunlight to warm our blood, and we can make tools. Sharks are a pretty good solution, too, given that they are the apex predator in an environment which doesn't change all that much--the water may warm or cool a little but there isn't "weather" per se.

Mr. Deutsch may claim that the physical constants are able to tolerate a range but he cannot prove it and thus it remains mere conjecture on his part. Don't let his intelligence fool you--when he "runs away from you like a bolting horse" he in engaging in verbal prestidigitation, trying to confound you with eloquent verbosity in an attempt to "wow" you into thinking "I didn't understand that so it *must* be true!".

The problem with the anthropic principle is that it seems to imply that the universe wants to be observed, which is completely illogical. I am comfortable with the fact that life is a happy accident and that we were lucky that the universe has the physical constants and laws that it does. If that seems too improbable, then consider the even more unlikely improbability that you are. If any of the other gametes from your parents had combined to produce a fertilized egg, or if something had happened to cause your mother to have a miscarriage, or if some other accident had caused her death while pregnant then you wouldn't be here or you wouldn't be you.

None of this is meant to discourage scientific research, of course, because we should always seek to increase our knowledge of the universe. That being said, the universe didn't choose its form for our benefit--it doesn't need us.

[Zarathustra]

I don't think that Deutsch is saying that we'll understand everything at some point, but rather that there is no limit to our ability to understand. That sounds like a contradiction, but remember the title of the book. It's like saying that we'll never be able to count to infinity, but there is no limit in our ability to count (assuming that we solve that stubborn death issue).

He thinks that there will always be problems, but all problems are soluble. The former is because every time we learn something new, this includes knowledge of more areas of ignorance. The latter is because our powers of explanation have universal reach. We don't need to actually observe something in order to understand it. In fact, much of our knowledge concerns things we've never witnessed, like the Big Bang, dark matter, or the interior of stars. However, since everything is connected through universal laws, we can know things through "proxies" or their effects. We can judge the book of the universe through its cover because its cover is directly (and infinitely) related to its content. If it had different content, it would have a different "cover." [That's my own metaphor, he doens't use it.]

Empiricism is incorrect. We don't create knowledge by reviewing the evidence and then drawing an inference. Much of science--knowledge creation--is performed without even looking at the universe, but instead by looking at pieces of paper or computer screens or our mental images as we imagine. We do check our theories by testing them against the evidence, but this isn't how we create them. Therefore, there is no problem of induction as Hume pointed out, simply because this is not how science is done.

One of the most valuable services Deutsch performs is to point out that much of the history of epistemology has been incorrect; for centuries most of us haven't understood how we gain knowledge. [An irony Deutsch doesn't seem to realize is that his correction of how we actually attain knowledge is achieved by an empirical approach to epistemology itself, i.e. looking to see how we actually think, rather than theorizing about how we think, which is what most philosophers have been doing, and why they got it wrong. I wonder if that invalidates his arguments against empiricism a bit.]

[Avatar]

DAMN this double/triple post glitsch has to go away.

Stop pressing the submit button. When you get the first "error" your post has actually been submitted.

Refresh the page to see it. If it bothers you that it doesn't show up on the index, you can edit it and resubmit to refresh the index. Otherwise forget it.


Peter: Why don't you post in the 'Tank Z wants to know?

--A

[peter]

Having read on a bit further in the book I do now believe that I have overestimated Deutsch's belief in the power of the scientific method to answer every question, so may have led the discussion down a blind alley in this case [it is easy to misunderstand what this guy is saying] and I think Z in his opening comment has put his position more accurately. Having said that I do know that his position in respect of attaining knowledge of things outside our own universe remains positive; at a later point in the book than we are currently discussing he adresses this very situation.

Hashi [and V and Av] - you need to read this book; I'm not afraid to admit that I'm horribly out of my depth with much that is contained within it, but I recognise that whatever the author is trying to do it is not 'confound you with verbosity' - this is not Deutsch's way. He's arrogent, perhaps over-confident in his own powers of reasoning, but certainly not deliberately obfuscative. I know that my personal limits of reasoning are surpassed [not entierly, but] at points within the covers of this book, and thats not suprising; Deutsch is a holder of the Dirac Prize for physics and I'm not. The summaries at the end of each chapter are usefull, but as Z. did above on the chapter on abstractions, need to be viewed in the light of the logic of the arguments that have been put forward to support them. I have often to take on face value what should be subjected to critical analysis, by virtue of these personal limitations.

[Little side track here Hashi; in a statement about an objects 'efficiency', would it not have to be contigent to a stated purpose. ie A spherical shape would have to be the most efficient in respect to a function, say packing the maximum mass into the smallest volume - in respect of say maintaining a stationary position on an inclined surface it's efficiency would be virtually nil.]

In respect of dumb-luck, can this not actually be the most efficient way of problem solving in itself. The immune system opperates in much the same way as the random mutation situation in evolution, in the combating of disease within the body [Here a masive range of antibodies of differing 'fit' in respect of surface determinants of antigens are produced untill by dumb-luck, one that happens to be the right shape is produced. The body is then instructed to produce shed-loads of copies of this antibody.] Dumb-luck is actually quite good [even if inefficient in respect of waste] at getting things done. Think tanks do the same thing don't they, churn out masses of prospective solutions to problems untill they get one that fit's.

The author seems to view 'enlightenment' as a circumstance that the human condition was always destined to achieve at some point or another; in a later chapter he bemoans the many 'mini-enlightenments' that have nearly occured over the course of human history, but for some reason or another have fizzled and died before gaining the momentum needed to result in the emergence of the 'scientific method' that serves so well as a means of problem solving and providing 'good explanations'. We should he says, take every such failure personally,

for if any of those earlier experiments in optimism had suceeded, our species would be exploring the stars by now and you and I would be immortal.

[re the tank Av, it's a matter of respect. The posts in there are [by and large] so well researched and so painstakingly argued, that it doesn't seem fair to me to reduce the quality of the debate by ill-thought out and off the cuff posts. I just don't have the time to produce posts at the level that the contributors deseve and so stay out. Also I've been [justifiably] 'mauled' in there a time or two and it can be quite painfull ]

[lorin]

[re the tank Av, it's a matter of respect. The posts in there are [by and large] so well researched and so painstakingly argued, that it doesn't seem fair to me to reduce the quality of the debate by ill-thought out and off the cuff posts. I just don't have the time to produce posts at the level that the contributors deseve and so stay out. Also I've been [justifiably] 'mauled' in there a time or two and it can be quite painfull ]

I hear you. I am not a person who is able/willing to do the research either. When someone hands you a well researched response to your un-researched comment it can be quite jarring. Mostly I only contribute when I can claim personal experience. I have never been mauled but I've seen a few bared teeth.

[Zarathustra]

I think there's a lot less research in the Tank than it might seem. Google (or Duck Duck Go) makes it easy.

Back to Deutsch ... I agree that he doesn't try to overwhelm with verbosity. (I'd accuse Donaldson of that before Deutsch.) The power of Deutsch's mind is evident more in how he strings ideas together. It's revealed in between his sentences and paragraphs, as you struggle to see how they connect. But his words are pretty simple. He doesn't use many "-isms," and when he does, he explains them thoroughly. The summaries at the end of each chapter--including definitions of his terms--make it clear that he's very interested in his readers understanding him.

Peter, I think that you give me too much credit. I feel that many of my objections and criticisms to Deutsch are probably due to my own misunderstandings and limitations. I'm sure he could easily counter them.

[Vraith]

DAMN this double/triple post glitsch has to go away.

Stop pressing the submit button. When you get the first "error" your post has actually been submitted.
--A

Ummm...did you notice that was an older post? But it had nothing to do with error screen or rehitting submit. For a while there actually was a thing that hitting the "back" button in my browser caused a repost. And I use my back button a lot after posting. I mostly broke that habit, and the oddness seems gone now anyway. But it really was something weird, not me resubmitting. [[Don't recall why it went away, if I ever even knew. Don't even know if it was the Watch or Chrome...but it's gone]].

[Avatar]

[re the tank Av, it's a matter of respect. The posts in there are [by and large] so well researched and so painstakingly argued, that it doesn't seem fair to me to reduce the quality of the debate by ill-thought out and off the cuff posts. I just don't have the time to produce posts at the level that the contributors deseve and so stay out. Also I've been [justifiably] 'mauled' in there a time or two and it can be quite painfull ]

I hear you. I am not a person who is able/willing to do the research either. When someone hands you a well researched response to your un-researched comment it can be quite jarring. Mostly I only contribute when I can claim personal experience. I have never been mauled but I've seen a few bared teeth.

Oh please guys.

We don't deserve anything. You can go and post "nyah nyah nyah" if you want and we'll have seen less reasonable posts.

Vraith, hahaha, I never noticed. Anyway, that's would surely have been a browser issue.

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

[re the tank Av, it's a matter of respect. The posts in there are [by and large] so well researched and so painstakingly argued, that it doesn't seem fair to me to reduce the quality of the debate by ill-thought out and off the cuff posts. I just don't have the time to produce posts at the level that the contributors deseve and so stay out. Also I've been [justifiably] 'mauled' in there a time or two and it can be quite painfull ]

*laugh* Are you kidding me? "Well researched?" 45% of the stuff we post in my Tank is conjecture, 45% of the stuff we post is parroting what someone else said somewhere, leaving only 10% trying to back up a statement with facts and figures. (no, those numbers are not exact but it serves to accentuate my point) Yes, I fall into that group, as well--not everything I say can be backed up or validated.

It is only possible to reduce the quality of the Tank by posting ugly things about other people's mothers. That wouldn't be very nice.

I hear you. I am not a person who is able/willing to do the research either. When someone hands you a well researched response to your un-researched comment it can be quite jarring. Mostly I only contribute when I can claim personal experience. I have never been mauled but I've seen a few bared teeth.

The most insightful comments are often the ones which have not been researched; this allows for clarity of vision unsullied by the bias of the researcher you are citing.

Our bark is significantly worse than our bite, trust me.

Think tanks do the same thing don't they, churn out masses of prospective solutions to problems untill they get one that fit's.

Many times, yes. The rest of the time they are coming up with suggested solutions that the person funding the think tank wants to hear.

[peter]

Just spent five days offline [ ] as a result of a line failure caused by the big storms of last Thursday night! Have progressed quite a long way with 'Deutsch' as a result

Boy Z. - I can't wait to hear your observations on the chapter titled 'The Multiverse'!

[Zarathustra]

Peter, I'm in the middle of that chapter now. It's a difficult one. It doesn't help that I was reading it at the pool, in 95F degree heat, with sweat and sunblock dripping into my eyes. I may have to reread the last 10-15 pages, because I know I'm missing some of his subtle points in the "story" he's telling about parallel universes with fungible people. I flipped ahead and noticed that this is the longest chapter in the book, so I know it's important. I'll have more to say once I've finished it.

I *really* liked the chapter on optimism. I think this is so important. I've been saying similar points myself for years in the Tank and elsewhere. People do not realize what a special time we're living in; they seem only capable of looking at the future with fear. They see our progress as either an illusion or something doomed to fail. I wish everyone would read this book and realize how lucky they are to live in this time. It's not only that we have air conditioning and video games--it's not all superficial comfort and electronic entertainment--we're living in a time when we could actually avert our own extinction. An unprecedently safe time. Most people don't realize that we've always faced dangers that could end the human race. We've always had the ability to destroy our own civilization. In fact, we've destroyed many civilizations, merely with fire and sword. But only now do we have the resources and knowledge to stop something that could wipe us out. Our continued progress is vital to our existence, because the asteroid is coming. It's already out there. Only knowledge and wealth will stop it. We can't lose hope or be disdainful about the very things that will preserve the human race.

The Socratic dialog was a great summary of his points so far, and an entertaining read. He should write more fiction!