Re: [asa] Anthropic Principle, "proof," and "explanations"

On Dec 7, 2007 8:38 PM, David Heddle <heddle@gmail.com> wrote:

> But keep in mind that the sensitivity of life to the values of the
> constants is generally not disputed. For example, the atheist Susskind
> presents one of the clearest discussions of this sensitivity in *The
> Cosmic Landscape *.
>
> So consider the case where we agree, across the board, that constant *C*must be, say, within 1 part in a hundred thousand of its measured value for
> life to exist. Now imagine two scenarios:
>
> 1) No funadamental theory, and the naturalistic explanation is that it was
> (essentially) a random draw given a nearly infinite number of universes.
> (Probability: small)
>
> 2) A fundamental theory that spits out that necessary value. (Probability:
> 1)
>
> It seems obvious to me that it is much harder for the atheist to explain
> scenario number 2. And it seems the design argument, which shifts from "God
> picked the constants" to "God inacted the correct laws" is much more
> satisfying.
>

More satisfying yes, but I wonder if this isn't just a different version of
the low-probability fine-tuning argument? In the former, one is saying "of
all the possible sets of values the constants could have, why this one,
which happens to give life?". And in your argument are you not saying "of
all the possible sets of laws that could be conceived, why this set, which
happens to give life?" The numbers that give rise to the fine tuning would
drop out naturally from your theory, but nonetheless the theory/set of laws
seems picked out of an incredibly large set, and we seem to be back to the
same problem.

Iain

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Dec 7 15:50:48 2007