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

Sorry- I posted the following under the wrong thread... I'll try again
in the right thread...

________________________________

From: Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 2:29 PM
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Anthropic Principle, "proof," and "explanations"

I had a lot of admiration for Phillip Johnson when he first came on the
scene with his books, but now I see him as a lawyer version of Ken Ham.
I think he's a fundamentalist Biblicist... extreme (except he's much
smarter than Ham, I think). The two extremes are Biblicist (Bible-only,
like Ken Ham) and scientism (science only, like Richard Dawkins)...

...Bernie

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Heddle
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 1:06 PM
To: Iain Strachan
Cc: Jon Tandy; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Anthropic Principle, "proof," and "explanations"

Yes, but the multiverse theories, both the landscape and the cosmic
natural selection, postulate different physics as arriving from
different constants, or fundamental fields, not from random selection's
from a vast pool of fundamental physical laws. But you are right--it is
always possible (for either side) to regroup, so to speak. Nevertheless,
I would consider a fundamental theory a win for team Design.

On Dec 7, 2007 3:50 PM, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:

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 17:36:23 2007