TPF : Fine Tuning Argument

[Gnomon]

The fine tuning argument amounts to saying that if things were different they would not be as they are. — Fooloso4

I'm not sure which "fine tuning argument" you are referring to, but the Anthropic Cosmological argument makes a completely different assertion : “mathematical physics possesses many unique properties that are necessary prerequisites for the existence of rational information-processing and observers similar to ourselves”. If that is a true statement, then "if things were different", Fooloso4 would not be here to point-out the circularity of some religious arguments.


“The Anthropic Principle may be a remarkable starting point, allowing us to place constraints on the Universe's properties owing to the fact of our existence, but that is not a scientific solution in and of itself”.
____Ethan Seigel
Yes. It's an unprovable philosophical postulate for rational rumination.

Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
In the foreword, prominent physicist John Archibald Wheeler summarized the philosophical meaning of this scientific data : “It is not only that man is adapted to the universe . . .”, as implied by Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, but that, “the universe is adapted to man.” He goes on to assert the “central point of the anthropic principle”, that “a life-giving factor² lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world.” He made that assertion, despite knowing that “design” is a dirty word in the vocabulary of most scientists
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html

[Gnomon]

The only book I read that discusses the fine-tuning argument is Martin Rees' Just Six Numbers - the gist of the book is that 6 physical constants have values that make life possible with very little margin for error. Even the smallest deviation from measured values would mean a lifeless, barren universe. — Agent Smith

Yes. But those abstract ratios have little meaning for the average person. It's the metaphorical interpretation that makes the difference. In that case, someone already inclined toward the concept that the world is not a barren hostile environment, but a milieu favorable for human flourishing, will tend to interpret the ambiguous evidence as a "glass half full". Yet, someone else, who already feels the world is antagonistic to their own personal flourishing, may logically infer a universe "going to hell in a hand cart". As you said, it only takes the "smallest deviation" (in interpretation) to turn a positive value to negative. That's why soft metaphorical Philosophy, unlike hard empirical Science, is always debatable. So, each of us has to make his own personal interpretation. Mine leans toward "half full", but is technically BothAnd.

As for the limits of reductionism, — Agent Smith

This very morning, I read in Existential Physics, that "without quantum mechanics, the laws of nature are deterministic". And, I might add : Reductive. Yet, when we look at the foundations of physics, Determinism & Reductionism seem to transform (illogically) into Probability & Holism. To which, Einstein objected that (his classical) "God doesn't play dice". In her book, Hossenfelder discusses the "double slit" experiment as the crux of quantum "weirdness". But it's merely a matter of interpretation. For instance, if you (reductively) imagine a single particle passing through two slits at the same time, it doesn't make classical (reductive) sense. But, if instead you imagine the particle entangled in a holistic ocean of statistical probability, then it looks like normal wave behavior. So, the paradoxes of Quantum Weirdness arise due to the conflicting metaphors we imagine, not from any contradictions in reality.

I subscribe to some form of emergentism which to my reckoning is the position that an additional ontological level arises from but is more than the level below it, complete with its own set of laws. — Agent Smith

Yes. Those "ontological levels" are metaphors for emergent behaviors in physics. In my thesis, I use the term "Phase Transition" to illustrate how a continuous process can seem to be a sudden transformation, from one state-of-being (e.g. fluid water) to something with completely different observed properties (crystalline ice or ethereal gas). The transformation is not magic, but merely emergent. And Emergence is a holistic (systemic) phenomenon. The (reductive) parts (H2O) remain the same, but their (holistic) system behavior is objectively different.

From Hossenfelder's discussion, it occurred to me that spooky-entanglement-at-a-distance, and holistic-ontological-level-superposition are not so weird, if we just view them as descriptions of mathematical sums instead of physical particles. To be specific, the Wave Function merely describes the probable future state (ontological level) of an integrated system. A "function' is just a mathematical statement of a (holistic) group interrelationship. By using The Calculus method, we compute the sum of all points below a curve via the technique of Integration. The individual points are still there, but they have been integrated into a system, from which we can extract an average (holistic) value. I suppose this is also the mathematical basis of Integrated Information Theory.

What does all this have to do with the OP? Merely, that some view the Big Bang, and subsequent Evolution, as the behavior of isolated particles, instead of an integrated system. The particles may behave (reductively) randomly, but the (holistic) process behaves as an interrelated system, guided by natural laws and initial conditions toward some ultimate Ontological State. If we could do the math, we might even be able to compute that Final State.

↪180 Proof

[Gnomon]

guided by natural laws and initial conditions toward some ultimate Ontological State. If we could do the math, we might even be able to compute that Final State. — Gnomon
What a reductionist thing to say? — 180 Proof

No. It was a conditional (if) statement. A confident Reductionist (see below) would say that, given complete information, we can compute the future. But a diffident Holist could say that we can't possibly compute the destiny of the universe, because it's not that simple. We can't even predict the weather more than a week ahead.

That's because the evolutionary system of Nature does not just replicate initial conditions, it produces Novelty. Where, in the inferred laws & measured constants, do we find any implications for Life or Mind? Perhaps, the secret sauce is hidden, not in fine-tuning of abstract numbers, but in the intention behind the enumeration. And a positive inclination may be inferred from the direction chosen by Natural Selection : not toward maximum Entropy, but toward second-law-denying Complexity & Integration. So far, after 14 billion cycles, it's obvious that the computation of those pre-set conditions has not "added up to nothing".

Speaking of intended consequences, the quest of Science is to "know the mind of God", as Stephen Hawking expressed it. He was confident that we would attain that enigmatic knowledge by the end of the 21st century. But Scientific American writer, John Horgan, interviewed a wide range of scientists for his book, The End of Science, in which he concluded that "the scientific age is in its twilight, because we have already discovered all the major things about the world there is to know". So, which prophet do you think is correct : the reductive optimist, or the show-me-the-money pessimist?

Pick your numbers now, and the lucky winner of the God-Mind lottery will be revealed in a few billion earth years, give or take. Meanwhile, the improbable emergence of Man-Mind seems to be the high-point of blind rambling meta-morphing Evolution, to date. :joke:


“Stephen Hawking said that his quest is simply "trying to understand the mind of God".”
― Stephen Hawking

“My prediction is that we will know the mind of God by the end of this century." According to Hawking, who died in March, the universe is the ultimate free lunch and if the “universe adds up to nothing, then you don't need a God to create it”.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ma ... s?from=mdr

“No attempt to explain the world, either scientifically or theologically, can be considered successful until it accounts for the paradoxical conjunction of the temporal and the atemporal, of being and becoming. And no subject conforms this paradoxical conjunction more starkly than the origin of the universe.”
― Paul Davies, The Mind of God : The Scientific Basis for a Rational World

PS__No attempt by 180 to present a philosophical counter-argument, just a supercilious "smirk".

[Gnomon]

So, you mean to say that all so-called quantum weirdness goes away once you approach the quatum world from a holistic point-of-view. You made an interesting point when you said that the results of the double-slit experiment makes complete sense if we consider electrons as both a wave and particle. I guess this ties into your BothAnd idea. Interesting stuff except that from a classical logic POV, its a contradiction, what's a wave isn't a particle and vice versa. How do you respond? — Agent Smith

I wouldn't be quite so bold. But, if you imagine the Superposition postulate as an integrated Holistic state, instead of an undecided lonely particle, you can reconcile both before & after in terms of Potential & Actual. Some people have difficulty making a distinction between specific "Potential" & general "Possible". "Possible" only means that some future state is not impossible, perhaps because it doesn't violate any known laws of nature. But "potential" implies that the future state is not only possible, but statistically likely to occur. That's because the particle's historical path can be projected into the future, to see if its trajectory passes through a particular future point on the curve. Like any conjecture about the future, unanticipated forces could alter the path. That's why statistical predictions are not divinely-inspired prophecies, but merely mathematically-calculated guesses.

However, some quantum physicists took the mysterious notion of Superposition to imply multiple simultaneous levels of Reality. But that's not what BothAnd means. It simply says that in order to see the whole truth, you need to look at both sides of the same coin. That's not a logical contradiction, but a complementary perspective. And the "looking" is mental, not physical. As the name implies, the BothAnd worldview looks for the whole truth, not just the part I'm most familiar with, or that suits my expectations. Viewed that way, in hypothetical Superposition there is no Actual particle, only the reasonable expectation (Potential) for a future manifestation of mathematical Probability. Comprenez-vous?

While discussing Many Worlds & Multiverse & Inflation theories, physicist Sabine Hossenfelder remarked on the belief that "all possible values exist somewhere in a multiverse". She pointed out that we don't know, and cannot know, those "possible" values, because they are not Actual values. Hence, such imaginary extrapolations from Superposition, are "pure conjecture". Those "beliefs" are not necessarily wrong, but merely "ascientific". That term also applies to any Philosophical conjectures that are not grounded in falsifiable physical facts. And it includes my own speculations on the possible Cause of pre-Big-Bang initial conditions, that limited the future path of evolution for a world governed by restrictive laws and definitive constants.

The BothAnd worldview has a place for both Science and Philosophy. But some people have difficulty distinguishing between freewheeling Philosophy and buttoned-down Science. Philosophy is only limited by Logic, while Science is restricted by Evidence. So, in Hossenfelder's term, philosophical conjectures are not necessarily wrong, but merely "ascientific". However, the best scientists & philosophers (e. g. Einstein and Hossenfelder herself) look at both sides. But they are careful not to be misled by their own illusions.



Both Sides Now
I've looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down and still somehow
It's cloud illusions I recall
I really don't know clouds at all
___Joni Mitchell