The fine-tuning argument for God's existence

[warpus]

In any case I wanted to talk about something specific related to how "Fine tuning" can prove Christianity correct.

Wait, Christianity? I could see how the fine tuning argument could hypothetically prove God's existence (it can't, but I can see how it hypothetically could) - but how could it prove Christianity correct? That doesn't seem to make sense to me.

 

[Perfection]

Parody of fine-tuning argument:

FT: "The universe must have been created by an intelligent being!"
P: "Why?"
FT: "It contains intelligent beings, that's too remarkable to not have been created!"
P: "If you have a problem with intelligent being not being created why are you okay with an even more intelligent being not being created? It seems to me like you're making the problem of explaining intelligence worse not better."

 

[uppi]

isn't that interpretation dependent though? Couldn't one view the apparent superposition state as a convenient fiction and that the particle is actually behaving differently?

Yes. But the argument is a bit trickier than that. If I do the measurement so far away, that I could not possibly have any influence on the particle itself, it is hard to argue that the particle behaves differently, although I have not changed its (immediate) environment at all.

If you are using an epistemic, non-realistic interpretation, the wave function and thus superposition states just represent the state of knowledge about the spin. That means that the superposition state is indeed fictious in this case, but it also means that all superposition states are fictious. That these fictions cannot be observed is self-evident.


This is a statement that some interpretations of quantum mechanics make, but it is not a statement of quantum mechanics itself. There I can write down a superposition state and the measurement necessary to observe that superposition state.

As I mentioned before, ultimately it depends on your interpretation of the wave function. If you think it to be real, there are superposition states and they can be observed. If it is not, then superposition states do not exist, and cannot be observed. But either way it is incompatible with the claim that quantum mechanics tells us that superposition states exist, but we cannot observe them.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Wait, Christianity? I could see how the fine tuning argument could hypothetically prove God's existence (it can't, but I can see how it hypothetically could) - but how could it prove Christianity correct? That doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Well that's what I wanted to talk about. I told Tigranes that I was willing to (as you just did) hypothetically accept the "Fine-Tuning-proves-God-exists" premise because we have already argued that to death and I want to talk about something else...

My feeling is that proving God exists in-and-of-itself has no purpose or value. If that is correct, then the point of proving God exists is what? I am guessing it is to establish a particular religion, in this case Christianity. But the religion itself must also stand up to the Fine Tuning problem, it can't just infer itself as correct based on the existence of God.

So I want to know if Fine-Tuning ends with proving God's existence, which I consider empty (like proving God turned the Computer on and then left...so what?) or if the argument extends into particular belief system, which would be in my opinion, more meaningful.

Again, for the sake of discussing this you would need to let go of the argument about whether Fine-Tuning even proves God exists.

 

[warpus]

My feeling is that proving God exists in-and-of-itself has no purpose or value. If that is correct, then the point of proving God exists is what?

Oh, it would have a lot of value! It would finally reveal to us many answers to questions we have about the nature of reality and existence itself.

How amazing would it be to figure out how the universe got here? There's plenty of value in that.

 

[Tahuti]

"As finishing touch, god created the Dutch"

 

[Perfection]

Yes. But the argument is a bit trickier than that. If I do the measurement so far away, that I could not possibly have any influence on the particle itself, it is hard to argue that the particle behaves differently, although I have not changed its (immediate) environment at all.

If you are using an epistemic, non-realistic interpretation, the wave function and thus superposition states just represent the state of knowledge about the spin. That means that the superposition state is indeed fictious in this case, but it also means that all superposition states are fictious. That these fictions cannot be observed is self-evident.


This is a statement that some interpretations of quantum mechanics make, but it is not a statement of quantum mechanics itself. There I can write down a superposition state and the measurement necessary to observe that superposition state.

As I mentioned before, ultimately it depends on your interpretation of the wave function. If you think it to be real, there are superposition states and they can be observed. If it is not, then superposition states do not exist, and cannot be observed. But either way it is incompatible with the claim that quantum mechanics tells us that superposition states exist, but we cannot observe them.

Just to throw another wrench in the works.

Even if we presume superposition states do exist there's another wrinkle.

The process by which you tell something is in superposition might reasonably stated as follows:
1. You observe the left/right spin
2. From the fact that you know the left/right spin you infer the up/down superposition

One might be tempted to argue that this process of observation then inference cannot be simply called observation in the same sense as one observes left/right spin "directly".

A related objection would be that you didn't observe it in superposition, you put it in superposition.

I'd like to know how you'd approach such an argument.

 

[Tigranes]

My feeling is that proving God exists in-and-of-itself has no purpose or value.

As I have pointed out if the tiniest part (you) could ever prove that infinite whole (God) exist, it will be a proof that God does not exist. He defines himself as I AM -- the very existence of all things depends on his existence. God only expects you to trust what He revealed about himself. You are given consciousness to decide matters of faith using reason and senses, you are given reason to decide matters of science using senses.

He revealed about Himself through His creation and through His living Word. Fine tuned Universe is just another indication available to your reason, for your heart to make an opinion. 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' This is the state of affairs. Adam and Eve's desire to be their own gods lives in every grandoffsprings of theirs.

Look, fallen human nature resists even facts of science, and much much more the "good indications" available for the heart to examine. People know smoking kills, it is a proven fact, and they still smoke.

 

[El_Machinae]

See, you go from fine-tuning to acting as if Adam and Moses were real.

 

[Perfection]

Look, fallen human nature resists even facts of science, and much much more the "good indications" available for the heart to examine. People know smoking kills, it is a proven fact, and they still smoke.

Smokers don't continue to smoke because they're obstinate to facts. They know full well what they're doing. If you asked a bunch of smokers and bunch of non-smokers questions about the health effects of smoking they'd have largely the same answers. Such is not the case regarding atheists v.s. Christians on if God exists.

Why do you think the situations are analogous?

 

[Sommerswerd]

See, you go from fine-tuning to acting as if Adam and Moses were real.

Exactly. Either God created Adam from scratch or he created humanity from evolution. It seems like you have to pick one or the other.

 

[uppi]

Just to throw another wrench in the works.

Even if we presume superposition states do exist there's another wrinkle.

The process by which you tell something is in superposition might reasonably stated as follows:
1. You observe the left/right spin
2. From the fact that you know the left/right spin you infer the up/down superposition

One might be tempted to argue that this process of observation then inference cannot be simply called observation in the same sense as one observes left/right spin "directly".

A related objection would be that you didn't observe it in superposition, you put it in superposition.

I'd like to know how you'd approach such an argument.

In quantum mechanics, the left/right states and the corresponding up/down superposition states are the same thing. The difference is just a basis transform when describing the system. There are two ways to look at it:

1.) I describe my system always in the same basis, let's say up/down. In that case I have to write down left/right as a superposition state and the corresponding measurement as a measurement of a superposition state. In that view left/right is just a shorthand for the superposition state.

2.) I always do the basis transforms and if I encounter a superposition state I just say it is a right/left non-superposition state. But I can do that with all pure states (the required transforms can get very messy, though). So if you let me do basis transforms however I want, there is no clear way to define what a superposition state is.

 

[Tigranes]

As I mentioned before, ultimately it depends on your interpretation of the wave function. If you think it to be real, there are superposition states and they can be observed. If it is not, then superposition states do not exist, and cannot be observed. But either way it is incompatible with the claim that quantum mechanics tells us that superposition states exist, but we cannot observe them.

For the last time: Quantum measurements are irreversible and typically destructive, in the sense that they alter state of the system measured. You cannot even make bunch of identical copies (clones) of the original state, and measure them, leaving the system itself unscathed. (The no-clone theorem, Intro to Quantum Mechanics, Griffiths, 2005, page 428). Measurements are needed to find out about the unknown state, and not to create known state and verify you have that state by measuring them.

Imagine, your mood is your quantum state. I come to you and measure, I ask -- "Are you annoyed?" This itself will makes you annoyed and you will reply: "No, I am not, why would I? Don't bother me." I can see clearly that you are annoyed now, but my very measurement destroyed the very state I was hoping to measure -- your mood before I actually measured you.

 

[uppi]

For the last time: Quantum measurements are irreversible and typically distractive, in the sense that they alter state of the system measured. You cannot even make bunch of identical copies (clones) of the original state, and measure them, leaving the system itself unscathed. (The no-clone theorem, Intro to Quantum Mechanics, Griffiths, 2005, page 428). Measurements are needed to find out about the unknown state, and not to create known state and verify you have that state by measuring them.

Disruptive might be the word you are looking for. Yes, most of the time measurements destroy the state. But for any state, superposition or not, there is a measurement that does not destroy the state. There are beautiful demonstrations of quantum nondemolition measurments, which are the art of measuring a quantum state without disrupting it.

The no-cloning theorem refers to unknown states. Of a known state I can make as many copies as I want. If I know the initial conditions, I can calculate the state, so it is known. If I do not know the initial conditions, someone or something else does, so in principle I could just ask.

 

[warpus]

Exactly. Either God created Adam from scratch or he created humanity from evolution. It seems like you have to pick one or the other.

Wait a second, what about God creating everything "as is" 47 years ago, with everyone's memories intact and so on? Or maybe he used another process altogether? It seems like there are way more than 2 possibilities here (I mean, if we're assuming that God created everything, etc.)

 

[Perfection]

One thing that always bugs me about fine-tuning arguments is fine-tuners typically believe in divine intervention which begs the question of why should God bother fine-tuning if he's going to screw with the physics later?

 

[Tahuti]

Look, fallen human nature resists even facts of science, and much much more the "good indications" available for the heart to examine. People know smoking kills, it is a proven fact, and they still smoke.

Smoking is a form of rational irrationality: Many people start and continue smoking because the socialising with smokers is seen as outweighing health risks. Life is life after all.

Now, you don't need to smoke to socialise with smokers, however, you still breathe in the fumes anyway so you might as well join the fun, since you are already taking some of the cons already. In the company of die-hard non-smokers (people who don't tolerate smoking at all) it is very easy to quit the habit for as long as you are in their company, only to return to smoking once you enter the company of smokers.

This would true for nearly everything, if you were to replace smoking by say, drinking. Although an alcohol addiction is probably worse than a smoking addiction.

 

[Tigranes]

Disruptive might be the word you are looking for. Yes, most of the time measurements destroy the state.

destructive, sorry, stupid typo. Your "most of the time " finally converged to the textbook' s "typically" .

 

[Sommerswerd]

Wait a second, what about God creating everything "as is" 47 years ago, with everyone's memories intact and so on? Or maybe he used another process altogether? It seems like there are way more than 2 possibilities here (I mean, if we're assuming that God created everything, etc.)

No no no no no, Warpus younotpayingthetension...

If God made it all 47 years ago then the Bible is wrong. Adam and Eve remember? You really need to go to more church

So either the Bible is right and fine Tuning is wrong, or Fine Tuning is right (ie it was done by evolution) and the Bible is wrong or made up, or symbolic or some such other apologetics.

OR

Fine Tuning is consistent with the Bible/Christianity somehow... which is what I am getting at...

 

[Tigranes]

I think that's anachronistic.

Again, you are not in disagreement with me. The verbatim quote was taken from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. They can correct their writings if you email them, I hope.

Origen was later accused of limiting God's knowledge, not his power. This assumption is made explicit in Justinian's later accusations against Origen, as formulated in his letter to Mennas of Constantinople, which on this score at least are probably accurate because the idea seems to be entailed even by Rufinus' version of Origen's text. For Origen, God's finitude is actually the main premise in his argument for the finitude of the world.

Finitude does not appear in the athemas against him. Orthodoxy mostly rejected Origen because of his views of apocatastasis along with the pre-existence of the soul, hierarchy in Trinity, animism (a heterodox Christology), and a denial of real and lasting resurrection of the body. Infinite is simply incomprehensible for Origen, but he does positively assert "illimitable excellence" of Creator (CCels. III.77):

Who, then, would we ask, O Greeks, are they who in our judgment do not see, save those who are unable to look up from the exceeding greatness of the world and its contents, and from the beauty of created things, and to see that they ought to worship, and admire, and reverence Him alone who made these things, and that it is not befitting to treat with reverence anything contrived by man, and applied to the honour of God, whether it be without a reference to the Creator, or with one? For, to compare with that illimitable excellence, which surpasses all created being, things which ought not to be brought into comparison with it, is the act of those whose understanding is darkened.

You first talk about Origen's God to be finite in no uncertain terms, then with the same vigor you assert finitude of knowledge like this is a well known thing. I personally hold Origen in very high regard, but formally Church does not count him as fully Orthodox, again it is misleading to push it on layman CFCers that finitude of Origen's God is well established fact. At least another scholar disagrees with you.

Carl Séan O'Brien is Alexander von Humboldt Fellow in the Department of Philosophy at Ruprecht-Karls-Universität, Heidelberg and Research Associate in the Centre for the Study of the Platonic Tradition at Trinity College Dublin. In his (2015) book he questions Justinian's account. According to Origen, the world is finite (much more accurate view than 19th century science had), and so, very logically, the divine knowledge about it is finite. Why the world is finite? How did 3rd century Origen arrived to the more accurate idea about Cosmos than those 19 century scientists who were advocating for infinite universe? Ready? World is finite because only "the Trinity is infinite and its knowledge is without limits".