Dr H video: "Was the universe made for us?"

[notFritzArgelander]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6DP5lgzmTA

[notFritzArgelander]

I admit I had a brief struggle with whether or not to post this link. I hope that it is not mistaken for an exercise in religion. I am comfortable with and will use the terms G-d or Nature comfortably. The content is an exemplary use of logic and statistical inference and should be taken as such.

[ThinkerX]

To me, her approach comes across as 'argument by definition.' Not saying it's invalid, it just hinges on...Occam's Razor...which has the potential for error and revision. Simplest solution not always the correct solution.

That said, strictly as a theoretical exercise, I see nothing wrong with 'universe building' where one or several of the 'constants' in the real universe is radically different or absent altogether. Perhaps such efforts, showing how things would work in such theoretical universes, would have...insights...into issues with how the real universe operates.

I'd also point out that apart from Earth and *maybe* a few tens of millions of somewhat similar planets, the universe seems downright hostile to life arising.

[notFritzArgelander]

To me, her approach comes across as 'argument by definition.' Not saying it's invalid, it just hinges on...Occam's Razor...which has the potential for error and revision. Simplest solution not always the correct solution.

I don't see that Occam's razor in invoked at all and I think that mischaracterizes and confuses the issue. As an "argument by definition", indeed, it is that. That is all that is left when one leaves science behind to do metaphysics. When one entertains metaphysical hypotheses that are not empirically testable, then, one is, by definition NOT doing science.

That said, strictly as a theoretical exercise, I see nothing wrong with 'universe building' where one or several of the 'constants' in the real universe is radically different or absent altogether. Perhaps such efforts, showing how things would work in such theoretical universes, would have...insights...into issues with how the real universe operates.

And just what observations would those exercises in theoretical metaphysics predict that could be tested?

I'd also point out that apart from Earth and *maybe* a few tens of millions of somewhat similar planets, the universe seems downright hostile to life arising.

Yes, both the volume averaged and mass averaged densities for life are rather small.

Her argument is perfectly fine with me. Folks who insist on the fine tuning arguments are being useful have never done adequate reading (and comprehension!) of Kant. Specifically the folks Dr H is taking issue with are in ignorance of Kant's Fourth Antinomy of Pure Reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant%27s_ ... ng_or_not)

[AntennaGuy]

I was a surprised that she did not even mention the words "anthropic principle" within the context of this discussion. I can only assume that particular phrase is losing popularity; perhaps it was all just a fad?
:shrug:
And for those few who may not already know more than they want to know about that, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

[notFritzArgelander]

I was a surprised that she did not even mention the words "anthropic principle" within the context of this discussion. I can only assume that particular phrase is losing popularity; perhaps it was all just a fad?
:shrug:
And for those few who may not already know more than they want to know about that, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

I think that it has become so overgrown with metaphysical speculation that it is not popular with Dr H at any rate.

One note about the link though. On the particular point of Fred Hoyle's prediction of the Carbon 12 resonance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic ... _carbon-12) we discussed the anthropic nature of the prediction in a stellar structure and evolution class in 1974 as something that was pretty cool. Regardless of the historicity, no carbon, no life.

[ThinkerX]

I don't see that Occam's razor in invoked at all and I think that mischaracterizes and confuses the issue. As an "argument by definition", indeed, it is that. That is all that is left when one leaves science behind to do metaphysics. When one entertains metaphysical hypotheses that are not empirically testable, then, one is, by definition NOT doing science.

It was the way she said (paraphrase) additions to the constants were not needed. (okay, really horrible paraphrase)

And just what observations would those exercises in theoretical metaphysics predict that could be tested?

This would be one of the situations where the theoretical exercise alone might be interesting: conditions in a universe without Dark Matter, or a radically different Cosmological Constant. A 'thought experiment,' like the 'view from a photon.' With the understanding this is purely a theoretical exercise.

[notFritzArgelander]

I don't see that Occam's razor in invoked at all and I think that mischaracterizes and confuses the issue. As an "argument by definition", indeed, it is that. That is all that is left when one leaves science behind to do metaphysics. When one entertains metaphysical hypotheses that are not empirically testable, then, one is, by definition NOT doing science.

It was the way she said (paraphrase) additions to the constants were not needed. (okay, really horrible paraphrase)

And just what observations would those exercises in theoretical metaphysics predict that could be tested?

This would be one of the situations where the theoretical exercise alone might be interesting: conditions in a universe without Dark Matter, or a radically different Cosmological Constant. A 'thought experiment,' like the 'view from a photon.' With the understanding this is purely a theoretical exercise.

It might be entertaining and interesting to some as a theoretical exercise in mathematical metaphysics. However it is of zero scientific value without testable consequences. That’s her point with which I agree wholeheartedly.

[turboscrew]

Like she said: Science does not prove anything about existence of God(s).
Also, to my understanding, you can make statistics about a single event, but the error range is infinite.
Or in probability, 1.