This stuff makes it easy to recover from economics. Read on (and watch the video) if you want to talk about the Universe and shit. Here are four perspectives on why the Universe seems to be fine-tuned for our existence: 1. Design -- This was all someone or somethings idea. Whether god(s), alien life (would we call this super-race gods?) or that were simply in a computer simulation, it was designed. This is also called the anthropocentric view, meaning that the conditions that allow us to exist themselves exist so that we in turn may exist. Anthropocentrism in a physical sense is impossible to prove or disprove, but this doesnt mean the design theory cant be challenged. Continuing, we have... 2. Mathematical contingency -- I like to call this The God of the Graphs. It exists simply because its the only mathematical possibility. This, odd as it may sound, seems an incredibly egocentric viewpoint. How could we possibly claim to know enough about mathematics (a fictional framework we developed to make sense of the Universe) to support this claim? So what if its all one big... 3. Universal Accident (The Normological Argument) -- Its just the way it is because it is! Theres no real reason, it just happened to be this way! This seems to be the opposite of the design perspective, except that I think it approaches the issue from a similar apathy, wherein we either say something did this or it all just did this and remove the possibility of further exploration. And of course, while the simple fact that these two conclusions seem to be cop-outs doesnt make them wrong (in fact, they seem on the surface to follow Occams razor quite nicely), it does make them a bit dubious (especially according to Hitchens razor [although that razor in and of itself is a bit of a cop-out. Woah]). So, what have we not considered? What if there are... 4. Multiple (possible) environs -- What I mean is that there may be (or have been) several universes in which life is not possible, or in which existence was not sustainable. It makes sense that through a sort of universal selection (sorry to be playing around with an outdated evolutionary concept) life may exist because it has found a place it could be, and there are many places it could not be. Sean Carroll compares an imaginary cloudy planet with inhabitants who assume that their planet constitutes all of reality to the universe we live in, which is observable only up to a point, at which point it becomes opaque. What if theres something beyond that? This is pretty much the opposite of anything anthropocentric. What if we just live in a finely tuned environment because out of many, we have chosen one? This seems to me to be the best option of all, until we confront the idea that maybe this universe is actually... 5. Not fine-tuned at all -- This is sort of the person shouting that theres a fire and we need to exit the house posthaste. This person may not be offering a further explanation, or a real alternative, but more of a methodological we need to get the hell out of here before the house burns down! ...What? No, I dont know how the wiring got installed the way it is, but its shit regardless and we need to get out! Now, I dont think we need to leave the Universe, but I hope you get my point. I needed some kind of metaphor. Sorry. What this model means is, what if we know so little about mathematics, what if our models are so incomplete, that were actually looking at quite a messy system that still somehow works out? I personally think four and five are the most likely, although I can see the sense behind two (it could be the only mathematical possibility, even if we cant prove that) and one (something certainly could have done this). Three seems the most nonsensical to me (it sounds a lot like storybook magic), but hey, what do I know? The most striking part of this all is that, all of a sudden, the claim of a particular god(s) creating this particular universe particularly for us starts to sound like a huge logical jump passed most of 5 interesting perspectives, deep into a particular version of one, with (usually) little to no logical basis. This belief system dominates the world already, but furthermore its believers are so split on their creators/creators name(s), what we are supposed to do for it/them, and what well get for doing or not doing those things, that all the noise sort of drowns out the other interesting perspectives. I say that last bit, however, with the caveat that, in most peoples model, deity=creator. What if it doesnt? And what if God(s) is/are Universe? Man, this discussion could keep going, but I think Im going for a post-econ nap. Michael Darrow, Tom Lesinski, Kyle Needham, Cleveland Savage, David Waldman, Michaela Koller, and Paul Carey Olguin, do any of you have ideas?
Posted on: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 22:19:16 +0000