How Fine-Tuned Is the Universe?

[lpetrich]

I propose a formal debate about this question:

Is the Universe very fine-tuned for allowing us to come into existence and for sustaining our existence?

I will argue the negative, that our Universe is not particularly fine-tuned for us, for these reasons:

Most of our Universe is unsuitable for us.
The range of physical parameters suitable for us is much larger than what some fine-tuning advocates think.
Our Universe could be part of a multiverse of bubble Universes, each with its own macroscopic-limit physics.

I will expand on these reasons in the debate.

Does anyone here wish to argue the affirmative?

[Valheru]

There's no tuning involved, whether it's coarse or fine. It just is.

The fact that most of the universe is unsuitable for us as human beings, is irrelevant, I think. You could argue that the universe is "fine tuned" to produce stars, and planets, and specifically the earth which brought us into being and sustains us.

[DMB]

Valheru, this thread is meant to be only for proposing an Exclusive Engagement and agreeing to the proposal. If anyone takes up lpetrich's offer, a peanut gallery will be created where everyone else can add comments.

[Valheru]

Ya, sorry, I just saw it under new posts and fired away.

[george thindwa]

To me this is important as there is a Pastor here in Malawi who is adamant about fine tuning and would be keen to watch the debate. George Thindwa

[Valheru]

George thindwa becomes better at Threadomancy! (98%)

:)

[lpetrich]

george thindwa, I don't know anyone here who would be willing to debate fine tuning with me. But if you can find someone willing to join this place and debate me, I'd be interested.

[StarChild]

If nobody comes forward, I might take up the cause. I really don't believe it, but it might be nice experience.

[SRU1X]

If nobody comes forward, I might take up the cause. I really don't believe it, but it might be nice experience.

I'd like to see this debate but it doesn't look like anyone else has dared to step up to the plate. Is your offer still open? You should be praised for your willingness to defend something you don't believe in. There's nothing quite like playing the devil's advocate to get our beliefs in order.

[Valheru]

This I wanna see!

[StarChild]

It looks like FUBG wants to take this up.

[lpetrich]

Fat Ugly Bald Guy, it looks like you'd be interested. How does what you propose differ from my OP?

If you have a position that has some well-defined difference, we could then work out some debate or discussion parameters and start.

[Jobar]

This forum is for challenges to formal debates and discussions, and setting those up; it isn't the proper venue for ongoing discussions about specific debate topics. If anyone wants to take up lpetrich's proposal, fine. But if people want to talk more about fine tuning, we'll move this discussion to LU&E.

[Angra Mainyu]

I would suggest clarifying the concept of "fine tuning" before having a debate. :)

[lpetrich]

if you people want to have a thread about it, then you can start one in LU&E. Perhaps some of the posts here could be moved to such a thread.

I'd started this thread because I'm interested in having a formal debate or 1-on-1 discussion with an advocate of fine tuning.

I think that before such a debate, we'd need to clarify what we are claiming is or is not fine tuned, and what qualifies as fine tuning.

[Schneibster]

I propose a formal debate about this question:

Is the Universe very fine-tuned for allowing us to come into existence and for sustaining our existence?

I will argue the negative, that our Universe is not particularly fine-tuned for us, for these reasons:

Most of our Universe is unsuitable for us.
The range of physical parameters suitable for us is much larger than what some fine-tuning advocates think.
Our Universe could be part of a multiverse of bubble Universes, each with its own macroscopic-limit physics.

I will expand on these reasons in the debate.

Does anyone here wish to argue the affirmative?I considered this, but I have the following problem: your third assertion is one I would use to assert that in fact our universe's fine tuning is an inevitable consequence of the large number of these bubbles in the universe. So I'm unclear on whether our positions are opposed or not.

[Schneibster]

Perhaps I should have said "local fine tuning." Local of course == our surrounding hundred billion ly or so.

[lpetrich]

So I could propose splitting the subject into two closely-related ones:

Does our observable Universe, as per Schneibster's definition, have fine tuning?
What is a good explanation for whatever fine tuning it may have?

[lpetrich]

Posts about fine tuning itself moved from here to Life, the Universe, & Everything: Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Us? (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=9875)

This is about setting up a formal debate or an informal, exclusive-engagement discussion about that subject.

[Schneibster]

So I could propose splitting the subject into two closely-related ones:

Does our observable Universe, as per Schneibster's definition, have fine tuning?
What is a good explanation for whatever fine tuning it may have?
If you're game to give this a try, I am. Of course, I've already aired my main argument...

So I see two debates, the second provisional upon the first.

First debate: Is the observable universe fine-tuned, where fine-tuning is defined as the presence of a physical variable that might take on a range of likely values most of which are deadly to life/intelligence, but has taken on an unlikely value that supports life/intelligence?

I am ready when you are.

[Schneibster]

I additionally support an opening statement from us each, stating our position and our reasons for holding it, followed by a rebuttal from each of us to the other's statement, followed by a rebuttal of the rebuttal, followed by a closing statement reiterating what we believe we proved, the defects (if any) in our opponent's argument, and the evidence that supports both.

I seriously doubt we will wind up agreeing, Loren; but that's OK. It'll be interesting.