Continuing my response to Carrier.
Part Three
Barnes claims to have hundreds of science papers that refute what I say about the possibility space of universe construction, and Lowder thinks this is devastating, but Barnes does not cite a single paper that answers my point.
My comment was in response to the claim that the statement “the fundamental constants and quantities of nature must fall into an incomprehensibly narrow life-permitting range” has been “refuted by scientists”, not about what Carrier has to say about “universe construction”. The references are in my review paper.
Because we don’t know how many variables there are.
Carrier doesn’t – he still thinks that there are 6 fundamental constants of nature, but can’t say what they are. Actual physicists have no problem counting the free parameters of fundamental physics as we know it, which is what fine-tuning is all about.
We don’t know all the outcomes of varying them against each other.
We know enough, thanks to a few decades of scientific research. It is not an argument from ignorance – extensive calculations have been performed, which overwhelmingly support fine-tuning.
And, ironically for Barnes, we don’t have the transfinite mathematics to solve the problem.
This is probably a reference to “transfinite frequentism”, a term that, as we saw last time, Carrier invented.
In any case, we don’t need transfinite arithmetic here. Bayesian probability deals with free parameters with infinite ranges in physics all the time; fine-tuning is not a unique case. Many of the technical probability objections aimed at fine-tuning, such as those of the McGrews, would preclude a very wide range of applications of probability in physics.
I am not aware of any paper in cosmology that addresses these issues.
It’s called the “measure problem”. There are literally hundreds of papers on it, too. For example, here’s a relevant paper with over 100 citations: “Measure problem in cosmology“. Aguirre (2005), Tegmark (2005), Vilenkin (2006) and Olum (2012) are good places to start. The problem of infinities in cosmology (including in fine-tuning and the multiverse) is tricky, but few cosmologists believe that it is unsolvable.
In this case, it’s not even an argument in my chapter in TEC … Barnes has skipped to quoting and arguing against a completely unrelated blog post of mine.
My third post discusses a post of Carrier’s that a) discusses fine-tuning and b) quotes from TEC. Unrelated? Grasping at straws …
“We actually do not know that there is only a narrow life-permitting range of possible configurations of the universe.” Barnes can cite no paper refuting that statement.
We “do not know” only in the trivial sense that we aren’t completely, 100% certain, but almost the entire fine-tuning literature is evidence against that statement. For example, read just about any paper on the cosmological constant problem: Hartle et al. (2013) “Anthropic reasoning potentially explains why the observed value of the cosmological constant is small when compared to natural values set by the Planck scale as was discussed by Barrow and Tipler, and Weinberg.”
… some studies get a wide range not a narrow one … e.g. Fred Adams, “Stars in Other Universes: Stellar Structure with Different Fundamental Constants”
Adams does not get a wide range – the figure of “one fourth” mentioned in the abstract is not a measure of the life-permitting range. See this post, and my comments in the review paper.
… which suggests to me he is not being honest in what he claims to know about the literature. So we have inconsistent results.
I’m dishonest because I didn’t mention the “handful [of papers] that oppose this conclusion [of fine-tuning]”? Wait … that’s a quote from me. The results are anything but “inconsistent”.
Speaking of inconsistency, In his post from 2013, Carrier says “all the scientific models we have … show life-bearing universes to be a common result of random universe variation, not a rare one.” Now, in OBR, he says “some studies get a wide range not a narrow one … I know they exist, because I’ve read more than one.”
Then I go on to give the second reason, which is that even those papers are useless. Notice Barnes does not tell his readers this. … my very next sentence, the sentence Barnes hides until later. [Barnes] prefers to pretend [the second argument] didn’t exist than attempt to answer it.
Note the inconsistency between “doesn’t tell” and “hides until later”. Also, note my diabolical method of “hiding” Carrier’s arguments by quoting them. Read my post: I discuss the first reason. And then I immediately discuss the second reason, saying “For a given possible universe, we specify the physics. So we know that there are no other constants and variables.”
Carrier later responds to my reply. So he wants to complain that a) I didn’t respond and (b) my response is mistaken. You can’t have it both ways.
As an aside, if we want to talk about dishonesty: In his post and OBR (linked from “or the mathematical problem”), Carrier cites Tim and Lydia McGrew in support of his claim that infinities create serious problems for fine-tuning. What he doesn’t tell you is that Lydia describes Carrier as “styling himself some sort of probability expert” and “show[ing] a rather striking lack of understanding of probability”. Tim, meanwhile, has shown that Carrier’s attempts to teach basic probability theory are riddled with elementary errors, demonstrating that “Richard Carrier is completely out of his depth with respect to the mathematics of elementary probability. He garbles the explanation of elementary concepts, and he fumbles the computation of his own chosen examples. … Carrier has not crossed the pons asinorum of elementary probability. … Why on earth would anyone take Richard Carrier seriously on this topic when he’s shown himself to be wildly incompetent?”. I couldn’t agree more. Tim’s “Does Richard Carrier Exist?” is also well worth a read.
Does Carrier tell his readers this? Hostile witnesses, who admit something against their own biases, are fine, of course. But is it honest (or, indeed, a good idea) to cite, in support of your case, experts who think that you are wildly incompetent and cannot be taken seriously?
Lowder appears to have been duped by Barnes into thinking I said it was a fact now that “the number of configurations that are life permitting actually ends up respectably high (between 1 in 8 and 1 in 4…).” Nope. Because my very next sentence, the sentence Barnes hides until later, and pretends isn’t a continuation of the same argument, says: “And even those models are artificially limiting the constants that vary to the constants in our universe, when in fact there can be any number of other constants and variables.
Sorry, Jeff – my Jedi mind tricks must be better than I realised. What Carrier claimed was “When you allow all the constants to vary freely, the number of configurations that are life permitting actually ends up respectably high (between 1 in 8 and 1 in 4).” That claim is false. That Carrier has more to say does not excuse his mistake.
Carrier presents my response to his second argument as:
Walk through the thinking here. We know there cannot (!) be or ever have been or ever will be a different universe with different forces, dimensions, and particles than our universe has, because “we specify the physics” (Uh, no, sorry, nature specifies the physics; we just try to guess at what nature does and/or can do) and because “A universe with other constants would be a different universe.” WTF? Um, that’s what we are talking about … different universes! I literally cannot make any sense of Barnes’s argument here.
Yeah, no kidding. What I said was “For a given possible universe, we specify the physics”. It is manifestly not a claim about what cannot ever have been, or about what nature actually does, or about actual universes other than ours, or that our universe could not have or does not have physics of which we are currently unaware. This is not a discussion of the multiverse. The context is the claim that “there is only a narrow life-permitting range of possible configurations of the universe”. A universe with different constants would be a different “possible configuration”.
Moreover, my claim is obviously about other possible universes. All fine-tuning claims are. Carrier’s huff and puff about “if Barnes has some fabulous logical proof that universes with different forces, dimensions, and particles than ours are logically impossible … ” is not just ridiculous. I said “In all the possible universes we have explored, we have found that a tiny fraction would permit the existence of intelligent life.” To misunderstand this point is to completely misunderstand not only what I wrote, but the most basic, definitional claims of fine-tuning.
So there’s an useful conclusion: Carrier has not critiqued fine-tuning, because he does not know what it is.
Again, if we accept that there is Fine Tuning, what do you consider is the cause, please?
1) What can one deduce for sure if one only has a single cosmos to study? You can guess all you like concerning hypothetical cosmoses that might exist or not, but maybe a cosmos is simply something like ours, that naturally flows with complexity. We don’t know since we have no other actual cosmoses to compare with our own.
2) Isn’t the argument from fine-tuning an argument made after the fact since we lack any sure scientific means to peek behind the singularity curtain, nor any sure philosophical means to peek behind the metaphysical curtain?
3) Do you believe this entire cosmos was fine-tuned so that you in particular, Luke Barnes, would come into existence? I am talking about the exact timing of your particular conception, the exact sperm meeting the exact egg with those exact genes meeting at the right time and place, and all the people, culture, and every circumstance and person and book you ever ran across in your life that would mold your mind and personality. Do you believe all of it was fine-tuned from the distant cosmic singularity until today, just to produce “Luke Barnes?”
If you have a little difficulty imagining that the entire cosmos was fine-tuned just to produce you in particular with your tastes and desires and beliefs, then perhaps you want to just believe that the cosmos was fine-tuned to produce humans in general.
Really? Which humans? There have been a number of species, most are extinct at this time. Just the present day species? Our species has only arrived on the scene at the last split second, and may revert to barbarism and devolution or even extinction in the next second. Or maybe our species will shoot for the stars and evolve differently in different regions of the galaxy? Or maybe our species will meld with AI, or simply exist to give birth to AI before we go extinct? Or maybe our species will find ways to uplift some other species to consciousness like our own or superior to our own? Humans have certainly undergone changes since the age of agriculture, such as smaller teeth and jaws, and in fact our average cranial capacity is smaller than it used to be 100,000 or so years ago.
Also, astronomers have noted that our cosmos has not yet reached its maximum number of stars and planets, so who knows what might yet evolve in this cosmos.
Therefore any species in the far distant future might consider the cosmos was fine-tuned for their existence rather than those dumb long extinct humans from earth. In fact a flea with enough self consciousness would probably imagine the cosmos was fine tuned for it, and that it had been specially blessed with eyes and the light of a nearby star to see by, and large leaping legs, and a thin hard body, just so it could launch itself into the air and between hairs, grasp them, and grow and feast on the vast bounty of animal and human flesh and blood which had been provided for it.
Was the cosmos also fine-tuned for everything from staph, TB, influenza and malaria up to fleas, mites, parasitical worms and large-brained mammals like elephants, dolphins and apes? And could one explain all that before the fact or only after the fact?
>What can one deduce for sure if one only has a single cosmos to study?
Ed, Barnes and plenty of other discussions of the fine-tuning argument have addressed this. Could please make a modicum of effort to familiarise yourself with this work before you comment?
There was a recent post on reddit asking “Someone is pretending that he is an expert in your field. What is the single question you would ask to call him out?”
and I especially like the one involving the “Turbo Encabulator”, but sadly I found nothing involving mathematics. Now I think “Do you agree with Carrier on probability?” would be a pretty good answer.
[…] Continuing my response to Carrier (here’s Part 1 and Part 2). […]
[…] New Paper: Binding the Diproton in Stars Richard Carrier: One Liners, Part 2 […]
“Lowder appears to have been duped by Barnes” This is the kind of thing, repeated frequently, that makes me find Carrier quite disgusting. With one word, he intentionally and recklessly slurs two people, Barnes for being someone who is going about “duping” people, and Lowder, some poor sad sack when it comes to thinking about these issues who thus ends up “duped”.
Why couldn’t he have just said “misled”?
After the quotation “I am not aware of any paper in cosmology that addresses these issues” you left off this part “and actually concludes a non-speculative number for how many universes will contain observers.”
I looked at the abstract of some of the papers you listed, and didn’t see any indication that they provided such a number (although asking for it also to be “non-speculative” seems to be a little over-demanding…).
Well, Carrier was in a bind.* Lowder is a friend, and he’d already called Barnes crazy, or something of the sort. So he could either 1. admit he was wrong; 2. burn his bridges with Lowder and call him crazy as well, or 3. claim Lowder was duped by Barnes.
Option 3 allowed him to keep both his friendship and his pride.
*I actually put him in that bind, in a way, as I brought Lowder’s response to his attention, and troubled him several times for a response. Ideally, I thought it would mean Carrier would at least take the time to consider he had been wrong, at least in part, and that Barnes was not the kook he was labeling him as. Carrier, however, doubled down.
[…] Richard Carrier: One Liners, Part 2 […]
[…] https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2016/01/31/richard-carrier-one-liners-part-2/ […]