Another philosopher from meta-physics class. Sadly 500 word limit leaves much left unsaid.
Fine-tuning argument essentially claims that there are numerous independent factors currently present in this universe which make life feasible. If even one of these factors was slightly changed, this universe will no longer support life. It is highly improbable that such a perfect set of independent factors randomly came into existence; hence it is more likely that some creator created this universe to support this life [Garcia, “Teleological and Design Arguments”, pages 4-5]. My point, however, is that having this particular configuration of universe that supports life is not as improbable as claimed, even if we assume this universe randomly came into existence without God.
I propose a different approach to fine-tuning as compared to Garcia. In my view, we should actually be looking at how probable it is that life exists given the universe has these conditions, rather than the other way around.
Before I go further, let me present some assumptions that I am making:
• [P1] Life can simply come into existence without a creator. The discussion of this is a completely different topic and could be discussed separately.
• [P2] Self-existing life can come into existence by a process of trial and error.
• [P3] “Life” is not just limited to carbon-based life we see, but could be of many different forms, composition, type and could even be non-observable (for example, let’s say some life form based on pure energy).
Let’s assume that a universe, which is vast (perhaps infinite), exists with a given set of scientific constants. By P1 and P2, we can claim that different life forms might have tried to come into existence in many different places in many different ways. Since its trial and error, we can assume most of them failed, but given a high enough number of trials and errors, it is fairly probable that some life form (not necessarily carbon-based life, based on P3) could came into existence that suits the parameters of the given universe.
Focusing now on our particular universe, it is true that if our universe was even slightly different, life as we see it will no longer exist. However, my point is, if our universe was slightly differently, then we might not exist but some other life form that suits that universe might. Different constants will simply result in a very different universe, which can simply host a different life form, spawned through trial and error. Hence, since our universe exists, it is not surprising that life (we) exist given that we could have simply existed because of trial and error; our life forms got tailored for this universe, rather than the universe getting designed for us.
To conclude, looking at fine-tuning from the point of view that life came into existence to suit the universe it is in, rather than the universe getting designed to suit our life form makes it clear that some life could easily have existed in any universe with any arbitrary combination of the scientific constants. So, the fact that we exist, can still be probable even if universe came into existence randomly.
Fine Tuning Argument: A different approach
I propose a different approach to fine-tuning as compared to Garcia. In my view, we should actually be looking at how probable it is that life exists given the universe has these conditions, rather than the other way around.
Before I go further, let me present some assumptions that I am making:
• [P1] Life can simply come into existence without a creator. The discussion of this is a completely different topic and could be discussed separately.
• [P2] Self-existing life can come into existence by a process of trial and error.
• [P3] “Life” is not just limited to carbon-based life we see, but could be of many different forms, composition, type and could even be non-observable (for example, let’s say some life form based on pure energy).
Let’s assume that a universe, which is vast (perhaps infinite), exists with a given set of scientific constants. By P1 and P2, we can claim that different life forms might have tried to come into existence in many different places in many different ways. Since its trial and error, we can assume most of them failed, but given a high enough number of trials and errors, it is fairly probable that some life form (not necessarily carbon-based life, based on P3) could came into existence that suits the parameters of the given universe.
Focusing now on our particular universe, it is true that if our universe was even slightly different, life as we see it will no longer exist. However, my point is, if our universe was slightly differently, then we might not exist but some other life form that suits that universe might. Different constants will simply result in a very different universe, which can simply host a different life form, spawned through trial and error. Hence, since our universe exists, it is not surprising that life (we) exist given that we could have simply existed because of trial and error; our life forms got tailored for this universe, rather than the universe getting designed for us.
To conclude, looking at fine-tuning from the point of view that life came into existence to suit the universe it is in, rather than the universe getting designed to suit our life form makes it clear that some life could easily have existed in any universe with any arbitrary combination of the scientific constants. So, the fact that we exist, can still be probable even if universe came into existence randomly.
No comments:
Post a Comment