Puddle thinking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puddle_thinking



http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-teleological-argument/the-argument-from-fine-tuning/the-evolutionary-critique/

elshamah888 wrote:
A puddle, of course, changes shape to fit its hole; the hole was not designed to fit the puddle. Similarly, according to evolutionary theory, man evolved to fit this environment; the environment was not designed to fit him. Whatever the environment in which life emerged, the life that emerged would suit that environment very well. We should not marvel at the appearance of design; it was inevitable that things would be this way.
The evolutionary critique is fine as far as it goes. It does not, however, go very far.

It explains the origin of biodiversity over 3.5 billion years. As theories go, that's quite far.

elshamah888 wrote:
Yes, evolution can provide at least a partial explanation of the appearance of design in biology: biological organisms evolved to fit their environment.
It cannot, however, explain the appearance of design in the circumstances of the Big Bang, or in the laws of physics. These, unlike biological organisms, have not evolved. Modern design arguments, which tend to focus on physics rather than biology, can therefore resist the evolutionary critique.[/justify]

The puddle counterargument is a counter to the fine-tuning argument. It is designed (ironically enough) to show the fallacy in any such arguments. It's unrelated to evolution, inasmuch as the veracity of evolution is irrelevant.
Besides, in my experience, modern design arguments tend to focus on the complexity of biological systems, to which evolutionary critique would most certainly apply. ID is the teleological argument in vogue, I believe.

The puddle analogy wants to make believe,we are adapted to the universe, and not vice-versa. I think however, the universe is anthropocentric, aka it is designed to host life, but life as well is adapted to our universe. The tuning to life of our universe is truly amazing, and in my opinion one of the strongest arguments and evidence for Gods existence.


http://telicthoughts.com/puddle-logic-revisited/

Puddle Logic Revisited

by chunkdz
The “puddle analogy”, or "the sentient puddle" is an oft quoted parable by the brilliant Douglas Adams. So elegant and powerful is the puddle analogy that it is commonly used as a clear refutation of the Anthropic Principle by some of today’s top figures in popular science. But naturally, when the likes of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins heap praise upon a logical argument, my instinct is to whack it with a stick and see if anything falls off.


The first thing I notice about Doug’s puddle is it’s not very bright. In fact, it’s downright stupid. It’s as if Adams assumes that something so simple as a puddle should naturally have the intellect of a simpleton. Adams likens this condition to that of an early caveman who upon realizing that he has everything he needs simply figures that the world was made for him.

But this is one really stupid puddle. He thinks the world is made just for himself, even as he is slowly dying. I mean, even the caveman who barely graduated caveman school is smart enough to recognize that he is NOT a perfect fit for the world – that he is on any given day likely to be eaten, or get some horrible disease, or have some awful thing happen to him.

In other words, Doug’s puddle is dumber than the dumbest caveman. It’s also apparently blind since it cannot see that the rim of it’s crater is getting further away every day as it shrinks into oblivion. Adams has cast the blind, stupid puddle as the buffoon in his miniature farce. If the late Mr. Adams wouldn’t mind, my updated puddle analogy will endow the puddle with at least as much intellect as the dumbest caveman, and the potential to allow this intellect to grow.

A puddle with basic intellect sees that he is slowly dying, his hole is eroding, and he is constantly getting stepped in and contaminated. This world does not fit “staggeringly well” at all.

A puddle further examining the universe outwardly sees exploding suns, comets and asteroids colliding, black holes and light years of cold dead vacuum all around. Not a much better fit out there either.

A puddle who examines his world inwardly sees that microorganisms are using the sun’s power to colonize and take over his hole with green slimy goo, and that evaporation is sucking the life out of him. Man, this universe is conspiring against him on all levels great and small. Puddles don’t stand a chance in this happenstance, chaotic existence. “Maybe”, he thinks, “it all is just a big accident. It certainly isn’t designed for puddles, at least not puddles that last more than a blink in time. What purpose could that possibly serve”?

But given a chance, a puddle who thinks may eventually come to one realization: there is an underlying order to the chaos. A thinking puddle will then have reached the point that Einstein reached when he said “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible at all.” When chided about this view, Einstein replied “A priori, one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way”.

A thinking puddle will realize with just a little common sense that a blind, pitiless, and indifferent universe should not be expected, a priori, to produce that which is not blind, not pitiless, and not indifferent. Instead what we see is more akin to Vladimir Arnold’s cat reaching the end of it’s transform and meowing back at it’s creator. Mind, encoded in chaos, unfolding as mind – the only clues being a barely perceptible underlying order. We comprehend that which should not be comprehendable, and this speaks to purposeful order.

A thinking puddle might still see himself as an accidental product of blind pitiless indifference, but he may more easily say that the universe might be exactly what it looks like. As has been evident to many great thinkers (puddles and non-puddles alike) but perhaps put most succinctly by Freeman Dyson – “The universe in some sense must have known we were coming”.

Of course, the thinking puddle could be wrong. Thinking puddles could be nothing more than accidents, the product of happenstance and sheer luck. But while our thinking puddle may be ignorant, and other puddles may see the universe differently, he’s not as stupid and as blind as Doug Adams would like to portray him.

Wiccan_Child wrote:
It is an a priori assumption that the universe should not be comprehensible. The nature of the mind is indeed a mystery, but, you'll notice, we don't comprehend the universe. We take in a tiny fraction of sensory input, strip most of it away, and rebuild what's left as a very simplified model of what's going on around us. Our 'comprehension' is as rudimentary as the puddle's. Moreover, comprehension should not be surprising: comprehension is a very powerful survival tool, which is why a great many species have evolved it to varying degrees.

Basically, chunkdz's extended analogy fails because it simply posits that a) the universe is comprehensible, and that b) a comprehensible universe necessarily must have been made for those comprehending it. Both are a priori assumptions, and false ones at that.

Our universe might not be FULLY understood, but the more we research, the more we find out. That the universe is finely tuned, for example.....

Wiccan_Child wrote:

elshamah888 wrote:Our universe might not be FULLY understood, but the more we research, the more we find out. That the universe is finely tuned, for example.....

Allegedly .

Well, that is what it looks like. Even atheists like Dawkins admit the universe seems to be finely tuned. The quest is why therefore there should not be a tuner.

Wiccan_Child wrote:

elshamah888 wrote:

Wiccan_Child wrote:

elshamah888 wrote:Our universe might not be FULLY understood, but the more we research, the more we find out. That the universe is finely tuned, for example.....

[color=darkred][b]Allegedly .

Well, that is what it looks like. Even atheists like Dawkins admit the universe seems to be finely tuned. The quest is why therefore there should not be a tuner.

[color=darkred][b]Because 'seems to be' and 'is' are very different.

Sure, but that is all we can do. Interprete again the facts, and each one take its own conclusion. The quest is what is the most reasonable deduction. And that is individual, and personal.

Just because it appears fine-tuned doesn't mean it actually is, especially when the evidence shows that it isn't.

Well, the evidence suggests the universe IS finely tuned. And proeminent scientists , even atheists, agree with it.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-t31.htm

Fred Hoyle
(British astrophysicist)
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”


George Ellis
(British astrophysicist)
“Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”


Paul Davies
(British astrophysicist)
“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.”


Alan Sandage
(winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy)
“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

John O'Keefe
(NASA astronomer)
“We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”


George Greenstein
(astronomer)
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”


Arthur Eddington
(astrophysicist)
“The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”


Arno Penzias
(Nobel prize in physics)
“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”


Roger Penrose
(mathematician and author)
“I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”


Tony Rothman
(physicist)
“When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”


Vera Kistiakowsky
(MIT physicist)
“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”


Stephen Hawking
(British astrophysicist)
“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? …

Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?”


Alexander Polyakov
(Soviet mathematician)
“We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”


Ed Harrison
(cosmologist)
“Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God—the design argument of Paley—updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.”


Edward Milne
(British cosmologist)
“As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].”


Barry Parker
(cosmologist)
“Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.”


Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel
(cosmologists)
“This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.”


Arthur L. Schawlow
(Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics)
“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.”


Henry "Fritz" Schaefer
(computational quantum chemist)
“The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.”


Wernher von Braun
(Pioneer rocket engineer)
“I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”

The atmosphere seems fine-tuned for our lungs, but, in fact, it's not. Rather, our lungs have evolved to cope with the atmosphere (which itself is the accidental by-product of plant respiration - not God).

Well, to me it looks the earth and solar system has been finely tuned to host life. Evidence is staggering.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-fine-tuning-of-our-earth-and-solar-system-t180.htm

Lets look at the earth and the variables involved that must be “just right” for life to exist, apart from the argument of how life began. I will offer some of the variables and the estimated probability that any planet would have that condition so that we can calculate the probability of ANY planet being so suited for life after we see the most important factors involved. These factors were chose for a specific property and reason. Change any factor listed below significantly and life on earth could not exist.

SIZE AND GRAVITY: There is a range for the size of a planet and it gravity which supports life and it is small. A planet the size of Jupiter would have gravity that would crush any life form, and any high order carbon molecules, out of existence. Of the 8 planets + Pluto in our solar system there are 3 that fall within that range, Venus, Earth, and Mars. There is the possibility of some of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter being within the range but nothing conclusive. An estimated guess of probability - .4 or 4 out of 10

WATER: Without a sufficient amount of water, life could not exist. For reasons that go back to the early beginning of the solar system, the earth is the only planet known with ANY significant amount of water. Of the planets of our solar system only earth meets that requirement. Estimated probability - .1

ATMOSPHERE: Not only must a planet have an atmosphere, it must have a certain percentage of certain gasses to permit life. On earth the air we breath is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% argon and carbon dioxide. Without the 78% nitrogen to “blanket’ the combustion of oxygen, our world would ‘burn up’ from oxidation. Nitrogen inhibits combustion and permits life to flourish. No other planet comes close to this makeup of atmosphere. Estimated probability - .01

OXYGEN: The range of oxygen level in the atmosphere that permits life can be fairly broad, but oxygen is definitely necessary for life. Mars falls far short in that respect, and so does Venus. The amount of ‘pure’ oxygen in the atmosphere is dependent on many things, like volcanism, thermal activity in the core of the planet, and the amount of metal in the crust. Too much metal would absorb the oxygen in the air in the form of rust and oxidation. Estimated probability - .01

RARE EARTHS MINERALS: Many chemical processes necessary for life are dependent on elements we call ‘rare earth’ minerals. These only exist as ‘trace’ amounts, but without which life could not continue. Estimated probability - .1

THE SUN: Our sun is an average star in both composition and size. The larger a star is the faster it burns out. It would take longer for life to develop than those larger stars would exist. Smaller stars last longer but do not develop properly to give off the heat and radiation necessary to sustain life on any planets that form. The smaller the star the less likely it will form a planetary system at all. Estimated probability - .3

DISTANCE FROM THE SUN: To have a planet with a surface temperature within the bounds for life, it must be within the ‘biosphere’ of a star, a temperate zone of a given distance from the source of radiation and heat. That would depend on the size of the star. For an average star the size of our sun, that distance would be about 60 to 150 million miles. Estimated probability - .2

RADIOACTIVITY: Without radioactivity, the earth would have cooled to a cold rock 3 billion years ago. Radioactivity is responsible for the volcanism, and heat generated in the interior of the earth. Volcanism is responsible for many of the rare elements we need as well as the oxygen in the air. Most rocky planets have some radioactivity. Estimated probability .5

DISTANCE AND PLACEMENT FROM THE GALACTIC CENTER: We receive very little of the x-rays and gamma rays given off from the galactic center, that would affect all life and its development on earth. We live on the outer rim of the Milky Way, in a less dense portion of the galaxy, away from the noise, dust, and dangers of the interior. Estimated probability - .5

THE OZONE LAYER: Animal life on land survives because of the ozone layer which shields the ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth’s surface. The ozone layer would never have formed without oxygen reaching a given level of density in the atmosphere. A planet with less oxygen would not have an ozone layer. Earth is the only planet in the solar system with an ozone layer. Estimated probability - .1

VOLCANIC ACTIVITY: Volcanic activity is responsible for bringing heaver elements and gasses to the surface, as well as oxygen. Without this activity, the planet would never have sustained life in the first place. Mars once had such activity, but appears to be inactive now. Estimated probability - .3

EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD: We are bombarded daily with deadly rays from the sun, but are protected by the earth’s magnetic field. Mars does not have a field and thus, most of its atmosphere and water were ‘blown away’ early in its life by the solar wind. Estimated probability - .2

SEASONS: Because of the earths tilt, we have seasons, and no part of the earth is extremely hot or cold. The seasons have balancing effect of the temperature on the surface and cause the winds and sea currents which we and all life depend on for a temperate climate. Mars has seasons but little atmosphere. Other planets have extreme tilts. Estimated probability - .2

THE MOON: Most people don’t think of the moon as necessary for life. We have the tides that are very important for some species, but the very early collision of a smaller Mars sized planet and the earth is what caused the moon. It also tilted the earth on its axis and caused seasons. The earth and moon should more accurately be called a ‘two-planet’ system, as the size of earth’s moon is greatly larger in proportion to the earth, than any other planet. The moon early in its existence also shielded the earth from bombardment by meteor showers that were devastating. The craters on the moon are the evidence of that factor. No other planet has undergone such a unique event in its history. Estimated probability - .0001

The fine-tuning argument runs into trouble with the Anthropic Principle: the universe appears fine-tuned for life because, if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to ponder about it. It must appear fine-tuned for life, so the fact that it is is completely unremarkable. Whether we came about through unintelligent evolution or were poofed into being 6000 years ago, the universe must be capable of harbouring life.

So whether it looks fine-tuned or not is irrelevant. What matters if it actually is.

Nope. What matters, is in fact, that there are a infinite possibility of diverse universes, but only our is life permitting. So why is exactly our existing, and not a non-life permitting ? Why is there actually a universe at all, if even to produce one, the chance is staggering small ?

Inflation of the early Big Bang had to be finely tuned as well :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-fine-tune-constants-close-examination-one-by-one-t191.htm

http://www.origins.org/articles/ross_cosmicbreakthrough.html

As Krauss himself points out, each of the two models left requires a high degree of fine tuning. A universe with a cosmological constant "involves a fine-tuning of over 120 orders of magnitude" while an open universe without a cosmological constant still "involves a fine-tuning of perhaps 60 orders of magnitude."11 In other words, if our universe has a cosmological constant, the value of that constant can vary no more than one part in 10120 (the number one with 120 zeros after it). If it has no cosmological constant, its expansion rate must be fined-tuned to within one part in 1060. For the sake of comparison, the best example of human fine tuning is the gravity wave detector currently under construction, fine tuned to one part in 1023. Human achievement takes on a new perspective in light of such numbers. For that matter, so does divine power.

[b][color=darkred]Your point? No one disputes that there are properties of the Earth that, were they different, modern species could not survive. But that misses several rather crucial points.
First, the Earth is not special. There are untold trillions of planets in the universe, any one of which could harbour life.

Nope.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/life-on-other-planets-a-real-possibility-t232.htm

The data demonstrate that the probability of finding even one planet with the capacity to support life falls short of one chance in 10^140 (that number is 1 followed by 140 zeros).

That the Earth specifically had these properties is indeed slim; no one disputes that
Second, what modern life needs is very different to what life in general needs. Who's to say that intelligent life couldn't develop in the absence of water? Sure, we need water, but it's the height of arrogance to declare that all life must require water, isn't it?]

It is very unlikely that kinds of life without water could exist. There is no evidence to support that claim.
Closest possibility of alternative would be ammonia. But it has downsides:

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/ammonialife.html

heat of vaporization of ammonia is only half that of water and its surface tension only one third as much.

elshamah888 wrote:
Nope. What matters, is in fact, that there are a infinite possibility of diverse universes, but only our is life permitting. So why is exactly our existing, and not a non-life permitting ? Why is there actually a universe at all, if even to produce one, the chance is staggering small ?

[color=darkred][b]Why indeed. The lack of a satisfactory answer does not prove that there is an intelligent mind behind it all, least of all the god of the Bible.

We have gone through the argument, it makes no sense to ask for proofs. For me at least, the most convincing and satisfatory answer is, that most probably a intelligent agent is the origin and cause of our universe. Nothing else makes sense to me. Are you sure, you have not a agenda to carry on at any cost, even of the price to let reason and rationality go ?