{"id":214,"date":"2008-03-24T03:05:59","date_gmt":"2008-03-24T02:05:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/deleet.dk\/?p=214"},"modified":"2008-03-24T03:05:59","modified_gmt":"2008-03-24T02:05:59","slug":"not-so-fine-tuning-argument","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/da\/?p=214","title":{"rendered":"(not so) Fine-Tuning Argument"},"content":{"rendered":"<\/title><meta name=\"GENERATOR\" content=\"OpenOffice.org 2.3 (Win32)\" \/><\/p>\n<style type=\"text\/css\"> \t \t<\/style>\n<h1><\/h1>\n<p><strong>Indledning<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Egentlig s\u00e5 finder jeg argumentet s\u00e5 idiotisk, at det n\u00e6sten ikke er min tid v\u00e6rd, at tilbagevise det. P\u00e5 den anden side, s\u00e5 er det tomme ord, hvis jeg ingen argumenter har. P\u00e5 en tredje side, s\u00e5 er det n\u00f8dvendigt at tilbagevise det, fordi at de fleste mennesker i verden tilsyneladende tror p\u00e5 det.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Argumentet (FTA)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Utrolig nok, s\u00e5 er det ikke til at finde en teist<a href=\"http:\/\/deleet.dk\/wp-admin\/#sdfootnote1sym\" title=\"sdfootnote1anc\" name=\"sdfootnote1anc\"><sup>1<\/sup><\/a> med en formel version af argumentet. Men version kunne lyde s\u00e5ledes:<\/p>\n<p>Hvis gud findes, s\u00e5 er det sandsynligt at man vil finde at fysikkens konstater er konfigureret p\u00e5 en s\u00e5dan m\u00e5de, at intelligent liv er muligt.<\/p>\n<p>Hvis gud ikke findes, s\u00e5 er det ikke sandsynligt at fysikkens konstanter vil v\u00e6re justeret p\u00e5 en m\u00e5de, s\u00e5 livet er muligt.<\/p>\n<p>Naturens konstanter er justeret til at underst\u00f8tte intelligent liv. Gud er den bedste forklaring p\u00e5 hvorfor vi ser dette.<a href=\"http:\/\/deleet.dk\/wp-admin\/#sdfootnote2sym\" title=\"sdfootnote2anc\" name=\"sdfootnote2anc\"><sup>2<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Hvis jeg fors\u00f8gte at opstille mit eget FTA argument, s\u00e5 ville man kunne beskylde mig for at ops\u00e6tte en straw man. Omvendt, s\u00e5 kan jeg ikke, uden et formelt argument, skrive hvilke pr\u00e6misser jeg angriber, og derfor vil det blive lidt rodet.<\/p>\n<p>Jeg vil her notere forskellige indvendinger man kan bruge imod FTA.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Indvending #1 – Sandsynligheden af fysikkens konstanter er ukendt.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Det er endnu ikke lykkedes nogen teist at vise, at universets konstanter kan v\u00e6re anderledes. Det er ikke nok, at man kan forestille sig, at de kan v\u00e6re anderledes. Uden dette, s\u00e5 falder p\u00e5standen om at under ateismen, s\u00e5 er fin justering usandsynligt.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Indvending #2 – Universet er ikke fin justeret til intelligent liv<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Man kan, med rette, angribe ideen om at universet er fin justeret til intelligent liv. Betragt f\u00f8lgende fakta:<\/p>\n<p>1. Mennesket er det eneste intelligente liv p\u00e5 Jorden.<a href=\"http:\/\/deleet.dk\/wp-admin\/#sdfootnote3sym\" title=\"sdfootnote3anc\" name=\"sdfootnote3anc\"><sup>3<\/sup><\/a> Hvis verden var fin justeret til intelligent liv, s\u00e5 ville man forvente at finde mere af det. Hvis vi ser p\u00e5 rummet i stedet, s\u00e5 ser det endnu v\u00e6rre ud. Det er ikke for sjov, at det hedder rummet, det er fordi at der er utrolig meget rum og ikke s\u00e6rlig meget intelligent liv.<\/p>\n<p>2. Jorden er ikke s\u00e6rlig godt tilpasset til intelligent liv. Mennesket kan ikke bo p\u00e5 mere end nogle f\u00e5 procent af Jordens overflade. Hvis der ses bort fra teknologien, s\u00e5 kan vi n\u00e6sten ikke bo p\u00e5 Jorden. Mere v\u00e6rre ser det ud, hvis vi t\u00e6nker p\u00e5 universet. Universet er noget af det v\u00e6rste man kan forestille sig, hvor man er liv. Meget mindre end 99,9999% af universet ville dr\u00e6be alle kendte former for liv p\u00e5 1 sekund.<\/p>\n<p>3. Universet var der i mange milliarder \u00e5r f\u00f8r at intelligent liv opstod.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Indvending #3 – Den designede skaber<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Jeg giver ordet til <strong>Keith Parsons, som sagde det utrolig godt:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>“If someone insists that, nevertheless, we are very, very, very lucky–impossibly lucky–to have a universe as “life friendly” as the one we inhabit, and therefore there must have been a supernatural fine-tuner to set things up, I have to ask “Why doesn’t that same reasoning apply to putative supernatural beings?” Why is it, that of all the ultimate supernatural beings that might have existed, we were so impossibly lucky as to get one that was a personal being who, amazingly, just happened to want creatures like us? Out of the innumerable types of imaginable ultimate supernatural beings–the vast majority of which either would not or could not have cared about us, or could not have created us–we had to be impossibly lucky to get the benevolent fine-tuner we did. Well, maybe the fine-tuner had a further fine-tuner that created him (her? it?). But this puts us on the road to an infinite regress. The only alternative is to take it as a brute, inexplicable fact that we got a supernatural being with just the right combination of powers and desires to get us. But if we say this, what is the advantage of this line over taking our present “finely tuned” laws of physics as a brute, inexplicable fact?”<a href=\"http:\/\/deleet.dk\/wp-admin\/#sdfootnote4sym\" title=\"sdfootnote4anc\" name=\"sdfootnote4anc\"><sup>4<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p><strong>Indvending #4 – Absurde modargumenter el. analogier<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Jeg overlader igen ordet til en “professionel”, Douglas Adams skrev:<br \/>\n“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, \u2018This is an interesting world I find myself in-an interesting hole I find myself in-fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.”<\/p>\n<p>En lotto analogi kan ogs\u00e5 konstrueres:<\/p>\n<p>Der er en meget lav chance for at vinde i lotte, lad os sige en ud af 1.000.000 = 10<sup>-6<\/sup>. Det viser sig, at Lone vinder i lotto. Der er nu to mulige forklaringer \u00e1 la FTA:<\/p>\n<p>Hvis Lottoet van planlagt s\u00e5ledes at Lone vandt, s\u00e5 er det ikke usandsynligt at Lone vandt. Hvis Lottoet ikke var planlagt s\u00e5 er det meget usandsynligt at Lone vandt. Derfor er den bedste forklaring p\u00e5 at Lone vandt, at Lottoet var planlagt. Vi ved at dette er forkert, og at pr\u00e6misserne er sande, derfor m\u00e5 slutningsmetoden v\u00e6re ugyldig.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Indvending #5 – Omvendt kausalitet<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>FTA g\u00f8r brug af omvendt kausalitet, den fors\u00f8ger at vise, at universet er tilpasset livet – intet kunne v\u00e6re mere forkert. Livet er tilpasset universet gennem evolution.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Konklusion<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Jeg h\u00e5ber at have vist, at FTA er b\u00e5de idiotisk og ubrugelig. Ingen b\u00f8r nogensinde tro p\u00e5 dette argument.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/deleet.dk\/wp-admin\/#sdfootnote1anc\" title=\"sdfootnote1sym\" name=\"sdfootnote1sym\">1<\/a>Jeg \tkan til geng\u00e6ld finde en to versioner af en ateistisk filosof:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.infidels.org\/library\/modern\/theodore_drange\/tuning.html\">http:\/\/www.infidels.org\/library\/modern\/theodore_drange\/tuning.html<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.infidels.org\/library\/modern\/theodore_drange\/tuning-revisited.html\">http:\/\/www.infidels.org\/library\/modern\/theodore_drange\/tuning-revisited.html<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/deleet.dk\/wp-admin\/#sdfootnote2anc\" title=\"sdfootnote2sym\" name=\"sdfootnote2sym\">2<\/a>Nogenlunde \tgengivet efter Robert Collins’ version her:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/home.messiah.edu\/%7Ercollins\/finetune\/anth.htm.htm\">http:\/\/home.messiah.edu\/~rcollins\/finetune\/anth.htm.htm<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Han pr\u00f8ver ganske vist at opstille et \tformelt argument, men det lykkedes ham ikke.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/deleet.dk\/wp-admin\/#sdfootnote3anc\" title=\"sdfootnote3sym\" name=\"sdfootnote3sym\">3<\/a>Det \ter ikke afklaret hvad der menes med intelligent, m\u00e5ske mener \tde alle pattedyr?<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/deleet.dk\/wp-admin\/#sdfootnote4anc\" title=\"sdfootnote4sym\" name=\"sdfootnote4sym\">4<\/a>Jeg \tkan ikke finde en prim\u00e6r kilde, sekund\u00e6r kilden er:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/iidb.infidels.org\/vbb\/showthread.php?t=221534&highlight=fine+tuning\">http:\/\/iidb.infidels.org\/vbb\/showthread.php?t=221534&highlight=fine+tuning<\/a> \tSe post #21<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Indledning Egentlig s\u00e5 finder jeg argumentet s\u00e5 idiotisk, at det n\u00e6sten ikke er min tid v\u00e6rd, at tilbagevise det. P\u00e5 den anden side, s\u00e5 er det tomme ord, hvis jeg ingen argumenter har. P\u00e5 en tredje side, s\u00e5 er det n\u00f8dvendigt at tilbagevise det, fordi at de fleste mennesker i verden tilsyneladende tror p\u00e5 det. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[19],"tags":[405,406,444,489],"class_list":["post-214","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-religion-filosofi","tag-fin-justeringsargumentet","tag-fine-tuning-argument","tag-fta","tag-gud"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/da\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/da\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/da\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/da\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/da\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=214"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/da\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/da\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=214"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/da\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=214"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/da\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=214"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}