If Science Were Just Bookkeeping, Fine-Tuning Wouldn’t Matter

0 43


Both science and science fiction are better a Well adjusted A universe where laws actually rule and make sense. That is, because they are the products of the mind that can be found in the mind, whether that mind is understood in traditional religious terms, ed. Panpsychist Terms or some other terms.

Marcelo Glazer

That seems to be the universe we live in, and it’s saddening to many leading minds in science, including a theoretical physicist at Dartmouth College. Marcelo Glazer. He ran into the problem Think big Earlier this month, he made it clear that he thought we were being forced into an unnecessary election:

It’s common to hear that we live in a “Goldilocks Universe,” perfectly tuned for life. Once you frame the story this way, there are three possibilities: (1) it’s just an accident – that is, the universe, and we’re the ones telling the story by measuring the constants of nature; (2) There is a “fine tuning,” and it’s up to you what you call this “fine tuning,” whether it’s God or panpsychism (see my discussion with philosopher Philip Goff last week) and the purpose of the universe to do so. Live an intelligent life; or (3) we live in a multiverse, and our universe would also be one in which things work in order for life to exist. In other words, if you don’t want God, you better embrace the plural.

Marcelo Glaser, “Is the Universe Fine-tuned for Life? Here are 3 answers.” Think Big, November 15, 2023

He proposed an alternative:

If we take a historical approach to how our current physical picture of the universe was constructed, we realize that the constants of nature are the parameters we use to create models that describe what we see. We measure the mass and charge of an electron, or the strength of the strong nuclear force, or the mass of quarks, and use these values ​​in models of how particles and matter interact. It’s obvious that the only reason we measure these values ​​is because we’re here – and that’s rather unsurprising.

Marcelo Glaser.Here are 3 answers.”

When he tried to accuse those who offered an alternative of “astrophysics”, he seemed to understand that his own answer would not be good either. Also, if we can’t draw any conclusions about the big picture based on the patterns we see, it can also be accused of “astro-nihilism.”

Of course, that doesn’t work because humans naturally tend to jump to conclusions based on observations. The usual criterion is that the conclusions follow from the logic and reasoning of the observations. Glazer can save the theoretical physics of the universe only by switching to accounting, regardless of the type of organization in which the books are kept. Such work is suitable for computers and not for people.

He is responding in part to a conversation he had with a Durham University philosophy lecturer a week ago. Philip Goff, Champion of panpsychism. Goff’s new book, why? The purpose of the universe (Oxford University Press, 2023), views adjustment from the perspective of panpsychism rather than theism. According to Goff He told him. “Panpsychism is the theory that consciousness boils down to the basic building blocks of matter. Fundamental particles or fields have incredibly confusing forms of consciousness, and the complex consciousness of human and animal brains is somehow built from these basic forms of consciousness.

Goff’s approach poses a major problem for thinkers in Glaser’s position. The usual defenders of Fence are theists. But suppose, like Goff, we put tinism aside and focus on the unsolved problem of consciousness. After all, consciousness studies seem to be narrowing down to one. For no reason Mischief, around a straight politician a Hot button issue (abortion). One consequence is that there is no evidence-based reason to reject Goff’s panpsychism at face value. And panpsychism, like theism, predicts good adjustment.

Worse for Glaser, it is becoming clear that there is no evidence-based rationale for explaining theism as a fine-tuning. And people generally never stop looking for an explanation.

It’s a perfect storm. But maybe some good science fiction results.

You may also want to read: There is evidence of fine tuning of our universe. Does it mean anything? If the evidence points in that direction, why is the divine mind not “scientific”? Philosopher Anthony Flew believed that evidence is important; That’s why fine tuning changed him from atheism to deism. Can science work without an evidence base?

And

If panpsychism is now mainstream, Next fix? In his new book, panpsychist Philip Goff argues for fine-tuning the universe and cosmic purpose. Can Goff get the gatekeepers of science to accept fine tuning just by denigrating traditional religions? If he does, we know for sure that things are changing.





Source link

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More