Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    When focusing on a limited class of constants C, backgrou... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    When focusing on a limited class of constants C, background evidence used to motivate the prior P(D) may include initial conditions of the universe, laws of physics, and values of all constants other than C

    Natural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The ur-probability framework only restricts background evidence from entailing the existence of life
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Initial conditions, laws of physics, and values of other constants do not by themselves entail the existence of life when class C constants are excluded
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The values of constants outside class C are not epistemically independent of C, as many constants are linked by underlying symmetry relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Treating non-C constants as background evidence while varying C presupposes a separability that actual physics does not license, smuggling in a false modularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On Humean supervenience, laws of physics and constants form an integrated mosaic such that no proper subset can be held fixed as 'background' without circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The ur-probability restriction on background evidence entailing life is insufficient if the selected background evidence already constrains the probability space in ways that prejudge fine-tuning conclusions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Natural Theology

    Key Terms

    Background Evidence(epistemology (theory of knowledge))
    Information and observations you already have that help shape your initial beliefs before tackling a specific question.
    Constants (in physics)(physics and cosmology)
    Numbers that describe fundamental properties of the universe that appear to stay the same everywhere, like the speed of light or gravitational strength.
    Initial Conditions of the Universe(cosmology)
    The state and properties of everything at the very beginning of the Big Bang, before anything changed or evolved.
    Laws of Physics(physics)
    The fundamental rules that govern how matter, energy, and forces behave throughout the universe.
    Prior / Prior Probability P(D)(statistical and philosophical reasoning)
    Your initial belief about how likely something is before you gather new evidence; it's like your starting assumption before learning more information.

    Notable Defenders

    Alister McGrathcontemporary
    Brandon CartercontemporaryCarter 1974
    Brandon CartercontemporaryCarter 1974: 293
    Clark GlymourcontemporaryGlymour 1980 — identified the problem of old evidence for Bayesian confirmation theory

    Related

    Initial conditions, laws of physics, and values of other constants do not by the...On Humean supervenience, laws of physics and constants form an integrated mosaic...The ur-probability framework only restricts background evidence from entailing t...The ur-probability restriction on background evidence entailing life is insuffic...
    +2 moreShow less
    The values of constants outside class C are not epistemically independent of C, ...Treating non-C constants as background evidence while varying C presupposes a se...

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: fine-tuning
    View source passageHide passage
    Motivating a non-negligible prior \(P(D)\) for design is especially challenging in the framework of the ur-probability solution to the problem of old evidence because it constrains the background evidence to facts that do not entail the existence of life. Collins argues that if we focus only on a limited class of constants \(C\), the background evidence that we can use to motivate the prior \(P(D)\) is allowed to “includ[e] the initial conditions of the universe, the laws of physics, and the val
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Cory Juhl
    contemporary
    Juhl 2007
    Daniel EpsteincontemporaryEpstein 2017
    Darren BradleycontemporaryBradley 2009
    Elliott Sobercontemporary
    Elliott SobercontemporarySober 2003, 2009
    Elliott SobercontemporarySober 2003: 44
    Elliott SobercontemporaryBarrett and Sober 2020
    Ernan McMullincontemporaryMcMullin 1993: 376f., sect. 7
    Ian HackingcontemporaryHacking 1987 (identified the inverse gambler's fallacy)
    Ian Hackingcontemporary
    Jeffrey BarrettcontemporaryBarrett and Sober 2020
    John HawthornecontemporaryHawthorne and Isaacs 2018
    John LesliecontemporaryLeslie 1989: 13f.
    John LesliecontemporaryLeslie 1986, 1989: ch. 6
    John RobertscontemporaryRoberts (2012)
    Jonathan WeisbergcontemporaryWeisberg 2005
    Jonathan WeisbergcontemporaryWeisberg (2010; 2012)
    Klaas LandsmancontemporaryLandsman 2016
    KotzencontemporaryKotzen 2012: 835
    Luke BarnescontemporaryBarnes 2020
    Matthew KotzencontemporaryKotzen 2012
    Michael RotacontemporaryRota 2016: 119f.
    Nick BostromcontemporaryBostrom 2002
    Paul DrapercontemporaryDraper 2020
    Richard SwinburnecontemporarySwinburne 2003
    Robert DickecontemporaryDicke 1961
    Roger WhitecontemporaryCited as a critic who accuses the fine-tuning argument for the multiverse of committing the inverse gambler's fallacy
    Roger WhitecontemporaryWhite (2011)
    Roger WhitecontemporaryWhite 2000
    Simon FriederichcontemporaryFriederich 2019a; 2021
    Yoaav IsaacscontemporaryHawthorne and Isaacs 2018
    Paul DiracmodernDirac 1938

    Similar

    Physical laws and initial conditions are part of the universe itself.73%A scientific explanation is given in terms of physical laws and initia...72%There may be hypotheses other than source physicalism that fit the evi...72%Quantum-mechanical considerations show that the causal proposition is ...71%
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit