1. LECTURE 23 MANY COSMOI HYPOTHESIS & PURPOSIVE DESIGN (SUMMARY AND GLIMPSES BEYOND)

2. THE REQUIREMENT OF TOTAL EVIDENCE (RTE) IT IS NOT REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THE CONCLUSION OF AN INDUCTIVELY STRONG ARGUMENT ON THE BASIS OF ITS PREMISES UNLESS THE PREMISES CONTAIN ALL THE KNOWN RELEVANT EVIDENCE. (BERNOULLI, J.M. KEYNES, CARNAP)

3. VAN INWAGEN’S EVOLUTIONARY MANY UNIVERSES HYPOTHESIS VAN INWAGEN SUGGESTS A NATURALISTIC HYPOTHESIS WHICH HE CLAIMS MAKES THE OBSERVED EVIDENCE JUST AS LIKELY AS THE THEISTIC HYPOTHESIS. THEREFORE, HE CONCLUDES, THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT DESIGN OVER NATURAL MECHANISMS.

4. CHANCE AND AN OBSERVATIONAL SELECTION EFFECT NH VI : THE OBSERVED COSMOS IS ONLY ONE AMONG A VAST NUMBER OF COSMOI. SUPPOSE ALSO THAT THE OTHER COSMOI ARE “SCREENED OFF” FROM US. THIS HYPOTHESIS MAKES IT PROBABLE THAT SOME COSMOI WILL BE FINE-TUNED. NO DESIGN IS REQUIRED. MAYBE IT EVEN MAKES THE DATA MORE PROBABLE THAN THEISM DOES.

5. OF COURSE, WE MUST COMPARE THESE HYPOTHESES ON ALL THE EVIDENCE (RTE) THE FINE-TUNING OF OUR COSMOS DOES NOT BY ITSELF RENDER THEISM MORE REASONABLE THAN NATURALISM (ACCORDING TO VAN INWAGEN).

6. SUMMARY (ALL CONCLUSIONS ARE TENTATIVE) (1)“WHY IS THERE ANYTHING?” (a) THE MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE NECESSITY OF SOMETHING EXISTING IS THE ONLY ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT THAT WE HAVE JUDGED VALID. ITS COGENCY DEPENDS ON THE PREMISE “IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE IS A PERFECT BEING” OR “IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE IS A NECESSARILY EXISTENT INDIVIDUAL."

7. A COMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (b)THE MAIN COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT WE CONSIDERED DEPENDS ON THE PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON. (i) QUANTUM MECHANICS SEEMS TO COUNT HEAVILY AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON. (ii) A METAPHYSICAL ARGUMENT SEEMS TO SHOW THAT (PSR) IMPLIES THAT ALL PROPOSTIONS ARE NECESSARY.

8. THE INHABITANTS OF THE COSMOS (2)“WHAT RATIONAL BEINGS ARE THERE?” WE SHOULD REMAIN AGNOSTIC ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE ARE OTHER RATIONAL BEINGS ON OTHER PLANETS. (3) “WHY ARE THERE RATIONAL BEINGS?” THE TWO HYPOTHESES THAT WE HAVE CHOSEN TO CONSIDER ARE: (a) CHANCE (PLUS LAWS OF NATURE), AND (b) PURPOSIVE DESIGN.

9. THE FINE-TUNING ARGUMENT (b) THE “FINE-TUNING” OF OUR COSMOS SEEMS TO SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS OF PURPOSIVE DESIGN OVER THE ASSUMPTION OF A SINGLE COSMOS WITH LAWS OF NATURE AS BRUTE FACTS. BUT: VAN INWAGEN ARGUES THAT A CERTAIN VERSION OF THE “MANY COSMOI” HYPOTHESIS IS JUST AS GOOD.

10. SO WE DO NOT SO FAR HAVE A PREFERABLE ANSWER TO “WHY ARE THERE RATIONAL BEINGS?” WHAT WE HAVE NOT DONE IS TO CONSIDER THE TWO HYPOTHESES WITH RESPECT TO ALL THE EVIDENCE. EVEN IN METAPHYSICS ONE SHOULD CONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCE BEARING ON SUCH QUESTIONS. “KNOCK- DOWN” ARGUMENTS ARE RARE.

11. ROBIN COLLINS ON OBJECTIONS TO THEISM AS ACCOUNTING FOR FINE-TUNING (AS OPPOSED TO A SINGLE COSMOS NATURALISTIC HYPOTHESIS) OBJECTION 1: MORE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OBJECTION. “THERE MAY BE MORE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS THAT EXPLAIN FINE- TUNING.” RESPONSE: THIS ONLY RAISES THE QUESTION OF THE BEST EXPLANATION FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH LAWS YIELDING FINE-TUNING.

12. OBJECTION 2 “OTHER FORMS OF LIFE MIGHT BE ABLE TO EXIST EVEN IF THE CONSTANTS WERE NOT FINE-TUNED.” RESPONSE: SOME OF THE FINE-TUNINGS COULD NOT BE CHANGED SO AS TO PERMIT ANYTHING COMPLEX. EVEN IF WE CONTEMPLATE FAR-OUT POSSIBILITIES, IT IS NOT REALLY RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT PROBABILITY COMPARISON.

13. OBJECTION 3 “THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE OBJECTION”: IF THE LAWS, CONSTANTS, AND CONDITIONS WERE NOT SUCH AS TO PERMIT LIFE, WE WOULDN’T BE HERE TO ASK THE QUESTION.” RESPONSE: ALTHOUGH THIS IS TRUE, IT DOES NOT REALLY RESPOND TO THE ARGUMENT. CF. “THE FIRING-SQUAD ANALOGY”

14. OBJECTION 4 THE “WHO DESIGNED GOD?” OBJECTION: THE THEISTIC HYPOTHESIS POSTULATES A BEING WHO MUST BE MORE COMPLEX THAN THE COSMOS IN WHICH WE FIND OURSELVES. SO WE ARE TRYING TO EXPLAIN COMPLEXITY WITH MORE COMPLEXITY. RESPONSE: WE ARE NOT TRYING TO EXPLAIN COMPLEXITY, ONLY WHY THERE IS FINE- TUNING.

15. OBJECTION 5 THE “NO PROBABILITY” OBECTION: THERE IS NO MEANINGFUL WAY TO ESTIMATE THE PROBABILITIES INVOLVED IN OUR FINAL EVALUATION. RESPONSE: NUMERICAL PROBABILITIES ARE NOT POSSIBLE IN MANY CASES. STILL WE CAN AND DO JUDGE WHETHER ONE THING IS MORE LIKELY THAN ANOTHER. (CF. “EPISTEMIC PROBABILITY”)

16. COLLINS ON MANY-COSMOI ROBIN COLLINS ALSO DISCUSSES MANY- COSMOI HYPOTHESES AND POINTS OUT SOME DIFFICULTIES. HIS MAIN OBJECTION APPEALS TO SOMETHING LIKE (PSR) (A WEAK VERSION PERHAPS): HOW COULD WE EXPLAIN COSMOI- GENERATING MECHANISMS OR THE EXISTENCE OF VAST NUMBERS OF COSMOI?

17. THE NATURALISTIC RESPONSE WE HAVE TO END OUR EXPLANATIONS SOMEWHERE. THE EXISTENCE OF A COSMOI- GENERATING MECHANISM OR A VAST NUMBER OF COSMOI IS JUST A BRUTE FACT. A THEISTIC REJOINDER: MY HYPOTHESIS IS SIMPLER AND BETTER EXPLAINS MANY OTHER FEATURES OF THE COSMOS: THE OBJECTIVITY OF ETHICS, CONSCIOUSNESS, RATIONALITY, THE EXISTENCE AND BEAUTY OF THE LAWS OF NATURE, AND THE NECESSITY OF LOGIC AND MATHEMATICS.

18. A THOROUGH EVALUATION OF THE TWO HYPOTHESES IS A LARGE TASK (NH*) THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF COSMOI, EITHER GENERATED BY SOME NATURAL MECHANISM OR WHICH JUST EXIST AS A BRUTE FACT. NATURAL LAWS AND CHANCE CAN EXPLAIN FINE-TUNING. EMPLOYING THE RESOURCES OF EVOLUTION, NATURAL LAWS AND CHANCE CAN EXPLAIN THE OBSERVED FEATURES OF LIVING (INCLUDING RATIONAL) CREATURES.

19. A THEISTIC HYPOTHESIS (TH) THERE IS A PERFECT BEING WHO FREELY CHOSE TO CREATE THE COSMOS AND ALL ITS LAWS, WHICH LATTER ARE FINE-TUNED TO PERMIT THE EXISTENCE OF LIFE. THE TOTAL-AVAILABLE-EVIDENCE COMPARISON OF THESE INVOLVES MANY OTHER AREAS OF PHILOSOPHY

20. ASSIGNMENT READ CHAPTER 10, “THE NATURE OF RATIONAL BEINGS: DUALISM AND PHYSICALISM”