In 2020, Max Baker-Hytch published a piece in Solas Articles, titled
A Beginner’s Guide to the Fine-Tuning Argument.
Here's the full reference:
A Beginner’s Guide to the Fine-Tuning Argument
Author Max Baker-Hytch Date Published 24th February 2020
https://www.solas-cpc.org/a-beginners-g ... -argument/
Max's first paragraph seems familiar...
MB-H wrote:
In the past few decades a broad consensus has emerged among physicists that a number of aspects of the physical cosmos appear to be ‘fine-tuned’ for life, which is to say, various aspects of its basic structure and of the fundamental laws that govern it are balanced on a knife-edge. If any of them had differed by only a very tiny amount, the universe would not have been capable of supporting life at all. Some of these ‘fine-tuned’ features of the universe are such that had they differed only very slightly, the universe would not even have contained galaxies and stars, let alone complex conscious creatures like ourselves
Which could be because Peterson published a very similar piece on March 12, 2024. (And by very similar I mean virtually word for word, with identical ideas, thought development and references.)
Peterson's blog entry:
Some Notes On “Fine-Tuning” And The Multiverse
LAST UPDATED ON: MARCH 12, 2024 AT 10:46 PM
MARCH 12, 2024 BY DAN PETERSON
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... verse.html
DCP's first paragraph is compared to MB-H, with his words and phrases in blue that are identical to MB-H's earlier published work:
DCP wrote:
Over the past few decades — I, at least, certainly didn’t notice such claims when I was in high school — a number of physicists, philosophers, and others have begun to maintain that many aspects of the physical cosmos appear to be ‘fine-tuned’ for life, which is to say that various aspects of the basic structure of the universe and of the fundamental laws that govern it are balanced, as it were, on a knife’s edge. If any of them had been different by even the tiniest amount, the universe would have been in capable of giving rise to or sustaining life. In several cases, these "fine-tuned” features of the universe are such that, had they differed only very slightly from what they actually are, the universe would not have given rise to stars or even galaxies, let alone to complex and conscious creatures like . . . well, us.
Moving on to MB-H's next part:
MB-H wrote:
There are many specific examples of fine-tuning.[1] Let’s look at just a couple. It’s been estimated by physicists that if the strength of gravity were different by just one part in 1060, there could be no stars and galaxies. A tiny bit stronger and all the matter would have collapsed back in on itself; a tiny bit weaker and the matter would have spread out too quickly for anything like galaxies or stars to be able to form. Another example is what’s known as the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant governs how fast space itself expands or contracts. A tiny bit too strong and the universe would have collapsed back on itself; a tiny bit too weak and the universe would have expanded too quickly for galaxies to be able to form. It’s estimated that the chance of the cosmological constant having a value that would permit life is roughly 1 in 1053.
And the comparison to DCP's second part. You'll notice the blue is choppy, because DCP is using his usual technique of lifting whole sentences and thoughts, changing one or two adjectives, adverbs or tenses, and then calling it his own.
DCP wrote:
Many specific examples of fine-tuning are available for consideration. I’ll mention two of them here, briefly:
It’s been estimated by physicists that, if the strength of gravity were to differ by just one part in 1060 — 1060 being a 1 followed by sixty (60) zeros, making one part in 1060 an almost inconceivably small number — there would be no stars and no galaxies. If it were a tiny bit stronger than it is, all matter would have collapsed back in on itself; it if were a tiny bit weaker, matter would have dispersed too quickly for galaxies or stars to be able to form.
Another example is what’s known as the “cosmological constant.” What is it? The cosmological constant is a number representing a factor that governs how fast space itself expands or contracts. Again, if it were a tiny bit too strong the universe would have collapsed back upon itself; if it were, by contrast, to be a tiny bit too weak, well, the universe would have expanded so quickly that galaxies and stars would be unable to form. It’s estimated that the chance of the cosmological constant having a value that would permit life is roughly 1 in 1053. (That’s a one followed by fifty-three zeros. So 1 over 1053 is, again, a very, very small number.)
MB-H's third part:
To be sure, whilst physicists are broadly agreed that the universe exhibits fine-tuning, they don’t agree on the interpretation of this fact. Is it evidence that an intelligent mind stands behind the cosmos? Or does it even call our for explanation at all? These sorts of questions, I would suggest, fall not within the domain of physics but of philosophy.
Here’s one reason that someone might suggest that fine-tuning doesn’t call out for any explanation at all: “If the universe hadn’t been fine-tuned for life then we wouldn’t be here to notice that fact; there’s no other kind of universe we could have observed other than a fine-tuned universe; and so we shouldn’t be surprised to find ourselves in a fine-tuned universe.”
And DCP's third part:
Still, while many scientists and philosophers concur that the universe manifests “fine-tuning,” that agreement doesn’t extend to the meaning of the apparent fact. Some, for example, argue that it is an indication that a supremely intelligent and powerful being is responsible for our universe. Others, by contrast, contend that it is, simply, a “brute fact.” It just is, they argue, and no explanation for it is either necessary or possible.
One fairly witty way of denying that any explanation is needed for apparent “fine-tuning” runs roughly as follows:
If the universe hadn’t been fine-tuned for life, we wouldn’t be here to notice that fact. There’s no other kind of universe that we could have observed other than a fine-tuned universe! And, so, we shouldn’t be surprised to find ourselves in a “fine-tuned universe.” If a puddle were somehow to exclaim in wonderment how the depression in the asphalt happens, as if by design, to fit his contours perfectly, we would laugh. Wouldn’t we?
MB-H's next:
The philosopher John Leslie has responded to this objection by way of an analogy.[2] Suppose that you’re about to be executed by a firing squad made up of fifty of the world’s finest marksmen. Each one of them has a live round in his rifle, and each of them has a fantastic aim. They raise their rifles, take aim, and fire, but to your amazement, you’re still alive — every single one of them has missed.
Obviously, you’d think, “this cries out for explanation; there must have been a setup; they must have all missed on purpose.” But suppose someone said to you, “Actually, you shouldn’t be amazed, after all, if the marksmen hadn’t all missed then you wouldn’t be here to wonder about it.” This is a flawed line of reasoning. It’s true that the only scenario you could witness is one in which the marksmen all miss. But the fact that they all missed is very improbable given the hypothesis that they all intended to kill you, and so you should look for another hypothesis to account for what happened. Similarly, it’s true that the only kind of universe we could observe is one which is fine-tuned, but the existence of a fine-tuned universe is very, very improbable given the hypothesis of sheer chance, and so we should look for another hypothesis.
DCP's next:
The Canadian philosopher John Leslie has famously responded to this objection with a cute analogy that has become fairly popular: Suppose that you were condemned to be executed by firing squad. Fifty of the best marksmen in the land, each of them armed with a rife and live ammunition. On command, they take aim and fire. To your amazement, though, after the crack of the rifles you’re still standing, still alive, uninjured.
Once the immediate exhilaration and relief had passed, wouldn’t you be at least slightly curious about why you were still living, unhit? Would you have much patience if someone were to approach you, saying, “Actually, you shouldn’t be surprised or curious. After all, if the firing squad hadn’t missed you wouldn’t be standing here to wonder about it.” On the understanding that every member of the firing squad intended to kill you, and that every single one of them was individually capable of doing so, your survival seems to have been extremely improbable and something for which you might understandably want an explanation. Leslie’s analogy is meant to represent the universe, of course: It appears to be true that the only kind of universe we could observe is a universe that is fine-tuned for our survival, but the existence of such a fine-tuned universe is very, very improbable on the hypothesis of sheer chance. Simple curiosity seems to suggest that we should be looking for another hypothesis to explain our being here.
Continuing with MB-H:
What other hypotheses are on the table? One is that the fine-tuning of the universe is not the result of chance, but rather, the deliberate choice of a rational mind who stands behind the universe. Let’s call this the design hypothesis. But recently another hypothesis has received considerable attention. This is the multiverse hypothesis. The multiverse hypothesis postulates that our universe isn’t the only one, but that instead there exists a whole vast ensemble of universes, differing from one another with respect to their fundamental laws of physics and initial conditions. Given enough universes, the thought goes, at least one of them will have physical laws and initial conditions which make possible the emergence of life.
So the question is: does the multiverse hypothesis account for fine-tuning at least as well as the design hypothesis?
And likewise with DCP:
What other hypotheses are on offer?
Some theists (and their fellow-travelers) have argued that the fine-tuning of the universe isn’t the result of mere chance but, instead, represents the deliberate choice or choices of an incredibly powerful rational mind, one to which the title God could reasonably be applied.
But there is another hypothesis that has been proposed, perhaps primarily if not solely to ward off the possible theistic implications of cosmic “fine-tuning” The hypothesis of a “multiverse” postulates that the universe that we know isn’t the only universe that exists. Instead, the hypothesis suggests, there is a vast ensemble of universes with differing initial conditions and different fundamental physical laws. Given enough such universes, so the hypothesis runs, one of them, at least, is bound to exhibit initial conditions and physical laws that enable the emergence of life.
So how well does the multiverse hypothesis actually work? Does it better account for “fine-tuning” than theism does? The debate continues to rage on this subject.
MB-H continues:
The philosopher Robin Collins has written extensively on this question, suggesting that the multiverse hypothesis faces the following dilemma.[3] Either the multiverse is unrestricted — containing every logically possible universe — or it is restricted — containing only some of the logically possible universes. If the multiverse is restricted, then there remains an unanswered question about why the multiverse contains this set of universes rather than any other set, and so the fine-tuning problem is simply pushed up a level. On the other hand, if we appeal to an unrestricted multiverse to explain fine-tuning, this poses serious problems for the very idea of scientific explanation. In a nutshell, the problem is that if the unrestricted multiverse hypothesis is true, then every event that is logically possible is 100% probable — that is, if something is logically possible, then it actually happens somewhere in the multiverse. Suppose you roll a die 100 times and it lands on six every time. Normally, we would regard such an event as calling for an explanation in terms of the die being rigged. But if the unrestricted multiverse hypothesis is true, everything that is logically possible actually occurs, and that includes a fair die landing on six 100 times in a row. It seems like whenever something very surprising happens, the explanation will always just be “oh well, everything that is logically possible actually happens in an unrestricted multiverse, so don’t worry about it.” And that spells the end of scientific investigation. In short, the multiverse hypothesis has serious flaws that render it doubtful whether it really does rival the design hypothesis.
And so does DCP:
The theistic philosopher Robin Collins has devoted considerable attention to the question, and he suggests that the notion of a multiverse a serious dilemma: Either the multiverse is “unrestricted” (that is, it is essentially infinite and contains every logically possible universe) or it is “restricted” (which is to say that it contains only some of the logically possible universes).
If the former, if the multiverse is restricted, then the question remains why the multiverse contains only this set of universes rather than some other set. But this simply kicks the “fine-tuning” can down the road a bit. The puzzle still remains why one of the finite number of universes available on the “restricted” view is apparently fine-tuned for life.
If, on the other hand, the multiverse is “unrestricted,” containing an infinite number of universes, this seems to pose potentially fatal problems for the very concept of scientific explanation itself. Why? Because, if the hypothesis of an unrestricted multiverse is true, then every logically possible event will actually happen somewhere in the boundless, infinitely capacious multiverse.
Suppose, Collins proposes, you roll a die a hundred times and, on every roll, it lands on six. If that were to happen in Las Vegas or Atlantic City, the casino proprietors and the observers would all suspect that the die was rigged. In the unrestricted multiverse, though, everything that is logically possible actually does occur, and that includes a die legitimately landing on six a hundred times in a row. Or a thousand times in a row. Or a million times. Whenever something astounding happens, there won’t be any reason to ask “why.” So fifty sharpshooters missed you at very close range? No big deal. Everything that is logically possible — and there’s nothing strictly illogical about being missed by a fifty-member firing squad — actually happens in our unrestricted multiverse. So don’t worry. Be happy. Move along; there’s nothing to see here. And that would probably put an end to scientific investigation. No reasons are needed, so why should anybody seek them?
In closing from MB-H:
Finally, it’s important to note the limitations of the fine-tuning argument. Just taken on its own, the fine-tuning argument doesn’t show that the God of the Bible exists. But it does, arguably, give a fair amount of support to the hypothesis of an extremely powerful and extremely wise designer, and as such, the fine-tuning argument can form part of a wider cumulative case for Christian theism.
And the same closing, plagiarized by DCP.
The fine-tuning argument does have at least one significant limitation from a theistic point of view: It doesn’t help us to choose between variant views of God. It certainly doesn’t establish the existence of the Judeo-Christian or Abrahamic God, the God of the Bible or the God of the Qur’an. It is consistent with most versions of theism, in the sense that it seems to provide grounds for belief in a supremely powerful and enormously intelligent designer. Thus, while it doesn’t establish any specific conception of deity, it can, potentially, serve as a component part of a broader cumulative argument for Christian theism.
I put the exactly identical words in blue, but in reality, this entire blog entry, every single sentence and paragraph, is nothing more than a complete and total plagiarism of Max Baker-Hytch's published work.
If a student represented this as their work and turned it in, they would receive the harshest punishment, because there is no way someone can plagiarize this meticulously and specifically, and then argue after the fact that it was accidental, or that they just wrote their notes out and forgot where they came from, or that they didn't understand exactly what plagiarism is, or that it doesn't 'count,' because writing this isn't really publishing.
None of these ideas are new, and plenty of people have put combinations of these ideas into their own words, while crediting various sources. Why does Peterson think it's appropriate, however, when discussing similar ideas to just plagiarize others efforts? He simply lifts whole paragraphs, entire phrases, exact ideas and specific wording orders, identical order and content when referring to sources and even personal interpretive sentences. Standing on the shoulders of giants is one thing, but Peterson's method of picking people's pockets for their latest draft of their (almost always copyrighted) thoughts and then sneaking away to post an identical rendition, slap his name on it and pretend he wrote it is just bizarre.
It's another shameful entry to add to the great pile of plagiarized pieces posted on the sic et non blog. And it adds a weird layer of irony when you realize that he plagiarized from
'A Beginner's Guide.'
