Utility versus Futility

Among the many interlocking principles that I find useful in discussing metaphysics is the one I call, “Utility versus Futility.”

It’s really quite simple. If two metaphysical proposals (or theories) are equally supportable by evidence and logic, then the one to prefer should be the one with more practicality, more usefulness.

For example, let us consider whether the universe follows coherent natural laws, or instead, whether everything happens purely at random, in which case, the universe could at any moment revert to incomprehensible chaos. (This second has actually been seriously proposed, and goes under such names as “Last Thursdayism,” which says that the entire universe came into being, fully formed including with our memories, only last Thursday—or a moment ago—and can vanish at any instant.)

Both proposals can be argued with logic and evidence, but only the first proposal has any practical merit, for example, as in planning for NEXT Thursday.

This principle is useful in such topics of discussion as, do we have NO free will? Are we incapable of knowing anything at all? Are we illusions, or figments of a computer’s imagination, or dreams by extraterrestrial aliens?

One cannot entirely disprove such notions, but if one accepts them, will his life be improved? Can falsehood lead only, in the end, to catastrophe and suffering? If so, then is it not incumbent to seek truth?

Less directly connected, are cases in which the principle of utility applies in varying degrees. For example: are we transient physical (or even mental) phenomena, or are we eternal sovereign beings? Are we pawns of the gods, or are we the creatures of a loving deity? Are we happenstance coincidences, or deliberately formed?

Each of us must decide for himself which path, from among the innumerable many, to choose, and none of us has such vast and infallible wisdom as to reliably make the best choice.

I therefore find it more useful to rely on revealed wisdom, such as in the Bible, rather than to think myself capable of working out the answers on my own.

In the end, we must each reap as we sow.

Does the Anthropic Principle Explain Anything?

The universe seems specially designed to support life, intelligent life, and technological civilization.  Were the universe even slightly different in its exquisitely detailed construction, even down to the structure of the atom, then the universe would be at most either a fiery inferno or a frigid expanse, unable to support life at all.  This fact is recognized by nearly all physicists, including atheists.

Two opposing possibilities are put forth to explain this astounding fact.  One of them is intentional creation by a divine being.  The other is that there are so many universes that, by chance alone, one of them is exactly like ours, with no divine creation needed.

The essence of the anthropic argument is that, we exist in this universe, because in no lifeless universe could there be anyone attempting to explain how life arose.  That seems to make perfect sense, at first, but upon closer examination, the anthropic principle contains fatal flaws.  It reminds one of the scurrilous accusation that, the police would not be arresting you if you were innocent.

Granted, that analogy is not perfect, but it demonstrates that our way of thinking can be circular.  The anthropic argument is a trap resulting from circular thinking.  In a way, it says that, whenever anyone proposes intentional creation of the universe, his argument is invalidated by the very fact that he could not argue his case in a lifeless universe.  Therefore, the more detailed, and more nuanced arguments for intentional creation are all too often immediately dismissed without further thought on the matter by skeptics.

One of the counter-arguments against “happenstance” design of the universe, that is to say, a universe of entirely probabilistic coincidences, is one that I have not yet seen invoked by anyone except myself (although it may have been), so here is my claim to fifteen seconds of fame:  chance cannot operate except within intentionally designed parameters.  I do not have a clever or catchy name for that principle, so for now, I will call it, The Principle of Rigged Probability.  Please offer a better term, but for now, let’s just explain what it means.

The simplest example (and perhaps most familiar) is that of a coin flip.  If one flips a coin, it will land either heads or tails.  Those are (for the sake of this discussion) the only two possibilities.  Either one could occur, and unless we have “rigged” the game, the outcome is determined entirely by chance.  Without convincing evidence of intent, there is no need to ascribe the outcome to anything other than the laws of probability.  Case closed.  Or, is it?

The coin has two sides, but only because it is designed that way.  If that is not a satisfactory proof of the Principle of Rigged Probability, then let’s up the ante to another common example, the roll of dice.

Using only one die of the pair of dice, let us ask, what is the likelihood of a die roll landing a six?  One might immediately say, the odds are one in six, but that is wrong, because it assumes that the die has six sides.  If the die does have six sides, then it was designed that way, but it might have as few as four sides, or any number greater than four.  In other words, before calculating the probability of something happening, one must first specify the parameters in which chance operates in each case.  (If the parameters were infinite, then the chance of anything would be X in infinity, effectively zero.)

Every instance of chance works this way.  It is absurd to say something like, the chance is three.  We can say, one in three, or three in some other number, but regardless, we must specify the parameters.

This is the fatal flaw in the anthropic principle.  It is an argument from stubbornness, a rejection of reasoned analysis.

The argument for intentional creation, on the other hand, is based in solid evidence, empiric observation, and disciplined reason.  It argues that, the parameters are intentionally designed.   If it were not a valid argument, your chances of being here to refute it would be zero.

-