text:
Back in Indiana
Category: Architectural Detailing; Mural
Artwork includes poem by Creative Renewal Arts Fellow and former Indiana Poet Laureate Norbert Krapf. Located in the Indianapolis International Airport – Concourse A
Badass Larry Bird
Category: Archive; Mural
Larry Bird, widely regarded as one of the greatest basketball players of all time, was once known as the "Hick from French Lick" and is counted as an Indiana basketball icon. From his early days playing for Springs Valley High School, to his time leading the undefeated Indiana State Sycamores to the National Championship Game, to his 12 all-star appearances and 3 Championships in the NBA, to NBA Coach of the Year and NBA Executive of the Year, Bird has known success in everything he has attempted. And though he is known locally as "Larry Legend", he is as loved in Boston, home of the Celtics NBA team, as he is in his home state. It was the continuous requests from Celtics fans that moved artist Jules Muck to create this mural during an informal artist's residency in the summer of 2019. The mural, which derived from a photograph of Bird that appeared in a 1977 Sports Illustrated story, originally sported a number of drawn-on tattoos relating to his life and career, but at Bird's request the artist removed all of them except the one stating "Indiana" in flowing script. Bird had indicated that although he liked the mural and had no objection to tattoos on other people, he didn't want people to think he had tattoos in real life. His request to remove the tattoos was somewhat controversial, with some commenters stating that he didn't understand that it was an artistic intepretation and others supporting his decision to maintain control over his own image. Jules Muck, aka MuckRock, is a street artist from England who learned her craft in the 1990s from Lady Pink and many other legends of graffiti and hip-hop culture. After working extensively in New York, she moved to Venice, California in 2008. She currently works nationally and internationally, with major works in various locations including Miami's famous Wynwood district, produced with Art Basel Miami. MuckRock's street works are both invited and unsanctioned, and she has created work for gallery exhibitions.
Category: Functional Artwork; Indoor Sculpture
The sculptures are constructed from vintage suitcases that were molded and cast in bronze. The sculptures are installed in the baggage claim area of the airport and function as seating. A miniature world of little people are integrated into each of the pieces, creating dioramas of passengers and pedstrians involved in landscape of travel related activities. "Baggage Claim" was chosen by Art in America as one of the Best Public Sculptures in 2008. Quoted from www.ronbaron.net
Category: Mural
Lilly Oncology on Canvas (LOOC) has provided individuals affected by cancer with an opportunity to share their stories through art and narrative. Since its founding in 2004, in partnership with the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, thousands of LOOC participants have been inspired to share their journey with countless others. For more information, visit http://www.lillyoncology.com/support-resources/lilly-oncology-on-canvas.html The artist chose to show cancer as a balancing act between mind and body. The artist is now cancer-free, but informs the viewer that the balancing doesn't stop once one is free of cancer. Each CAT scan, twitch of pain, or thought can put a survivor out of balance but they just have to remember to rebalance themselves after doubt pulls them down. (photo courtesy of Ken Norris)
Category: Mural; Traffic Signal Box Art
The artist of this mural was inspired by the hot air balloons that can be seen hovering over Fishers, courtesy of nearly Conner Prairie. Balloon Ride is his take on this iconic sight. A tiny mouse rides as a passenger in each balloon–motorists miss this detail, but it is a special reward for pedestrians. Mark Anderson is a sculptor and mural artist based in Indianapolis. Balloon Ride is one of a series of traffic control box artworks commissioned by the City of Fishers to enliven its downtown area.
Balloon Spaceman
This mural was created after nearby Square Cat Vinyl issued an open call for murals relating to its 2019 Backalley Ballyhoo psychedelic music and art festival. The theme of "science fiction" was amply addressed by a number of artists, including this whimsical (and improbable!) composition of a spaceman holding a balloon. Indianapolis-based artist Joy Hernandez specializes in simple, quirky illustrations and favors robots, spacemen, and other fantastic creatures.
Bambi & Thumper
This mural appropriates the iconic 1942 Disney image of Bambi and Thumper, but switches the characters' antlers and horns. The artist's signature is in a small cloud seeming to emanate from the Bambi figure's rear end. The artist's Instagram page comments, "@beholderindy mural got a PG rating this year … looks can be deceiving," referring to a previous mural she had created on the same wall in October 2018: that mural depicted a pair of amorous bunnies and was so controversial that it lasted a mere 24 hours before it was painted out by the building owner. The current mural was created during an informal artist's residency in Indianapolis in the summer of 2019. Jules Muck, aka MuckRock, is a street artist from England who learned her craft in the 1990s from Lady Pink and many other legends of graffiti and hip-hop culture. After working extensively in New York, she moved to Venice, California in 2008. She currently works nationally and internationally, with major works in various locations including Miami's famous Wynwood district, produced with Art Basel Miami. MuckRock's street works are both invited and unsanctioned, and she has created work for gallery exhibitions.
Barbara Boyd Living the Legacy
Category: Historical; Mural
This transit stop installation tells the story of Barbara Boyd, a pioneer in broadcast journalism in Indianapolis. Boyd was the first Black female news anchor to serve a major metropolitan city, as well as the first Black woman to be inducted into the Indiana Journalism Hall of Fame. This installation was part of a project by The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Legacy Project in 2010 that asked students to select excerpts from speeches and sermons of Dr. King that speak to them today. This is one of five transit shelters included in the project, and this transit shelter shows quotes chosen by Key Learning Community, Elder W. Diggs School 42, and Flanner House Charter School.
Bargersville Sunrise
Colorful sunrise mural painted as part of the Johnson County Community Foundation's 25th anniversary. In 2016, three murals were installed in three different cities and towns in Johnson County.
The artist who once occupied this building, John Domont, painted the mural both as a demonstration of his skill and as a tribute to rural Indiana.
Category: Outdoor Sculpture; Temporary
Barrow consists of a molded fiberglass hemisphere with two entry ways. These entry ways are identical rectangular shapes with rounded edges. They are located directly opposite one another, with one located at the sculpture's proper front and the other at its proper back. The fiberglass is molded so that it forms a double wall around an encased sheet of metal meshing. The wall of the fiberglass that is seen from within the sculpture has been allowed to develop darkly, while the outside is light and shiny. The double wall of fiberglass occupies mass, but also contains space. This alters the viewers a changing perception of light and color. From the outside, the fiberglass has been molded so that the thin vertical ridges begin at the bottom of one side, ascend framing the entry ways, and descend down the other side. These strips continue over the dome, and frame the entry way on the opposite side. The metal meshing gives the fiberglass an interesting visual effect of texture, within being able to feel it. The sculpture sits on a square concrete base at a 45 degree angle. Once inside the sculpture, there is a rubber mat on the base to allow viewers to move within the space safely. Upon entering the sculpture, one is inclined to look up at its ceiling. There is a bullseye shaped pattern consisting of a thin red outline, surrounding a large blue circle. Within the blue circle is a smaller red outline surrounding a much smaller yellow circle. Barrow was commissioned for IUPUI in 2007. The sculpture was installed at the Herron School of Art on Wednesday, May 7, at noon. Barrow will remain on display for two years. Barrow was inspired by Viney's visits to caves and burial mounds in Ireland and France. The word barrow means a prehistoric burial mound used by Celtic people of France, England, Scotland, and Ireland. Viney's inspiration for the ceiling of Barrow came from her experience in an actual barrow in Ireland. While inside the mound's central rounded space, a beam of light came streaming in through a slot in the ceiling. These slots were used to chart the solstices, and the paths of the sun and moon. The space also had empty niches in the walls, resembling the entry ways in Barrow. While visiting the Peche Merle Cave in France along the Dordogne River, Viney discovered a cave with paintings and images lining the walls. The artists had crushed red oxide rock into a powder, and then blown it around their hands, leaving a negative imprint on the wall. The thumb and forefinger were touching, leaving behind a repeated circle pattern along the walls of the cave. This is red pattern is the influence for the red in Viney's patterned ceiling of Barrow. Jill Viney was born in a coastal town in California. She earned her Bachelor's degree at Sarah Lawrence College, and her Masters of Fine Arts at Columbia University. Viney has used a quotation from Albert Einstein in her artist statement: "Look, look deep into nature and you will understand everything better." She is very interested in how advancements in technology allow us to see deeper into spaces that would otherwise be unseen. She alters the viewer's perceptions of light, space, and color.
Barth Avenue Bench
Barth Avenue Bench was created as a seating area for visitors using the Pleasant Run Trail. It was constructed from elements of the old Barth Avenue car bridge, which was removed and reconstructed in 2015 as a pedestrian-only bridge to allow more people to safely access both sides of the Pleasant Run waterway. Indianapolis-based artist Brian McCutcheon designed the sculptural bench; it was fabricated by Indianapolis Fabrications (iFab). McCutcheon works in video, photography, and sculpture. He has been the recipient of a number of artist grants, awards, and residencies, including a 2010-11 Pollock-Krasner Foundation grant and a summer 2009 residency at Sculpture Space in Utica, New York. Since 2006, his work has been featured in a wide range of exhibitions on a national and international scale. More about the artist can be found at http://brianmccutcheon.com/ Improving the area around the Barth Avenue Bridge is a project of Reconnecting To Our Waterways, a collective impact initiative to enrich the livability of Indianapolis and the well-being of residents by generating new and sustainable opportunities to learn about and experience art, nature, and beauty along targeted natural waterways and the neighborhoods around them. More information about the project can be found here: http://reconnectingtoourwaterways.org/barth-avenue-bridge-project/
Bat Haus
Category: Functional Artwork; Outdoor Sculpture; Temporary
Reflecting the importance of bats to our ecosystem, Kimberly McNeelan's Bat Haus is a whimsical sculptural intervention at Guggman Haus Brewery. Bats control insect populations, pollinate flowers, disperse plant seeds, and provide important nutrients to landscapes through their droppings; and their flying and echolocation abilities have inspired scientific advances. In addition, the Indiana bat is a state and federally endangered species. Although it is unlikely that bats will actually roost in Bat Haus, it provides them a conceptual "home" and raises our awareness of their presence. Wildlife is everywhere, even in the middle of the city. The artwork was purchased by Guggman Haus after appearing for a year as a temporary installation with Indy Art & Seek, a 2020 project of the Arts Council of Indianapolis and Keep Indianapolis Beautiful. Kimberly McNeelan, an Indianapolis-based furniture maker and sculptor, celebrates nature and healthy living through her artwork. Kim is a frequent contributor to Woodworker's Journal, and teaches woodworking at the Indianapolis Art Center and at Butler University. She received her MFA in from Herron School of Art and Design in 2016 and her BFA from Purdue University in 2005. Kim has apprenticed to numerous well-known furniture makers, been featured on HGTV, received several public art grants, has work in collections across the country, and believes "It's not just woodworking. It's a lifestyle."
Located in the bistro area of the Greenwood/Bargersville Kroger supermarket, Battle of the Bands was designed by Andy Fry and painted by volunteers from the Greenwood and Bargersville communities. The mural was inspired by the importance of their marching bands to Greenwood Community High School and Center Grove High School: their awards records generate school pride and performances show off individual and group talent, and their musicianship is unquestioned. More importantly, though, the marching bands and color guards embody crucial values like persistence, teamwork, discipline, camaraderie, and tradition. One has only to visit Johnson County to recognize how important those values are to maintaining its fine community spirit. Big Car Collaborative is an Indianapolis-based nonprofit arts organization and collective of artists that focuses on creative placemaking and socially engaged art. Their mission is to "bring art to people and people to art, sparking creativity in lives to help communities thrive." Among their many activities are projects that enable people to make art together, whether in the civic commons, in community spaces, or through their own facilities. Big Car was started in 2004 and currently works out of the Tube Factory Artspace in Indianapolis' Garfield Park neighborhood. Read more about their work at http://www.bigcar.org
This mural of purple petunias is a colorful addition to the neighborhood. The mural is one of many murals in the Broad Ripple Flower Alley. The Broad Ripple Flower Alley is in the East alley of the 6000 and 6100 blocks of Carrollton Avenue. The alley features murals by Jules Muck aka MuckRock and other local artists. With support from neighbors, the visionary for the project is Deborah Jacobs of RippleBnB. The mural was painted during an informal artist's residency in the summer of 2019. Jules Muck, aka MuckRock, is a street artist from England who learned her craft in the 1990s from Lady Pink and many other legends of graffiti and hip-hop culture. After working extensively in New York, she moved to Venice, California in 2008. She currently works nationally and internationally, with major works in various locations including Miami's famous Wynwood district, produced with Art Basel Miami. MuckRock's street works are both invited and unsanctioned, and she has created work for gallery exhibitions.
This mural is of red poppies on the side of a house and garage. The mural is one of many murals in the Broad Ripple Flower Alley. The Broad Ripple Flower Alley is in the East alley of the 6000 and 6100 blocks of Carrollton Avenue. The alley features murals by Jules Muck aka MuckRock and other local artists. With support from neighbors, the visionary for the project is Deborah Jacobs of RippleBnB. The mural was painted during an informal artist's residency in the summer of 2019. Jules Muck, aka MuckRock, is a street artist from England who learned her craft in the 1990s from Lady Pink and many other legends of graffiti and hip-hop culture. After working extensively in New York, she moved to Venice, California in 2008. She currently works nationally and internationally, with major works in various locations including Miami's famous Wynwood district, produced with Art Basel Miami. MuckRock's street works are both invited and unsanctioned, and she has created work for gallery exhibitions.
Be Joyful
This mural is of large sunflowers on a fence and garage door. The mural is one of many murals in the Broad Ripple Flower Alley. The Broad Ripple Flower Alley is in the East alley of the 6000 and 6100 blocks of Carrollton Avenue. The alley features murals by Jules Muck aka MuckRock and other local artists. With support from neighbors, the visionary for the project is Deborah Jacobs of RippleBnB. The mural was painted during an informal artist's residency in the summer of 2019. Jules Muck, aka MuckRock, is a street artist from England who learned her craft in the 1990s from Lady Pink and many other legends of graffiti and hip-hop culture. After working extensively in New York, she moved to Venice, California in 2008. She currently works nationally and internationally, with major works in various locations including Miami's famous Wynwood district, produced with Art Basel Miami. MuckRock's street works are both invited and unsanctioned, and she has created work for gallery exhibitions.
Category: Commercial; Mural
This mural was painted for the patio area of Union Brewing Company. Its design merges a number of iconic elements, including the St. Pauli Girl mascot, the World War II-era "We Can Do It" poster, and a social movement called "Just Be Kind," which was started in 2015 by youth in Central Indiana (possibly based on a quote from one of Indianapolis native Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.'s novels) and has since gone nationwide. The colorful style is a hallmark of its artist, Carmel-based painter and muralist Nekoda Witzken.
This mural of a bouquet of flowers is painted to look like the home owner's wedding bouquet. These flowers in various shades of pink are painted on a brown garage door. The mural is one of many murals in the Broad Ripple Flower Alley. The Broad Ripple Flower Alley is in the East alley of the 6000 and 6100 blocks of Carrollton Avenue. The alley features murals by Jules Muck aka MuckRock and other local artists. With support from neighbors, the visionary for the project is Deborah Jacobs of RippleBnB. Jules Muck, aka MuckRock, is a street artist from England who learned her craft in the 1990s from Lady Pink and many other legends of graffiti and hip-hop culture. After working extensively in New York, she moved to Venice, California in 2008. She currently works nationally and internationally, with major works in various locations including Miami's famous Wynwood district, produced with Art Basel Miami. MuckRock's street works are both invited and unsanctioned, and she has created work for gallery exhibitions.
Beacon Bloom
Category: Electronic/Technology; Outdoor Sculpture
Beacon Bloom is a roundabout sculpture created for The City of Carmel. Residing at Westfield Boulevard and 96th Street, viewers approaching and passing the roundabout see three steel flower-like structures with curvy stems. They face south, northeast, and northwest. The composition is raised well above the roundabout, making it easily visible to motorists; the tallest is more than thirty feet high. As viewers circle the form, its flowers' undulating stems seem to make the sculpture come alive. At night the structure displays a delicate, multi-colored play of lights reflected in the undersides of the seven hundred and sixty eight stainless steel florets, which form the three flowers. The sculpture serves as a beacon, signaling the presence of the roundabout not with a warning, but with a welcoming expression of hope and growth. It also marks an important entrance to the city. The whole piece looks like a subtle firework display, a moment frozen in time. Inspired by the artist's ongoing study of plant forms, this sculpture continues his work exploring light and form in public art. Atop each stem is a tilted twelve-foot wide domed flower. The flowers are comprised of sixteen stainless steel clusters on curved cluster arms. Each similarly domed cluster is two feet wide and contains sixteen florets, endless laser-cut three lobed loops of folded stainless steel strip. Inside each floret a space age coated dichroic glass lens covers an LED light source so that by night each is bathed in subtly changing colored light. The seven hundred and sixty eight florets together use only 135 watts of electricity. The artist, Arlon Bayliss, is a sculptor based in Anderson, Indiana. Originally trained as a studio glass practitioner, and the founding director of the glass program at Anderson University, since 2014 he has focused his work on architectural-scale projects in metal, glass, and light.
Bee Like Nancy
Category: Functional Artwork
Nancy Stimson founded Freewheelin Community Bikes with the goal of supporting youth cycling and is the inspiration for this functional yellow bike rack. Freewheelin' Community Bikes is a non-profit earn-a-bike program focusing on education and empowerment through bicycling. Freewheelin' teaches at-risk youth valuable bike repair and maintenance skills. The bike rack was made possible by the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) Bicycle and Pedestrian Program. The program is committed to advancing and promoting multimodal and active transportation planning, including cycling. INDOT has launched a new statewide initiative to identify ways that active transportation can provide additional mobility options, enhance livability, support economic development, tourism and encourage healthy lifestyles.
Bee Mindful: They are Important
Given the opportunity to paint whatever she liked on the wall of this Jiffy Lube store, the artist chose to depict the importance of bees and their drastic drop in population because of herbicides, pesticides, deforestation, and urbanization. When bees are gone, everything in the world, including humans, will cease to exist. True to her style, the artist depicted an illusion of the wall breaking open to reveal a honeycomb, with several bees in various states of maturity flying out from it. The final "bee" is a baby in a bee costume holding a heart balloon, to indicate the importance of bees to human life. The bees appear to be flying towards a giant sunflower, with a world globe in its center. Although not apparent to the casual viewer, the artist also added several details that ground the mural in the time (summer 2019) and place it was painted and reflect her personal concerns. A careful look at the globe in the sunflower reveals red and orange areas in the depiction of South America, to indicate fires in the Amazon rainforest that were in the news at the time. There is also a tiny hurricane in the Caribbean–indicating Hurricane Dorian, which was just forming at the time and was projected to be one of the most devastating hurricanes in recent memory–and a dot indicating Indianapolis. The baby was created to be of an indeterminate race, and the pattern in the wings of the baby's bee costume is reminiscent of the chain link fences that controversially characterize conditions in immigrant holding camps along the U.S.'s southern border, also in the news while the mural was being created. All together, they reveal an artist who is passionately devoted to the health of the world and moved by crises that are damaging to humanity. Pamela Bliss is an Indianapolis-based artist specializing in large-scale, photorealistic murals. Bee Mindful… was created through a partnership between Jiffy Lube of Indiana and the Arts Council of Indianapolis. The partnership is an opportunity to showcase local artists, beautify commercial corridors with original public art murals, and encourage viewers through positive images while expressing the goals of Jiffy Lube's programming: Growing People Through Work.
Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Throughout history, powerful and influential places have used art and architecture to evoke an emotional, often fearful response from their guests: "This place looks expensive and important." Meanwhile, on the world stage, we often see that behind the "curtain" of this impressive facade there is actually just one man who is pulling the levers, using the great influence of public opinion to facilitate his own personal goals. In this mural, shedding light on the unseen, is a large, blue ibis bird, who is pulling back the curtain for us all to see the truth. In ancient Egypt the god of truth and wisdom, Thoth, is represented as a man with a human body and the head of an Ibis. The word "Truth" was derived from his name, and he is said to have been the creator of both mathematics and written language. The real ibis lives in wet marshland and uses its beak to find food in the unpromising mud below the water–accordingly, the Egyptians believed that Thoth created physical matter from the ethereal, bringing into being the world they loved from the base mud of nothingness. Here we have the ibis pulling back the curtain, exposing the truth that fear (represented by the grand beasts) is an illusion, nothing but a construct upheld by the unseen. This mural represents the search for truth, and once the truth is revealed, rebuilding a positive future. Carl Leck is a well-known and popular Indianapolis-based muralist. He is known for his stunning visual effects and clever themes. Behind the Curtain was created through a partnership between Jiffy Lube of Indiana and the Arts Council of Indianapolis. The partnership is an opportunity to showcase local artists, beautify commercial corridors with original public art murals, and encourage viewers through positive images while expressing the goals of Jiffy Lube's programming: Growing People Through Work.
Beholder Bunnies
This painting of two bunnies humping while one smokes a cigarette was once an outdoor mural commissioned by Beholder restaurant for the side of the building, but after causing local controversy, the mural was painted over and the artist painted a new mural in the same spot. Now, this painting hangs inside but is still visible through a front window. Artist Jules Muck also known as MuckRock often uses bunnies for humor. Jules Muck, aka MuckRock, is a street artist from England who learned her craft in the 1990s from Lady Pink and many other legends of graffiti and hip-hop culture. After working extensively in New York, she moved to Venice, California in 2008. She currently works nationally and internationally, with major works in various locations including Miami's famous Wynwood district, produced with Art Basel Miami. MuckRock's street works are both invited and unsanctioned, and she has created work for gallery exhibitions.
Bench Around the Lake is a series of 15 vivid yellow benches that interact with specific sites within 100 Acres and along the bordering bank of the White River. Hein envisions the installation as one long bench that emerges from the ground, twists, turns and submerges again, forming a circuit around the Park's 35-acre lake. The work challenges the assumption that a bench is made for passive sitting, encouraging visitors to explore less frequented areas of the Park and providing opportunities to sit, look, listen, interact and play. Quoted from: www.imamuseum.org/visit/100acres/artworks-projects/bench-around-lake
Bending Light
Light is something we all–humans, plants, animals–need and consume. Yet light can feel abstract and intangible. The artworks in Bending Light make light more "visible" by demonstrating how light bends, using transparent and translucent acrylic rods. Creatively combining this material with the surrounding natural environment also demonstrates the physics principle known as refraction. Slowing down to look at light helps us witness the importance of light in our lives: photosynthesis in plants, our own ability to see, and even the human need to synthesize light into vitamin D that keeps our bodies working. The "Sunburst" installation serves as an oculus, which park-goers can look through, magnifying the environment around them. Engaging sunlight as it travels across the park from east to west, the art also acts as an abstracted sundial for regular visitors. The two "Reading Rods" installations are places where visitors can see how things such as words, colors, and patterns look when reading through the translucent material. Use the free, on-site "Bending Light" publication to experiment with light refraction and make your own discoveries by observing the optical effects that occur when reading and viewing all kinds of things through the reading rods. Studio Lauren Zoll designed the project in the spring of 2020, and the design was influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic raging at the time. While researching, Zoll came across a sketch by modernist architect Alvar Alto that illustrated sunlight reaching a person who was lying ill in bed, and was the architect's response to a tuberculosis outbreak. The outbreak radically influenced architecture to embrace the outdoors and the healing power of sunlight; feeling akin to this prior era, Zoll used sunburst imagery to experiment with light refraction and healing in a public park. Lauren Zoll founded Studio Lauren Zoll in 2011 to focus on experimental practices in creative endeavors. As the lead artist, Lauren invites other female artists into the practice for individual projects. Among her experiments are light, electricity, black beans, and nanomaterials. She is based in Indianapolis. Bending Light was created as part of Indy Art & Seek, a 2020 project of the Arts Council of Indianapolis and Keep Indianapolis Beautiful.
Benjamin Harrison
Category: Historical; Outdoor Sculpture
Located along the southern boundary of University Park, this sculpture is a full-length portrait of Benjamin Harrison, 23rd president of the United States and an Indiana native. He is shown with his right hand raised in a gesture of speech. The exedra, a semicircular portico with seats located behind the sculpture, was designed by Bacon. The sculpture is a memorial to Harrison, the "faith he taught" and his "industry, fidelity, courage, sound statesmanship, and justice through the law." The monument was erected by Indianapolis citizens and dedicated in 1908. Manufactured by Gorham Manufacturing Company (foundry). Dedicated October 27, 1908. Quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Harrison_(sculpture)
Being in a community can mean so many things: from joy and triumph to hardships and challenges. This mural illustrated and celebrated the quirkiness and successes that can be experienced when a community comes together to collaborate on a common goal. The artist, Department of Public Words, was a short-lived multi-artist practice dedicated to putting positive words and phrases in public spaces. The group disbanded in the late 2010s. Funding for Vibrant Corridors, a city-wide effort to create murals in key underpasses and gateways around downtown Indianapolis, is provided in part by the Lilly Foundation and the Glick Fund, a fund of Central Indiana Community Foundation, Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, the Arts Council of Indianapolis, and Downtown Indy. This mural was completed during the 2014 Lilly Global Day of Service with the help of more than 200 Lilly Employees. It was demolished in June, 2021 when the Vermont Street overpass was removed as part of the I-65/70 North Split road reconstruction project.
Between Two Mirrors
Category: Archive; Mural; Temporary
Artist Brian Priest's interest in the areas of natural phenomena and interdisciplinary science have resulted in varied artworks comprised of sound, sculpture, performance and drawing. Often, the artist's own body is both site and source of his work. His prior piece Body Zoo resulted from the artist collecting samples of microscopic bacteria from different areas on his body to create a "micro zoo". Images from Body Zoo were incorporated into Between Two Mirrors. Pictures of bacteria and mold were converted into texture maps to create an image which is both grotesque, compelling, and oddly beautiful. The image is a cluster of unlikely combinations of familiar elements, which exists somewhere between a clinical study, horror movie and architectural model. Priest shows the human body as a structure that both navigates and contains landscape. Just as billions of humans inhabit the Earth, billions of small creatures thrive on and within us. It is life at different scales.
This cartoon buzzard with the taglines "Beware!" and "Yum" was created by an Indianapolis-based graffiti artist.


We can't believe how quickly 2018 is flying by! We've kept busy refining our investment memorandum, polishing our prototype and developing other aspects of our company as we prepare for investment later this year. Read on to see what else we've been up to and what's on our radar for the coming months.
We've finally received all major components we need to begin testing & integrating onto our platform. Our latest, most anticipated part has just arrived: the QuanergyM8. The M8 is a long-range LiDAR capable of scanning 420,000 points per second with 360-degree vision.
Our case to house all of our new hardware is almost at the prototype stage and will be manufactured in the upcoming weeks. Once we have everything assembled and ready to go, we can begin mapping new environments and prepare the new system for its first trial run.
Last month the team took a trip to Dubbo, NSW for the Regional Automated Vehicle Trials, hosted by Transport for NSW. It seemed many different companies and organisations were keen to use autonomous technology within the transportation industry and very few organisations were developing it. This meeting also gave us more reassurance that we are developing technology for a wide range of applications and organisations are already thinking about implementing this type of technology in the near future.
CEO & Co-founder Sahil will be pitching this Thursday, March 8 at the Lock Up for a pitch event hosted by The Business Centre. It's going to be an exciting night and will give us the opportunity to talk about the new developments in our business. Follow along on our social media accounts for updates!
Later this month the Elite Robotics Team will be heading to Sydney to visit Google's corporate headquarters. We're all looking forward to this opportunity to tour their facilities and see where the magic is made!
In case you missed our most recent blog post, click here to check it out. Written by CTO & Co-founder, Nathan Bartlett, it gives a behind-the-scenes look into how the brain of our autonomous robot is being constructed.
Share the post "February Newsletter"
A Message From CTO Nathan Bartlett What is Autonomous Vehicle Technology?


The Windows 10 Anniversary Update released a couple of days ago and it's pretty neat (stay tuned for a full-ish review) but if you used Glass8, a popular application that's used to put an Aero glass effect on Windows 8+ title bars, you might be in for a surprise after you update to version 1607.
I posted a Twitter video a few days back, after I installed the update, which will make the rather big problem pretty apparent if you watch it.
Reasonably, I thought the issue was being caused by the Nvidia graphics drivers. As I came to find, that wasn't the issue at all.
Even after re-installing the Nvidia graphics driver and fiddling with some settings, the issue persisted. I needed to figure out what was happening.
After uninstalling a few programs I thought might have been causing it (Classic Shell, Moo0 Transparent Menu, etc., the issue continued. I then remembered — I had Glass8 installed. So, after attempting to delete it in Safe Mode, and Windows Explorer saying it was in use, I rebooted into Safe Mode with Command Prompt. From there, I navigated to the folder I installed it in and ran del ..
From that point, knowing that Glass8's files were all gone, I restarted once again, into regular Windows (no Safe Mode this time), and sure enough, the issue was gone!


Live Oak Bank is headquartered in Wilmington and is the 9th largest bank in the state of North Carolina. It is also the 393rd largest bank in the nation. It was established in 2008 and as of June of 2017, it had grown to 434 employees at 1 location. Live Oak Bank's savings rates are 3X the national average, and it has an A health rating.
Today Live Oak Bank increased its Savings account rate to 1.40% APY. This is the highest rate on a nationally available savings account.
Live Oak Bank increased the APY TO 1.40% effective today.
Live Oak Bank (internet bank) has raised the rate on its new Savings Account to 1.35% APY. There is no minimum opening deposit, but the maximum balance is capped at $5m.
8/3 - Competitive 12 Month CD At Live Oak, 1.30% APY.
4/20 - Top Rate 1.40% APY 1 Year CD, Live Oak Bank. Quick Look.
4/1 - 1.50% APY 24 Month CD At Live Oak. Quick Look.
The setup and transfer process was very easy, and you can get up with someone immediately if you have a question; A real, live person, that speaks English at that. Savings account rate is the highest in the country, so, since they're FDIC insured for up to $250K, it's a no-brainer.
Five Day Hold With No Interest For Transfers!
I opened a Savings account with this bank this past week. I already had a CD there. The CD provides no statements, just an online list of transactions and a 1099-Int. The interest rate was good at the time I opened it, so no big deal.
However, it turns out that there is a 5 day hold on the money I deposited in my savings account. The money came out of my other bank account on Thursday but the CSR says I won't see it in my account until the next Wednesday. Meanwhile, the CSR confirmed and that I am NOT going to earning any interest on that money during that hold period.
There will also be a five day hold on any withdrawals. The CSR said this is because they use an "intermediary bank" for transfer transactions.
This was not made clear in any way before I opened the account. Despite the nice interest rate I won't be moving in any more money. That hold coming and going effectively lowers the interest rate paid.
1. Account opening doesn't mention clearly that they accept applications ONLY from citizens & green card holders & that people waiting for green card & other legal resident aliens would not be accepted, yet they ask & take in your address, email address, social security number, driving license number, etc.
2. While processing they ask you to email soft copies of all these important documents (social security card, driving license, address proofs, etc) to service representative email address before finally saying we do not accept applications without green card..very suspicious practice..be careful dealing with them.
Live Oak Bank has increased their Savings Account APY to 1.35%.
Live Oak just increased its posted CD rates. There's nothing earth-shattering, but the most competitive new rates seem to be 1.70% APY for 2-year CDs and 1.80% APY for 3-year CDs.
Always verify rates and promotions with the bank or credit union. We are not Live Oak Bank; we are a rate comparison website and cannot provide official rates or promotions.


text:
TalkReason provides a forum for the publication of papers with well-thought out arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics.
Home | Letters | Links | RSS | About Us | Contact Us
Index of Letters
Critique of Intelligent Design
Evolution vs. Creationism
The Art of ID Stuntmen
Faith vs Reason
Anthropic Principle
Autopsy of the Bible code
Counter-Apologetics
Serious Notions with a Smile
Letter Serial Correlation
Mark Perakh's Web Site
The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism
By Michael Ikeda and Bill Jefferys
Traditional responses to the "fine-tuning" argument
Notation and some basic probability theory
Why the "fine-tuning" argument is invalid
Our main theorem
Another way to look at it
Implications of "fine-tuning" versus mere "life-friendliness"
Theological considerations
But which deity?
Appendix I: Reply to Kwon
It has recently been claimed, most prominently by Dr. Hugh Ross on his web site that the so-called "fine-tuning" of the constants of physics supports a supernatural origin of the universe. Specifically, it is claimed that many of the constants of physics must be within a very small range of their actual values, or else life could not exist in our universe. Since it is alleged that this range is very small, and since our very existence shows that our universe has values of these constants that would allow life to exist, it is argued that the probability that our universe arose by chance is so small that we must seek a supernatural origin of the universe.
In this article we will show that this argument is wrong. Not only is it wrong, but in fact we will show that the observation that the universe is "fine-tuned" in this sense can only count against a supernatural origin of the universe. And we shall furthermore show that with certain theologies suggested by deities that are both inscrutable and very powerful, the more "finely-tuned" the universe is, the more a supernatural origin of the universe is undermined.
[Note added 020106: We have learned that the philosopher of science, Elliott Sober, has made some similar points in a recent article written for the Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Religion. A draft copy can be obtained from his website. We have some small differences with Professor Sober (in particular, we think that his condition (A3) is too strong, and that a weaker version of (A3) actually gives a stronger result), but he has an excellent discussion of the role that selection bias plays where the bias is due to self-selection by sentient observers.]
Our basic argument starts with a few very simple assumptions. We believe that anyone who accepts that the universe is "fine-tuned" for life would find it difficult not to accept these assumptions. They are:
a) Our universe exists and contains life.
b) Our universe is "life friendly," that is, the conditions in our universe (such as physical laws, etc.) permit or are compatible with life existing naturalistically.
c) Life cannot exist in a universe that is governed solely by naturalistic law unless that universe is "life-friendly."
In this FAQ we will discuss only the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP), since it is uncontroversial and generally accepted. We will not discuss the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP), much less the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle :-)
According to the WAP, which is embodied in assumption (c), the fact that life (and we as intelligent life along with it) exists in our universe, coupled with the assumption that the universe is governed by naturalistic law, implies that those laws must be "life-friendly." If they were not "life-friendly," then it is obvious that life could not exist in a universe governed solely by naturalistic law. However, it should be noted that a sufficiently powerful supernatural principle or entity (deity) could sustain life in a universe with laws that are not "life-friendly," simply by virtue of that entity's will and power.
We will show that if assumptions (a-c) are true, then the observation that our universe is "life-friendly" can never be evidence against the hypothesis that the universe is governed solely by naturalistic law. Moreover, "fine-tuning," in the sense that "life-friendly" laws are claimed to represent only a very small fraction of possible universes, can even undermine the hypothesis of a supernatural origin of the universe; and the more "finely-tuned" the universe is, the more this hypothesis can be undermined.
2. Traditional responses to the "fine-tuning" argument
There are a number of traditional arguments that have been made against the "fine-tuning" argument. We will state them here, and we think that they are valid, although our main interest will be directed towards some new insights arising from a deeper understanding of probability theory.
1) In proving our main result, we do not assume or contemplate that universes other than our own exist (e.g., as in cosmologies such as those proposed by A. Vilenkin ["Quantum creation of the universe," Phys Rev D Vol. 30, pp. 509-511 (1984)], André Linde ["The self-reproducing inflationary universe," Scientific American, November 1994, pp. 48-55], and most recently, Lee Smolin [Life of the Cosmos, Oxford University Press (1997)], or as in some kinds of "many worlds" quantum models). One argument against Ross has been to claim that there may be many universes with many different combinations of physical constants. If there are enough of them, a few would be able to support life solely by chance. It is hypothesized that we live in one of those few. Thus, this argument seeks to overcome the low probability of having a universe with life in it with a multiplicity of universes. A recent technical discussion of this idea by Garriga and Vilenken can be found at General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology, abstract.
2) Others have argued against the assumption that the universe must have very narrowly constrained values of certain physical constants for life to exist in it. They have argued that life could exist in universes that are very different from ours, but it is only our insular ignorance of the physics of such universes that misleads us into thinking that a universe must be much like our own to sustain life. Indeed, virtually nothing is known about the possibility of life in universes that are very different from ours. It could well be that most universes could support life, even if it is of a type that is completely unfamiliar to us. To assert that only universes very like our own could support life goes well beyond anything that we know today.
Indeed, it might well be that a fundamental "theory of everything" in physics would predict that only a very narrow range of physical constants, or even no range at all, would be possible. If this turns out to be the case, then the entire "fine-tuning" argument would be moot.
While recognizing the force and validity of these arguments, the main points we will make go in quite different directions, and show that even if Ross is correct about "fine-tuning" and even if ours is the only universe that exists, the "fine-tuning" argument fails.
3. Notation and some basic probability theory
In this section, we will introduce some necessary notation and discuss some basic probability theory needed in order to understand our points
First, some notation. We introduce several predicates, (statements which can have values true or false).
Let L="The universe exists and contains Life." L is clearly true for our universe (assumption a).
Let F="The conditions in the universe are 'life-Friendly,' in the sense described above." Ross, in his arguments, certainly assumes that F is true. So will we (assumption b). The negation, ~F, would be that the conditions are such that life cannot exist naturalistically, so that if life is present it must be because of some supernatural principle or entity.
Let N="The universe is governed solely by Naturalistic law." The negation, ~N, is that it is not governed solely by naturalistic law, that is, some non-naturalistic (supernaturalistic) principle or entity is involved. N and ~N are not assumptions; they are hypotheses to be tested. However, we do not rule out either possibility at the outset; rather, we assume that each of them has some non-zero a-priori probability of being true.
Probability theory now allows us to write down some important relationships between these predicates. For example, assumption (c) can be written mathematically as N&L==>F ('==>' means logical implication). In the language of probability theory, this can be expressed as
P(F|N&L)=1
where P(A|B) is the probability that A is true, given that B is true [see footnote 1 for a formal mathematical definition], and '&' is logical conjunction.
4. Why the "fine-tuning" argument is invalid
Expressed in the language of probability theory, we understand the "fine-tuning" argument to claim that if naturalistic law applies, then the probability that a randomly-selected universe would be "life-friendly" is very small, or in mathematical terms, P(F|N)<<1. Notice that this condition is not a predicate like L, N and F; Rather, it is a statement about the probability distribution P(F|N), considered as it applies to all possible universes. For this reason, it is not possible to express the "fine-tuning" condition in terms of one of the arguments A or B of a probability function P(A|B). It is, rather, a statement about how large those probabilities are.
The "fine-tuning" argument then reasons that if P(F|N)<<1, then it follows that P(N|F)<<1. In ordinary English, this says that if the probability that a randomly-selected universe would be life-friendly (given naturalism) is very small, then the probability that naturalism is true, given the observed fact that the universe is "life-friendly," is also very small. This, however, is an elementary if common blunder in probability theory. One cannot simply exchange the two arguments in a probability like P(F|N) and get a valid result. A simple example will suffice to show this.
Let A="I am holding a Royal Flush."
Let B="I will win the poker hand."
It is evident that P(A|B) is nearly 0. Almost all poker hands are won with hands other than a Royal Flush. On the other hand, it is equally clear that P(B|A) is nearly 1. If you have a Royal Flush, you are virtually certain to win the poker hand.
There is a second reason why this "fine-tuning" argument is wrong. It is that for an inference to be valid, it is necessary to take into account all known information that may be relevant to the conclusion. In the present case, we happen to know that life exists in our universe (i.e., that L is true). Therefore, it is invalid to make inferences about N if we fail to take into account the fact that L, as well as F, are already known to be true. It follows that any inferences about N must be conditioned upon both F and L. An example of this is seen in the next section.
The most important consequence of the previous paragraph is very simple: In inferring the probability that N is true, it is entirely irrelevant whether P(F|N) is large or small. It is entirely irrelevant whether the universe is "fine-tuned" or not. Only probabilities conditioned upon L are relevant to our inquiry.
Richard Harter <cri@tiac.net> has suggested a somewhat different interpretation of the "fine-tuning" argument in E-mail (reproduced here with permission). He writes:
This takes care of the WAP; if one argues solely from the WAP the FAQ argument is correct. However the "fine tuning" argument is not (despite what its proponents say) a WAP argument; it is an inverse Bayesian argument. The argument runs thusly:
P(F|~N) >> P(F|N)
P(~N|F) >> P(N|F)
Considered as a formal inference this is a fallacy. None-the-less it is a normal rule of induction which is (usually) sound. The reason is that for the "conclusion" not to hold we need
P(N) >> P(~N)
[This is not the full condition but it is close enough for government work.]
There are two fallacies in this form of the argument. The first is the failure to condition on L, mentioned above. This in itself would render the argument invalid. The second is that the first line of the argument, P(F|~N) >> P(F|N), is merely an unsupported assertion. No one knows what the probability of a supernatural entity creating a universe that is F is! For example, a dilettante deity might never get around to creating any universes at all, much less ones capable of supporting life.
[Note added 010612: Since this was written, we have proved that if You, knowing as a sentient observer that L is true, adopt an a priori position that is neutral between N and ~N, i.e., that P(~N|L) is of the same order of magnitude as P(N|L), then when You learn that F is true and that P(F|N)<<1, You will conclude that P(F&L&~N)<<1. See Appendix I (Reply to Kwon) at the end of this essay for the proof. This observation is problematic for Harter's argument. For under these assumptions we have
P(F&L&~N)=P(L|F&~N)P(F|~N)P(~N)<<1.
Thus under these assumptions it follows that at least one of P(L|F&~N), P(F|~N) or P(~N) is quite small. A small P(L|F&~N) says that it is almost certain that the supernatural deity, having created a "life-friendly" universe, would make it sterile (lifeless). A small P(F|~N) says that it is highly unlikely that this deity would even create a universe that is "life-friendly". Both of these undermine the usual concepts attributed to the deity by "intelligent design" theorists, although either would be consistent with a deity that was incompetent, a dilettante, or a "trickster". A small P(F|~N) is also consistent with a deity who makes many universes, most of them being ~F, with many of these ~F universes perhaps containing life (that is, ~F&L universes, as we discuss below). A small P(~N) says that it is nearly certain that naturalism is true a priori and unconditioned on L, so that Harter's "escape" condition P(N)>>P(~N) in fact holds.
Please remember that if You are a sentient observer, You must already know that L is true, even before You learn anything about F or P(F|N). Thus it is legitimate, appropriate, and indeed required, for You to elicit Your prior on N versus ~N conditioned on L and use that as Your starting point. If You then retrodict that P(~N)<<1 as a consequence, all You are doing is eliciting the prior that You would have had in the absence of Your knowledge that You existed as a sentient observer. This is the only legitimate way to infer Your value of P(~N) unconditioned on L.]
5. Our main theorem
Having understood the previous discussion, and with our notation in hand, it is now easy to prove that the WAP does not support supernaturalism (which we take to be the negation ~N of N). Recall that the WAP can be written as P(F|N&L)=1. Then, by Bayes' Theorem [see footnote 2] we have
P(N|F&L) = P(F|N&L)P(N|L)/P(F|L) =
P(N|L)/P(F|L)
>= P(N|L)
where '>=' means "greater than or equal to." The second line follows because P(F|N&L)=1, and the inequality of the third line follows because P(F|L) is a positive quantity less than or equal to 1. (The above demonstration is inspired by a recent article on talk.origins by Michael Ikeda <mmikeda@erols.com>; we have simplified the proof in his article. The message ID for the cited article is <5j6dq8$bvj@winter.erols.com> for those who wish to search for it on dejanews.)
The inequality P(N|F&L)>=P(N|L) shows that the WAP supports (or at least does not undermine) the hypothesis that the universe is governed by naturalistic law. This result is, as we have emphasized, independent of how large or small P(F|N) is. The observation F cannot decrease the probability that N is true (given the known background information that life exists in our universe), and may well increase it.
Corollary: Since P(~N|F&L)=1-P(N|F&L) and similarly for P(~N|L), it follows that P(~N|F&L)<=P(~N|L). In other words, the observation F does not support supernaturalism (~N), and may well undermine it.
6. Another way to look at it
The thrust of practically all "Intelligent Design" and Creationist arguments (excepting the anthropic argument and perhaps a few others) is to show ~F, since it is evident, we think, that if ~F then we cannot have both life and a naturalistic universe. We evidently do have life, so the success of one of these arguments would clearly establish ~N. In other words, given our prior opinion P(N&L), where 0<P(N&L)<1 but otherwise unrestricted (thus we neither rule in nor rule out N initially), arguments like Behe's attempt to support ~F so as to undermine N:
P(N|~F&L)<P(N|L).
But the "anthropic" argument is that observing F also undermines N:
P(N|F&L)<P(N|L).
We assert that the intelligent design folks want these inequalities to be strict (otherwise there would be no point in their making the argument!)
From these two inequalities we readily derive a contradiction, as follows. From the definition of conditional probability [see footnote 1], the two inequalities above yield
P(N&~F&L)<P(N|L)P(~F&L), P(N& F&L)<P(N|L)P( F&L)
Adding,
P(N&L)= P(N&~F&L)+P(N&F&L)
< P(N|L)(P(~F&L)+P(F&L))
= P(N|L)P(L)=P(N&L),
a contradiction since the inequality is strict.
If we remove the restriction that the inequalities be strict, then the only case where both inequalities can be true is if
P(N|~F&L)=P(N|L) and P(N|F&L)=P(N|L).
In other words, the only case where both can be true is if the information that the universe is "life-friendly" has no effect on the probability that it is naturalistic (given the existence of life); and this can only be the case if neither inequality is strict.
In essence, we see that the intelligent design folks who make the anthropic argument are really trying to have it both ways: They want observation of F to undermine N, and they also want observation of ~F to undermine N. That is, they want any observation whatsoever to undermine N! But the error is that the anthropic argument does not undermine N, it supports N. They can have one of the prongs of their argument, but they can't have both.
[Note added 010612: Some people have objected to us that Behe is not making the argument ~F, but is only making a statement that it is highly unlikely that certain of his "IC" structures could arise naturalistically. Our reading of Behe that he is making an argument that it is impossible for this to happen (a form of ~F as we understand it), but even if we are wrong and he is not making this argument, the point of our comments in this section is that making the argument that the universe is F or is "fine-tuned" (P(F|N)<<1) does not support supernaturalism; the argument that should be made is that the universe is ~F, since this manifestly supports supernaturalism by refuting naturalism. See Appendix I (Reply to Kwon) at the end of this essay.]
7. Implications of "fine-tuning" versus mere "life-friendliness"
Ross' argument discusses the case where the conditions in our universe are not only "life-friendly," but they are also "fine-tuned," in the sense that only a very small fraction of possible universes can be "life-friendly." We have shown that regardless how "finely-tuned" the the laws of physics are, the observation that the universe is capable of sustaining life cannot undermine N.
As we have pointed out above, others have responded to the claim of "fine-tuning" in several ways. One way has been to point out that this claim is not corroborated by any theoretical understanding about what forms of life might arise in universes with different physical conditions than our own, or even any theoretical understanding about what kinds of universes are possible at all; it is basically a claim founded upon our own ignorance of physics. To those that make this point, the argument is about whether P(F|N) is really small (as Ross claims), or is in fact large. The point (against Ross) is essentially that Ross' crucial assumption is completely without support.
A second response is to point out that several theoretical lines of evidence indicate that many other, and perhaps even an infinite number of other universes, with varying sets of physical constants and conditions, might well exist, so that even if the probability that a given universe would have constants close to those of our own universe is small, the sheer number of such universes would virtually guarantee that some of them would possess constants that would allow life to arise.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to consider the implications of Ross' assertion that the universe is "fine-tuned." Suppose it is true that amongst all naturalistic universes, only a very small proportion could support life. What would this imply?
We have shown that the WAP tends to support N, and cannot undermine it. This observation is independent of whether P(F|N) is small or large, since (as we have seen) the only probabilities that are significant for inference about N are those that are conditioned upon all relevant data at our disposal, including the fact that L is true. Therefore, regardless of the size of P(F|N), valid reasoning shows that observing that F is true cannot decrease the probability that N is true, and may increase it.
We believe that the real import of observing that P(F|N) is small (if indeed that is true) would be to strengthen Vilenkin/Linde/Smolin-type hypotheses that multiple universes with varying physical constants may exist. If indeed the universe is governed by naturalistic laws, and if indeed the probability that a universe governed by naturalistic laws can support life is small, then this supports a Vilenkin/Linde/Smolin model of multiple universes over a model that includes only a single universe with a single set of physical constants.
To see this, let S="there is only a Single universe," and M="there are Multiple universes." Let E = "there Exists a universe with life." Clearly, P(E|N)<P(F|N), since it is possible that a universe that is "life-friendly" could still be barren. But, since L is true, E is also true, so observing L implies that we have also observed E.
Then, assuming that P(F|N)<1 is the probability that a single universe is "life-friendly," that this probability is the same for each "random" multiple universe as it would be for a single universe, and that the probability that a given universe exists is independent of the existence of other universes, it follows that
P(E|S&N) = p = P(E|N) < P(F|N) < 1 (and for Ross, P(F|N)<<1);
P(E|M&N) = 1 - (1-p)m, where m is the number of universes if M is true; This is less than 1 but approaches 1 (for fixed p) as m gets larger and larger. Since all the Multiple-universe proposals we have seen suggest that m is in fact infinite, it follows that P(E|M&N)=1. (If one postulates that m is finite, then the calculation depends explicitly on p and m; this is left as an exercise for the reader.)
P(S|E&N) = P(E|S&N)P(S|N)/P(E|N) and
P(M|E&N) = P(E|M&N)P(M|N)/P(E|N),
with these assumptions it follows by division that
P(M|E&N) 1 P(M|N)
-------- = --- x ------,
P(S|E&N) p P(S|N)
which shows that observing E (or L) increases the evidence for M against S in a naturalistic universe by a factor of at least 1/p. The smaller P(F|N)=p (that is, the more "finely-tuned" the universe is), the more likely it is that some form of multiple-universe hypothesis is true.
8. Theological considerations
The next section is rather more speculative, depending as it does upon theological notions that are hard to pin down, and therefore should be taken with large grains of salt. But it is worth considering what effect various theological hypotheses would have on this argument. It is interesting to ask the question, "given that observing that F is true cannot undermine N and may support it, by how much can N be strengthened (and ~N be undermined) when we observe that F is true?"
It is evident from the discussion of the main theorem that the key is the denominator P(F|L). The smaller that denominator, the greater the support for N. Explicitly we have
P(F|L)=P(F|N&L)P(N|L)+P(F|~N&L)P(~N|L)
But since P(F|N&L)=1 we can simplify this to
P(F|L)=P(N|L)+P(F|~N&L)P(~N|L).
Plugging this into the expression P(N|F&L)=P(N|L)/P(F|L) we obtain
P(N|F&L) = P(N|L)/[P(N|L)+P(F|~N&L)P(~N|L))]
= 1/[1+P(F|~N&L)P(~N|L)/P(N|L)]
= 1/[1+C P(F|~N&L)],
where C=P(~N|L)/P(N|L) is the prior odds in favor of ~N against N. In other words, C is the odds that we would offer in favor of ~N over N before noting that the universe is "fine-tuned" for life.
A major controversy in statistics has been over the choice of prior probabilities (or in this case prior odds). However, for our purposes this is not a significant consideration, as long as we don't choose C in such a way as to completely rule out either possibility (N or ~N), i.e., as long as we haven't made up our minds in advance. This means that any positive, finite value of C is acceptable.
One readily sees from this formula that for acceptable C
1) as P(F|~N&L)-->0, P(N|F&L)-->1;
(2) as P(F|~N&L)-->1, P(N|F&L)-->1/[1+P(~N|L)/P(N|L)]=P(N|L),
where '-->' means "approaches as a limit" and the last result follows from the fact that P(N|L)+P(~N|L)=1.
So, P(N|F&L) is a monotonically decreasing function of P(F|~N&L) bounded from below by P(N|L). This confirms the observation made earlier, that noting that F is true can never decrease the evidential support for N. Furthermore, the only case where the evidential support is unchanged is when P(F|~N&L) is identically 1. This is interesting, because it tells us that the only case where observing the truth of F does not increase the support for N is precisely the case when the likelihood function P(F|x&L), evaluated at F, and with x ranging over N and ~N, cannot distinguish between N and ~N. That is, the only way to prevent the observation F from increasing the support for N is to assert that ~N&L also requires F to be true. Under these circumstances we cannot distinguish between N and ~N on the basis of the data F. In a deep sense, the two hypotheses represent, and in fact, are the same hypothesis. Put another way, to assume that P(F|~N&L)=1 is to concede that life in the world actually arose by the operation of an agent that is observationally indistinguishable from naturalistic law, insofar as the observation F is concerned. In essence, any such agent is just an extreme version of the "God-of-the-gaps," whose existence has been made superfluous as far as the existence of life is concerned. Such an assumption would completely undermine the proposition that it is necessary to go outside of naturalistic law in order to explain the world as it is, although it doesn't undermine any argument for supernaturalism that doesn't rely on the universe being "life-friendly".
So, if supernaturalism is to be distinguished from naturalism on the basis of the fact that the universe is F, it must be the case that P(F|~N&L)<1. Otherwise, we are condemned to an unsatisfying kind of "God-of-the-gaps" theology. But what sort of theologies can we consider, and how would they affect this crucial probability?
To make these ideas more definite, we consider first a specific interpretation that is intended to imitate, albeit crudely, how the assumption of a relatively powerful and inscrutable deity (such as a generic Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity might be) could affect the calculation of the likelihood function P(F|~N&L).
We suggest that any reasonable version of supernaturalism with such a deity would result in a value of P(F|~N&L) that is, in fact, very small (assuming that only a small set of possible universes are F). The reason is that a sufficiently powerful deity could arrange things so that a universe with laws that are not "life-friendly" can sustain life. Since we do not know the purposes of such a deity, we must assign a significant amount of the likelihood function to that possibility. Furthermore, if such a deity creates universes and if the "fine-tuning" claims are correct, then most life-containing universes will be of this type (i.e., containing life despite not being "life-friendly"). Thus, all other things being equal, and if this is the sort of deity we are dealing with, we would expect to live in a universe that is ~F.
To assert that such a deity could only create universes containing life if the laws are life-friendly is to restrict the power of such a deity. And to assert that such a deity would only create universes with life if the laws are life-friendly is to assert knowledge of that deity's purposes that many religions seem reluctant to claim. Indeed, any such assertion would tend to undermine the claim, made by many religions, that their deity can and does perform miracles that are contrary to naturalistic law, and recognizably so.
Our conclusion, therefore, is that not only does the observation F support N, but it supports it overwhelmingly against its negation ~N, if ~N means creation by a sufficiently powerful and inscrutable deity. This latter conclusion is, by the way, a consequence of the Bayesian Ockham's Razor [Jefferys, W.H. and Berger, J.O., "Ockham's Razor and Bayesian Analysis," American Scientist 80, 64-72 (1992)]. The point is that N predicts outcomes much more sharply and narrowly than does ~N; it is, in Popperian language, more easily falsifiable than is ~N. (We do not wish to get into a discussion of the Demarcation Problem here since that is out of the scope of this FAQ, though we do not regard it as a difficulty for our argument. For our purposes, we are simply making a statement about the consequences of the likelihood function having significant support on only a relatively small subset of possible outcomes.) Under these circumstances, the Bayesian Ockham's Razor shows that observing an outcome allowed by both N and ~N is likely to favor N over ~N. We refer the reader to the cited paper for a more detailed discussion of this point.
Aside from sharply limiting the likely actions of the deity (either by making it less powerful or asserting more human knowledge of the deity's intentions), we can think of only one way to avoid this conclusion. One might assert that any universe with life would appear to be "life-friendly" from the vantage point of the creatures living within it, regardless of the physical constants that such a universe were equipped with. In such a case, observing F cannot change our opinion about the nature of the universe. This is certainly a possible way out for the supernaturalist, but this solution is not available to Ross because it contradicts his assertions that the values of certain physical constants do allow us to distinguish between universes that are "life-friendly" and those that are not. And, such an assumption does not come without cost; whether others would find it satisfactory is problematic. For example, what about miracles? If every universe with life looks "life-friendly" from the inside, might this not lead one to wonder if everything that happens therein would also look to its inhabitants like the result of the simple operation of naturalistic law? And then there is Ockham's Razor: What would be the point of postulating a supernatural entity if the predictions we get are indistinguishable from those of naturalistic law?
9. But which deity?
In the previous section, we have discussed just one of many sorts of deities that might exist. This one happens to be very powerful and rather inscrutable (and is intended to be a model of a generic Judeo-Christian-Islamic sort of deity, though believers are welcome to disagree and propose--and justify--their own interpretations of their favorite deity). However, there are many other sorts of deities that might be postulated as being responsible for the existence of the universe. There are somewhat more limited deities, such as Zeus/Jupiter, there are deities that share their existence with antagonistic deities such as the Zoroastrian Ahura-Mazda/Ahriman pair of deities, there are various Native American deities such as the trickster deity Coyote, there are Australian, Chinese, African, Japanese and East Indian deities, and even many other possible deities that no one on Earth has ever thought of. There could be deities of lifeforms indigenous to planets around the star Arcturus that we should consider, for example.
Now when considering a multiplicity of deities, say D1,D2,...,Di,..., we would have to specify a value of the likelihood function for each individual deity, specifying what the implications would be if that deity were the actual deity that created the universe. In particular, with the "fine-tuning" argument in mind, we would have to specify P(F|Di&L) for every i (probably an infinite set of deities). Assuming that we have a mutually exclusive and exhaustive list of deities, we see the hypothesis ~N revealed to be composite, that is, it is a combination or union of the individual hypotheses Di (i=1,2,...). Our character set doesn't have the usual "wedge" character for "or" (logical disjunction), so we will use 'v' to represent this operation. We then have
~N = D1 v D2 v...v Di v...
Now, the total prior probability of ~N, P(~N|L), has to be divvied up amongst all of the individual subhypotheses Di:
P(~N|L) = P(D1|L) + P(D2|L) + ... + P(Di||L) + ...
where 0<P(Di)<P(~N|L)<1 (assuming that we only consider deities that might exist, and that there are at least two of them). In general, each of the individual prior probabilities P(Di|L) would be very small, since there are so many possible deities. Only if some deities are a priori much more likely than others would any individual deity have an appreciable amount of prior probability.
This means that in general, P(Di|L)<<1 for all i.
Now when we originally considered just N and ~N, we calculated the posterior probability of N given L&F from the prior probabilities of N and ~N given L, and the likelihood functions. Here it would be simpler to look at prior and posterior odds. These are derived straightforwardly from probabilities by the relation
Odds = Probability/(1 - Probability).
This yields a relationship between the prior and posterior odds of N against ~N [using P(N|F&L)+P(~N|F&L)=1]:
P( N|F&L) P(F| N&L) P( N|L)
Posterior Odds = --------- = ---------- x -------
P(~N|F&L) P(F|~N&L) P(~N|L)
= (Bayes Factor) x (Prior Odds)
The Bayes Factor and Prior Odds are given straightforwardly by the two ratios in this formula.
Since P(F|N&L)=1 and P(F|~N&L)<=1, it follows that the posterior odds are greater than or equal to the prior odds (this is a restatement of our first theorem, in terms of odds). This means that observing that F is true cannot decrease our confidence that N is true.
But by using odds instead of probabilities, we can now consider the individual sub-hypotheses that make up ~N. For example, we can calculate prior and posterior odds of N against any individual D_i. We find that
Posterior Odds = --------- = --------- x -------
P(Di|F&L) P(F|Di&L) P(Di|L)
This follows because (by footnote 2)
P(N |F&L) = P(F| N&L)P( N|L)/P(F|L),
P(Di|F&L) = P(F|Di&L)P(Di|L)/P(F|L),
and the P(F|L)'s cancel out when you take the ratio.
Now, even if P(F|Di&L)=1, which is the maximum possible, the posterior odds against Di may still be quite large. The reason for this is that the prior probability of ~N has to be shared out amongst a large number of hypotheses Dj, each one greedily demanding its own share of the limited amount of prior probability available. On the other hand, the hypothesis N has no others to share with. In contrast to ~N, which is a compound hypothesis, N is a simple hypothesis. As a consequence, and again assuming that no particular deity is a priori much more likely than any other (it would be incumbent upon the proposer of such a deity to explain why his favorite deity is so much more likely than the others), it follows that the hypothesis of naturalism will end up being much more probable than the hypothesis of any particular deity Di.
This phenomenon is a second manifestation of the Bayesian Ockham's Razor discussed in the Jefferys/Berger article (cited above).
In theory it is now straightforward to calculate the posterior odds of N against ~N if we don't particularly care which deity is the right one. Since the Di form a mutually exclusive and exhaustive set of hypotheses whose union is ~N, ordinary probability theory gives us
P(~N|F&L) = P(D1|F&L) + P(D2|F&L) + ...
= [P(F|D1&L)P(D1|L) + P(F|D2&L)P(D2|L) + ...]/P(F|L)
Assuming we know these numbers, we can now calculate the posterior odds of N against ~N by dividing the above expression into the one we found previously for P(N|F&L). Of course, in practice this may be difficult! However, as can be seen from this formula, the deities Di that contribute most to the denominator (that is, to the supernaturalistic hypothesis) will be the ones that have the largest values of the likelihood function P(F|Di&L) or the largest prior probability P(Di|L) or both. In the first case, it will be because the particular deity is closer to predicting what naturalism predicts (as regards F), and is therefore closer to being a "God-of-the-gaps" deity; in the second, it will be because we already favored that particular deity over others a priori.
10. Final comments
Some make the mistake of thinking that "fine-tuning" and the anthropic principle support supernaturalism. This mistake has two sources.
The first and most important of these arises from confusing entirely different conditional probabilities. If one observes that P(F|N) is small (since most hypothetical naturalistic universes are not "fine-tuned" for life), one might be tempted to turn the probability around and decide, incorrectly, that P(N|F) is also small. But as we have seen, this is an elementary blunder in probability theory. We find ourselves in a universe that is "fine-tuned" for life, which would be unlikely to come about by chance (because P(F|N) is small), therefore (we conclude incorrectly), P(N|F) must also be small. This common mistake is due to confusing two entirely different conditional probabilities. Most actual outcomes are, in fact, highly improbable, but it does not follow that the hypotheses that they are conditioned upon are themselves highly improbable. It is therefore fallacious to reason that if we have observed an improbable outcome, it is necessarily the case that a hypothesis that generates that outcome is itself improbable. One must compare the probabilities of obtaining the observed outcome under all hypotheses. In general, most, if not all of these probabilities will be very small, but some hypotheses will turn out to be much more favored by the actual outcome we have observed than others.
The second source of confusion is that one must do the calculations taking into account all the information at hand. In the present case, that includes the fact that life is known to exist in our universe. The possible existence of hypothetical naturalistic universes where life does not exist is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand, which must be based on the data we actually have.
In our view, similar fallacious reasoning may well underlie many other arguments that have been raised against naturalism, not excluding design and "God-of-the-Gaps" arguments such as Michael Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" argument (in his book, Darwin's Black Box), and William Dembski's "Complex Specified Information," as described in his dissertation (University of Illinois at Chicago). We conclude that whatever their rhetorical appeal, such arguments need to be examined much more carefully than has happened so far to see if they have any validity. But that discussion is outside the scope of this article.
Bottom line: The anthropic argument should be dropped. It is wrong. "Intelligent design" folks should stick to trying to undermine N by showing ~F. That's their only hope (though we believe it to be a forlorn one).
Michael Ikeda Bill Jefferys
Statistical Research Division Department of Astronomy
Bureau of the Census University of Texas
Washington DC 20233 Austin TX 78712
Please E-mail comments on this proposed FAQ to Bill Jefferys (bill@clyde.as.utexas.edu).
Michael Ikeda's work on this article was done on his own time and not as part of his official duties. The authors' affiliations are for identification only. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the authors' employers.
Copyright (C) 1997-2002 by Michael Ikeda and Bill Jefferys. Portions of this FAQ are Copyright (C) 1997 by Richard Harter. All Rights Reserved.
11. Footnotes
[1] By definition, P(A|B)=P(A&B)/P(B); it follows that also P(A|B&C)=P(A&B|C)/P(B|C).
[2] We use Bayes' Theorem in the form
P(A|B&K)=P(B|A&K)P(A|K)/P(B|K)
which follows straightforwardly from the identity
P(A|B&K)P(B|K)=P(A&B|K)=P(B|A&K)P(A|K)
(a consequence of footnote 1) assuming that P(B|K)>0.
12. Appendix I: Reply to Kwon (April 30, 2001)
David Kwon has posted a web page in which he claims to have refuted the arguments in our article. However, he has made a simple error, which we detail below, along with comments on some of his other assertions.
[Note added 040109: Kwon's original article has disappeared from the web. The above link is to the last version of his article archived by the Internet Wayback Machine via Makeashorterlink.com.]
Kwon's Equation (3) reads as follows:
P(N|F&L) = P(N&F&L) / {P(~N&F&L) + P(N&F&L)}
This is an elementary result of probability theory and we agree with it. Kwon then goes on and assumes what he calls the "fine-tuning" condition P(F|N)<<1 from which he correctly derives Equation (8), the important part of which reads
P(N&F&L) << 1
From these two results (3 and 8) Kwon derives
P(N|F&L)<<1 unless P(~N&F&L)<<1
Unfortunately, nothing in Kwon's "proof" shows that P(~N&F&L) is not <<1, so he cannot assert unconditionally that P(N|F&L)<<1 as a consequence of his assumptions. He asserts
"The only way not to come to this conclusion [that P(N|F&L)<<1] is to start with an a priori assumption of P(~N&F&L)<<1. In other words, the only way to hold on to naturalism is by assuming that theism is virtually impossible to begin with."
This, however, is incorrect, and here the "proof" falls apart. Kwon apparently recognizes that according to his Equation (3), the value of P(N|F&L) is not governed by the actual size of P(N&F&L), but instead by the relative sizes of P(N&F&L) and P(~N&F&L). In particular, if P(N&F&L)<<P(~N&F&L) then P(N|F&L) will be close to zero; if P(N&F&L) is approximately equal to P(~N&F&L), then P(N|F&L) will be of order one-half; and if P(N&F&L)>>P(~N&F&L), then P(N|F&L) will be nearly unity. Therefore, we need to look at the ratio R = P(N&F&L)/P(~N&F&L) to see what factors govern its size and what assumptions this entails.
We obtain:
R = P(N&F&L) / P(~N&F&L)
= {P(F|N&L) P(N&L)} / {P(F|~N&L) P(~N&L)} (A)
= P(N&L) / {P(F|~N&L) P(~N&L)} (B)
>= P(N&L) / P(~N&L) (C)
= {P(N|L) P(L)} / {P(~N|L) P(L)} (D)
= P(N|L) / P(~N|L) (E)
Here, (A) and (D) follow from the definition of conditional probability, (B) by the WAP--which Kwon says he accepts--and which asserts that P(F|N&L)=1, (C) because the probability P(F|~N&L) in the denominator is <=1, and (E) by cancellation of P(L) in numerator and denominator.
Thus we see that in fact the ratio R cannot be small unless P(N|L)/P(~N|L) is also small. Therefore we cannot conclude that P(N|F&L)<<1 unless P(N|L)/P(~N|L)<<1--regardless of the size of P(N&F&L). But what is P(N|L)/P(~N|L)? Why, it is just the prior odds ratio that You assign to describe Your relative belief in N and ~N before You learn that F is true. Thus, although Kwon is correct in noting that the only way to keep P(N|F&L) from being very small is to have P(~N&F&L)<<1, this does not represent a prior commitment to naturalism as he asserts. Indeed, a prior commitment to naturalism would be to assume that P(N|L)/P(~N|L)>>1, and as (E) shows, if we assume P(N|L)/P(~N|L) of order unity, which reflects a neutral prior position between the N and ~N, and not a prior commitment to naturalism, we will end up being at least neutral between N and ~N after observing that F is true, regardless of the size of P(N&F&L) and P(F|N).
Indeed, it requires a prior commitment to supernaturalism to get P(N|F&L)<<1, because You would have to presume a priori that P(N|L)<<P(~N|L). Kwon has it exactly backwards.
So the absolute size of P(N&F&L) and P(F|N) do not tell us anything about P(N|F&L); this is a confusion between conditional and unconditional probability. The only thing that counts is the ratio R. Kwon's calculation in his steps (4-8) is simply irrelevant to the final result. Indeed, we have the following theorem:
Theorem: If p(F|N)<<1 and You are exactly neutral between N and ~N before learning F, then P(~N&F&L)<<1.
Proof: Under the assumptions we have P(F&N&L)=P(N|L)P(L)<<1; but if we are exactly neutral between N and ~N before learning F we have P(N|L)=0.5=O(1) so the unconditional probability P(L)<<1. But by standard probability theory P(~N&F&L)<=P(L)<<1. QED.
Thus, far from reflecting a prior commitment to naturalism as Kwon claims, the result P(~N&F&L)<<1 is a consequence of the fine tuning condition together with the adoption of an at least neutral prior position on N versus ~N. It is due to the fact that P(N&L&F) and P(~N&L&F) both have P(L)<<1 as a factor when they are expanded using the definition of conditional probability.
Furthermore, it is even possible for P(~N|F&L) to be very small (and therefore P(N|F&L) close to unity), without making a prior commitment to naturalism. For example, suppose we adopt the neutral position P(N|L)=P(~N|L)=0.5; then from (B) we find that R = 1/P(F|~N&L), and if P(F|~N&L)<<1 then R>>1 and P(F|N&L) is close to unity. But what does P(F|~N&L)<<1 mean? Is this a "prior commitment to naturalism?" No, a prior commitment to naturalism would involve some conditional probability on N, not some conditional probability on F. The condition P(F|~N&L)<<1 actually means that it is likely that an inhabitant of a supernaturalistically created universe would find that it is ~F: a universe where life exists despite the fact that it could not exist naturalistically, for example as a consequence of the suspension of natural law by the supernatural creator. We discussed this extensively in our article. Indeed, without psychoanalyzing the Deity and analysing its powers and intentions, it is a priori quite likely that the Deity might create universes that are ~F&L, for such universes are not excluded unless we know something about this Deity that would prevent it from creating such universes. An example of such a universe would be Paradise, and it seems unlikely that enthusiasts of the "fine-tuning" argument would be willing to say that the Deity would not create anything like Paradise. But the only way for them to escape from P(F|~N&L)<<1 would be for them to assert that the Deity would only, or mostly, create universes that, if they contain life, are F, and we see no justification for such an assumption.
Kwon makes some other incorrect statements later in his web article. He says that our argument "incorrectly attributes significance to P(N|L)." Kwon here appears to have missed the fact that we are talking about Bayesian probabilities. The probability P(N|L) refers to our universe, and is Your Bayesian prior probability that N is true, given that You know that L is true (which must be the case since it is a condition of reasoning that You be alive), but before You learn that F is true. It is a reflection of Your epistemological condition or state of knowledge at a particular moment in time. Thus, P(N|L) has a perfectly definite meaning in our universe, although the value of P(N|L) will differ from individual to individual because every individual has different background information (not explicitly called out here but mentioned in our article).
Furthermore, Kwon is incorrect when he states that "P(N|L) is irrelevant to our universe for the same reason that P(N|F) is irrelevant." We never said that P(N|F) is irrelevant, only that it is irrelevant for inference. The reason why P(N|F) is irrelevant for inference is that no sentient being is unaware of L as background information. Every sentient being knows that he is alive and therefore knows that L is true; thus every final probability statement that he makes must be conditioned on L. This is not true of F. There are sentient beings in our universe, indeed in our world, that do not yet know that F is true. Most schoolchildren do not know that F is true, although they know that L is true. Probably most adults do not know that F is true. Thus, Kwon errs in drawing a parallel between P(N|L) and P(N|F).
Kwon started with the perfectly reasonable proposal that "fine tuning" is best defined by P(F|N)<<1, and attempted to derive his result. That he was unable to do this comes as no surprise to us, because one of us [whj] spent the better part of a year trying to get useful information from propositions such as P(F|N)<<1, without success. All such attempts were fruitless, and the reason why is seen in our discussion. For example, suppose we were to assume in addition that P(F|~N)=1. Even then, no useful result can be derived, for from this we can only determine the obvious fact that P(F&L&~N)<=1, which gives no useful information about the crucial ratio R. The inequality goes in the wrong direction! Thus, "fine tuning"--P(F|N)<<1--tells us nothing useful, which is why in our article we concentrated instead on finding out what "life friendliness"--F--and the WAP can tell us.
Kwon says, "We have always known that F is true for our universe..." This is false. In fact, the suspicion that F is true is relatively recent, going only back to Brandon Carter's seminal papers in the mid-1970's. Earlier, physicists such as Dirac had in fact speculated that the values of some fundamental physical constants (e.g., the fine structure constant) might have been very different in the past, which would violate F, and somewhat later other scientists (for example Fred Hoyle in the early 1950s) have used the assumption that F is true in order to predict certain physical phenomena, which were later found to be the case. Had those observations NOT been found to be true, F would have been refuted, and we would seriously have to consider ~N. Even today we do not know that our universe is F--"life-friendly"--in the sense that we use the term in our article. We strongly suspect that it is true, but it is conceivable that someone will make a WAP prediction that will turn out to be false and which might refute F.
Kwon incorrectly asserts that the idea that there may be other universes is "simply unscientific." Certainly many highly respected cosmologists and physicists like Andrei Linde (Stanford), Lee Smolin (Harvard) and Alexander Vilenkin (Tufts) and Nobel laureate Stephen Weinberg (Texas) would disagree with this statement. Kwon claims that the hypothesis of other universes "cannot be tested." While we might agree that testing the hypothesis of other universes will be difficult, we do not agree that the hypothesis is untestable, and neither do scientists that work in this area. Some specific tests have been suggested. For example, David Deutsch has proposed specific tests of the Everett-Wheeler interpretation of quantum mechanics commonly known as the "Many-Worlds" hypothesis. And recently an article that proposed another way that other universes might be detected was published (Science, Vol. 292, p. 189-190, original paper archived as The Ekpyrotic Universe: Colliding Branes and the Origin of the Hot Big Bang). Regardless, our argument is not dependent on the notion that there are many other universes. It stands on its own.
Kwon misunderstands the point of the "god of the gaps" argument. The problem isn't that the gap is being filled by a god, the problem is what happens if the gap is filled by physics. Then the god that filled the gap gets smaller. This is a theological problem, not an epistemological or scientific problem. We agree with Kwon that there are gaps in our physical explanation of the universe that may never be filled; but it is hoping against hope that we will never fill any of the gaps currently being touted by "intelligent design theorists" as proof of supernaturalism. Some of them are certain to be filled in time, and each time this happens, the god of the intelligent designers will be diminished. (In fact, some of them were in fact filled even before the recent crop of "ID theorists" made their arguments--this is true of some of Michael Behe's examples, for which evolutionary pathways had already been proposed even before Behe published his book).
As to Kwon's last point, that we incorrectly claim that "intelligent design theorists" incoherently assert both F and ~F. We believe that it is a correct statement that at least some are arguing ~F. It is our impression, for example, that Michael Behe is arguing that it is actually impossible, and not just highly unlikely, for certain "irreducibly complex" (IC) structures to evolve without supernatural intervention, and that is a form of ~F. Regardless, even if no one is attempting to argue from ~F to ~N, our point still stands. Attempts to prove ~N that argue from either F or P(F|N)<<1 or both do not work. But attempts to prove ~N by showing ~F would work. Thus, people making anthropic and "fine tuning" arguments have hold of the wrong end of the stick. They should be trying to show that the universe is not F. It is clear that showing that the universe is not F would at one stroke prove ~N; it follows that showing that the universe is F can only undermine ~N and support N; this is an elementary result of probability theory, since it is not possible that observations of F as well as ~F would both support ~N. Since it is trivially true that observing ~F does support ~N, observing F must undermine it. Put another way, it seems to us that Michael Behe--if we understand him--is making the right argument from a logical and inferential point of view, and Hugh Ross is making the wrong argument. If it turns out that Behe is not making the argument we think he is, then it is still the case that Hugh Ross is making the wrong argument.
Kwon makes some remarks about "nontheists" that seem to indicate that he thinks that only "nontheists" would argue as we have. This is not the case. The issue here is whether the "fine tuning" argument is correct. It is exactly analogous to the centuries of work done on Fermat's last theorem. It is likely that most mathematicians thought that the theorem was true for most of that time, yet they continued to reject proofs that had flaws in them. They rejected them not because they thought Fermat's last theorem was false, but because the proofs were wrong. They even rejected Wiles' first attempt at a proof, because it was (slightly) flawed. In the same way a theist can and should reject a flawed "proof" of the existence of God. Our argument is that the fine tuning arguments are wrong, and no one should draw any conclusions about our personal beliefs from the fact that we say that these arguments are wrong.
Conclusion: Kwon's "proof" is fatally flawed. He incorrectly asserts that the only way to keep P(N|F&L) from being very small is to assume naturalism a priori. Quite the contrary, the only way to make P(N|F&L) small is to assume supernaturalism a priori. Kwon apparently does not understand the significance of some of the Bayesian probabilities we use; this is forgiveable in a sense since Bayesian probability theory is still misunderstood by most people, even those with some training in probability theory...but it means that Kwon should withdraw these comments until he understands Bayesian probability theory well enough to criticize it. Kwon's assertion that we have always known that our universe is F is false; his assertion that the existence of other universes is untestable is also false, and in any case is not relevant to our main argument. Finally, he mistakenly thinks that the god-of-the-gap argument somehow tells against science. It does not, since it is purely a theological conundrum, not a scientific one.
Nonetheless, we thank David Kwon for his serious and attentive reading of our article and for his comments. He is the first to attempt a mathematical rather than a polemical refutation of our argument. His argument fails because, as we show here, it isn't possible to derive anything useful from the fine-tuning proposition P(F|N)<<1. When all factors are taken into account, it is clear that the only way to end up with a final result that P(N|F&L)<<1 is to assume at the outset that supernaturalism is almost surely true, thus begging the question.
M. I.
W. J.
[Note added 010613: When we posted this response, we informed Mr. Kwon, so that he could either respond to our criticisms or withdraw his web page. We regret to say that up to now he has done neither.]
Note added 040109: Kwon has never responded to our criticisms; his web page disappeared when he apparently finished his career as a Berkeley graduate student. It is archived and can be obtained courtesy of the Internet Wayback Machine via Makeashorterlink.com.]
This article was first posted at Bill Jefferys' Home Page. .

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: Returning a relationships results through static method I'm trying to provide an extra static 'find' method on my eloquent model, shown here:
public static function findBySku($sku)
{
    // Using new self; provides the same empty collection results
    $instance = new static;

    // Using $instance->sku()->newQuery()->get() also returns the same empty collection
    $results = $instance->sku()->get();

    /*
    * This returns an empty collection, however there are records inside the
    * relationship database table?
    */
    dd($results);
}

So I can use: Inventory::findBySku($sku);
Here's the relationship:
public function sku()
{
    return $this->hasOne('Stevebauman\Maintenance\Models\InventorySku', 'inventory_id', 'id');
}

I know the relationship itself isn't the issue because this returns the results from the database table fine:
Inventory::find(1)->sku()->get();

Anyone have any ideas why this doesn't work?
I know it could be because I'm calling a non-static method from a static instance, but why would it return a resulting collection without throwing an error?
Thanks!

A: Hang on, figured it out, apologies!
Eloquent relationships have a method getRelated() to access the related model instance. I can then call the methods I need off of it, for example:
public static function findBySku($sku)
{
    $instance = new static;

    // Using the getRelated() method allows me to run queries on the related model
    $results = $instance->sku()->getRelated()->get();

    dd($results);
}

Just sort of an odd workaround as you'd think accessing the relationship itself would give you the proper query.
I hope this helps out someone in the future!

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange