Cosmic fine tuning

[AndyT_81]

Hi all, here is an excerpt recent post that I made on my blog (see signature), which is an introduction to a series of post I hope to write on the topic of fine tuning. Anyways, I thought I would post it here also to make way for some discussion, hope it’s not too long:

For those who are unaware, there are a significant number of well attested scientific laws, which in their mathematical form have dimensionless constants which are not dependent on any other scientific law. In other words, these constants are just a “given”, they are simply a part of the initial conditions of the universe. As such, they currently have no definitive naturalistic explanation for why they are the values that they are. It turns out by varying these constants the interaction between the various scientific laws changes dramatically, so dramatically in fact, that if some of these constants are altered by an unbelievably tiny amount, carbon based life would not be able to exist in the universe.

Therefore, a rough formal form of the fine tuning argument may look something like this:

1. If it is extremely unlikely that, by chance, the fundamental constants of nature came to be such to enable a life hospitable universe, it is extremely unlikely that the universe came to be hospitable to life by chance.
2. It is extremely unlikely that, by chance, the fundamental constants of nature came to be such as to enable a life hospitable universe.
3. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that the universe came to be hospitable to life by chance.
4. It is irrational to believe in something if it is extremely unlikely to be the case, if there is no good reason for it to be the case.
5. Therefore it is irrational to believe that the universe came to be hospitable to life by chance.
6. There are three fundamental options for the explanation of these values of constants, design, necessity and chance.
7. Necessity is not a viable option.
8. Therefore it is rational to believe that the universe was designed by a life-desiring creator.

First things first, what is the support for premise 1? I think that this is pretty obvious, if it is unlikely that the universal constants are such that they produce a life hospitable universe, then seeing as the universe is governed by such constants, it is therefore unlikely that the universe is life hospitable by chance.

What about the evidence for 2? Well, this evidence is scientific based that shows that the fundamental forces of nature are indeed consistent within a wide range of values of the fundamental constants. For instance, increasing the value of the cosmological constant (determines the expansion rate of the universe) in no way brings about any logically impossible interaction with the other natural laws. Therefore, within the realm of possible worlds, the fundamental constants can take on a wide range (perhaps even infinite) of values consistently. However, as stated above only a minutely small conjunction of these values of constants give rise to life permitting universes. This fact suggests that the probability of this small conjunction of possible values of life permitting universes coming about by chance is very, very small. The mathematical physicist Roger Penrose in his book “The Emperor’s New Mind” calculated that this probability would be 1 in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123! This is an enormously small number. This evidence I believe strongly supports 2, for a one shot universe. There are objections to 2 in the guise of multi-verse theories, but I plan on talking about these objections in a later post.

3 follows from 1 and 2.

4 is reasonably self evident I believe. It is important that the second half of 4 is added “if there is no good reason for it to be the case.” This is important because there are many unlikely things that occur that we are rationally justified in believing, because we have good reason to. For instance, it may be unlikely that I have a hand of 4 aces in a poker game; however there is a good reason for having 4 aces, namely the known mechanics of random pack shuffling and a definitive mechanism of bringing this event about (i.e. a dealer dealing randomly). I argue that there is no good reason for the atheist to believe that a life permitting universe should just come to be (except perhaps via a multi-verse explanation, which will be dealt with later) over the much, much higher likelihood of a life non-permitting universe, therefore the argument follows.

5 follows from 3 and 4.

6 is the standard gamut of possibilities for the beginning of the universe. Design and chance are self explanatory. Necessity refers to the universe coming about by some necessary effect-cause pair, such as it is necessary that a tennis ball drops when released on the surface of earth, due to the necessity of gravity acting on the ball (given that the natural laws are always in effect).

What is the argument in support of 7? Well the only necessary way that the values of these constants could come about through purely natural means is via some necessarily acting natural law. However, all natural laws came into existence at the beginning of the natural universe, by definition (at least for a one shot universe), and therefore it is difficult to see how the values of these constants could come about necessarily. Therefore I believe 7 is reasonable.

8 follows from 5, 6 and 7. The only option left in 6, necessity, has been eliminated from rational choices via the above argument. Therefore, it follows that the universe was designed, and this designer must desire that life be created.

 

[JDaniel]

Hi all, here is an excerpt recent post that I made on my blog (see signature), which is an introduction to a series of post I hope to write on the topic of fine tuning. Anyways, I thought I would post it here also to make way for some discussion, hope it’s not too long:

For those who are unaware, there are a significant number of well attested scientific laws, which in their mathematical form have dimensionless constants which are not dependent on any other scientific law. In other words, these constants are just a “given”, they are simply a part of the initial conditions of the universe. As such, they currently have no definitive naturalistic explanation for why they are the values that they are. It turns out by varying these constants the interaction between the various scientific laws changes dramatically, so dramatically in fact, that if some of these constants are altered by an unbelievably tiny amount, carbon based life would not be able to exist in the universe.

Therefore, a rough formal form of the fine tuning argument may look something like this:

1. If it is extremely unlikely that, by chance, the fundamental constants of nature came to be such to enable a life hospitable universe, it is extremely unlikely that the universe came to be hospitable to life by chance.
2. It is extremely unlikely that, by chance, the fundamental constants of nature came to be such as to enable a life hospitable universe.
3. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that the universe came to be hospitable to life by chance.
4. It is irrational to believe in something if it is extremely unlikely to be the case, if there is no good reason for it to be the case.
5. Therefore it is irrational to believe that the universe came to be hospitable to life by chance.
6. There are three fundamental options for the explanation of these values of constants, design, necessity and chance.
7. Necessity is not a viable option.
8. Therefore it is rational to believe that the universe was designed by a life-desiring creator.

First things first, what is the support for premise 1? I think that this is pretty obvious, if it is unlikely that the universal constants are such that they produce a life hospitable universe, then seeing as the universe is governed by such constants, it is therefore unlikely that the universe is life hospitable by chance.

What about the evidence for 2? Well, this evidence is scientific based that shows that the fundamental forces of nature are indeed consistent within a wide range of values of the fundamental constants. For instance, increasing the value of the cosmological constant (determines the expansion rate of the universe) in no way brings about any logically impossible interaction with the other natural laws. Therefore, within the realm of possible worlds, the fundamental constants can take on a wide range (perhaps even infinite) of values consistently. However, as stated above only a minutely small conjunction of these values of constants give rise to life permitting universes. This fact suggests that the probability of this small conjunction of possible values of life permitting universes coming about by chance is very, very small. The mathematical physicist Roger Penrose in his book “The Emperor’s New Mind” calculated that this probability would be 1 in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123! This is an enormously small number. This evidence I believe strongly supports 2, for a one shot universe. There are objections to 2 in the guise of multi-verse theories, but I plan on talking about these objections in a later post.

3 follows from 1 and 2.

4 is reasonably self evident I believe. It is important that the second half of 4 is added “if there is no good reason for it to be the case.” This is important because there are many unlikely things that occur that we are rationally justified in believing, because we have good reason to. For instance, it may be unlikely that I have a hand of 4 aces in a poker game; however there is a good reason for having 4 aces, namely the known mechanics of random pack shuffling and a definitive mechanism of bringing this event about (i.e. a dealer dealing randomly). I argue that there is no good reason for the atheist to believe that a life permitting universe should just come to be (except perhaps via a multi-verse explanation, which will be dealt with later) over the much, much higher likelihood of a life non-permitting universe, therefore the argument follows.

5 follows from 3 and 4.

6 is the standard gamut of possibilities for the beginning of the universe. Design and chance are self explanatory. Necessity refers to the universe coming about by some necessary effect-cause pair, such as it is necessary that a tennis ball drops when released on the surface of earth, due to the necessity of gravity acting on the ball (given that the natural laws are always in effect).

What is the argument in support of 7? Well the only necessary way that the values of these constants could come about through purely natural means is via some necessarily acting natural law. However, all natural laws came into existence at the beginning of the natural universe, by definition (at least for a one shot universe), and therefore it is difficult to see how the values of these constants could come about necessarily. Therefore I believe 7 is reasonable.

8 follows from 5, 6 and 7. The only option left in 6, necessity, has been eliminated from rational choices via the above argument. Therefore, it follows that the universe was designed, and this designer must desire that life be created.

I am subscribing to the thread so that I can look at this tomorrow, after some badly needed sleep!

jd

 

[ricmat]

AndyT_81 - thank you for your initial post.

However, be prepared for the “theistic evolution” crowd to tell you that “design is beneath God’s dignity”. They say this because of an unfortunate comment made by their guru - Fr. Coyne - basically that design is like making soup. Try a little more of this and a little more of that and finally I got it right! For some reason they cannot comprehend that the fine tuning being talked about is the one-time setting of the big bang constants, and is not an on-going fine tuning like we used to have to do with TV sets (perhaps you are not old enough to remember this )

They also seem unable to comprehend the concept of “design” as a noun, and see it only as a verb, drudge work - a draftsman at his desk drawing straight lines with rulers. Just to get things started on the right track, here’s the definition of design from m-w.com:

  2design     Function:*noun* Date:1569   1 a**:** a particular purpose held in view by an individual or group <he has ambitious *design**s* for his son> b**:** deliberate purposive planning <more by accident than *design*>

2**:** a mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down
3 a**:** a deliberate undercover project or scheme : plot bplural : aggressive or evil intent —used with on or against<he has design**s on the money>
4**:** a preliminary sketch or outline showing the main features of something to be executed <the design for the new stadium>
5 a**:** an underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding : pattern , motif <the general design of the epic> b**:** a plan or protocol for carrying out or accomplishing something (as a scientific experiment) ; also : the process of preparing this
6**:** the arrangement of elements or details in a product or work of art
7**:** a decorative pattern <a floral design>
8**:** the creative art of executing aesthetic or functional designs

synonyms see intention, plan

All should note the synonyms for design (noun) are intention, and plan.

Good luck with this thread. It should be interesting.

 

[Daedelus76]

There are atheistic and pantheistic interpretations of the cosmological constants. Perhaps the universe has evolved to a point that it looks back on itself reflexively with a certain amount of awareness and asks “why”, when there is no logical answer.

I’ve seen Process philosophy interpret the cosmological constants in a way that they are evidence of a “God”, but perhaps not the traditional God of orthodox Christianity. Panentheism rather than theism. Whitehead made some arguments for an intelligence behind the universe based on mathemathics, which can in turn be reduced to basic logic. The kind of intelligence we may be talking about may have emerged form something very simple.

In order to know, “is the universe made for us?” we need a thorough sample of all life in the universe. It’s possible that life is relatively rare, or plentiful and diverse. The biblical worldview starts with the presumption that we are alone and the Earth is the center of the universe. That is far different than the worldview that science has presented us with.

 

[AndyT_81]

Thanks for the well wishes ricmat

Hi Daedelus76,

I’ve seen Process philosophy interpret the cosmological constants in a way that they are evidence of a “God”, but perhaps not the traditional God of orthodox Christianity. Panentheism rather than theism. Whitehead made some arguments for an intelligence behind the universe based on mathemathics, which can in turn be reduced to basic logic. The kind of intelligence we may be talking about may have emerged form something very simple.

I guess I’d need to see the precise arguments one way or the other to comment on this.

In order to know, “is the universe made for us?” we need a thorough sample of all life in the universe. It’s possible that life is relatively rare, or plentiful and diverse. The biblical worldview starts with the presumption that we are alone and the Earth is the center of the universe. That is far different than the worldview that science has presented us with.

I’d probably disagree there that we would need a “life survey” of the universe in order to talk about this. The first reason for this is that it is unlikely that we will ever be able to determine if life exists in other solar systems, galaxies etc. The second reason is that the argument for the fine tuning of the constants doesn’t really look at life on earth persay, but rather it looks at things like the ability of the universe to actually last long enough for life to form, the ability for carbon and other complex molecules to form, the life time of stars, structure of galaxies, expansion rate etc. In other words, it looks at the very general things that are necessary for life, and doesn’t rest on any assumptions about Earth.

 

[MindOverMatter]

8 follows from 5, 6 and 7. The only option left in 6, necessity, has been eliminated from rational choices via the above argument. Therefore, it follows that the universe was designed, and this designer must desire that life be created.

Richard Dawkins said in one of his publicity interviews that the argument from fine tuning is the best argument for intelligent design. However; he said that it can be refuted by positing the existence of an infinite number of universes.

What do you think about this?

 

[crowonsnow]

Hi all, here is an excerpt recent post that I made on my blog (see signature), which is an introduction to a series of post I hope to write on the topic of fine tuning. Anyways, I thought I would post it here also to make way for some discussion, hope it’s not too long:

For those who are unaware, there are a significant number of well attested scientific laws, which in their mathematical form have dimensionless constants which are not dependent on any other scientific law. In other words, these constants are just a “given”, they are simply a part of the initial conditions of the universe. As such, they currently have no definitive naturalistic explanation for why they are the values that they are. It turns out by varying these constants the interaction between the various scientific laws changes dramatically, so dramatically in fact, that if some of these constants are altered by an unbelievably tiny amount, carbon based life would not be able to exist in the universe.

A carbon based life is pretty flimsy and breaks easily. If that’s the point of the fine tuning argument then it’s a pretty weak argument.

I mean, if I’m an omnipotent designer, why wouldn’t I design a carbon nitride, titanium and neutronium based life, and then create a universe accordingly?

Or why wouldn’t I just design “life” to be like me, incorporeal and not subject to disease and death? Am I not already “life?”

I can allegedly make anything I want and make the laws that govern it anyway I want. So why such and inferior design?

And how much carbon based “life” is there in just our solar system anyway, if the universe as a whole is “finely tuned" just for carbon based life? 99.999999999999999% of our own solar system is toxic to carbon based life presently. At one time it was 100 percent toxic to carbon based life.

Honestly, the fine tuning / carbon based life angle appears to be a non starter unless it’s meant just for the choir. The universe is barely tuned, if tuned at all, for carbon based life. Logically, if something is barely there at all, how it can it be the reason for everything else being there?

 

[MindOverMatter]

I can allegedly make anything I want and make the laws that govern it anyway I want. So why such and inferior design?

Your argument is purely subjective. How something is designed depends on the purpose it serves. You could say God should have designed it better, but you do not know what the universe was designed for; you do not know the purpose of it. Therefore you are making an invalid inference. Neither does this take away from the fact that the Universe is finely tuned and appears to be designed for a purpose.

 

[crowonsnow]

Your argument is purely subjective. How something is designed depends the purpose it serves. You could say God should have designed it better, but you do not know what the universe was designed for; you do not know the purpose of it. Therefore you are making an invalid inference. Neither does this take away from the fact that the Universe is finely tuned and appears to be designed for a purpose.

Actually, my disagreement with the finely tuned universe argument is an objective refutation of a subjective argument.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Actually, my disagreement with the finely tuned universe argument is an objective refutation of a subjective argument.

Nice statement. But statements alone do not lend much support to your case.

 

[crowonsnow]

Nice statement. But statements alone do not lend much support to your case.

How much of the solar system’s carbon is “alive?” How much of the carbon in the universe is “alive?”

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi crowonsnow,

How much of the solar system’s carbon is “alive?” How much of the carbon in the universe is “alive?”

It does not follow that if the universe is finely tuned for carbon based life to appear, that therefore all carbon in the universe must be somehow used in a life form. In fact, I would say it is an impossibility for a universe to support life if all carbon actually had to somehow be transformed into life. How could that actually happen, given the general laws that we know?

Carbon is made in the furnace of giant or supergiant stars, which is then scattered over the universe in supernova explosions and condenses due to gravitational effects (along with heavier elements) into planets. By what mechanism could all of this carbon somehow be “sucked up” into hospitable atmospheres to create life? Remember, the fine tuning argument does not contend with the forms of the laws, only the constants and ratios which govern the strength of these laws.

MindOverMatter, will try to get on to the topic of multi-verses soon

 

[AndyT_81]

Some more responses crowsonnow:

A carbon based life is pretty flimsy and breaks easily. If that’s the point of the fine tuning argument then it’s a pretty weak argument.

I mean, if I’m an omnipotent designer, why wouldn’t I design a carbon nitride, titanium and neutronium based life, and then create a universe accordingly?

I would actually think that the propensity and effectiveness of carbon based life on earth shows that it is anything but weak. But in any case, this objection would depend on the goal of the designer, why assume the designer wanted to create some sort of super strong, indestructable form of life?

Or why wouldn’t I just design “life” to be like me, incorporeal and not subject to disease and death? Am I not already “life?”

Again, this depends on the goal of the designer

The universe is barely tuned, if tuned at all, for carbon based life. Logically, if something is barely there at all, how it can it be the reason for everything else being there?

I’ve heard this kind of objection before, i.e. “If the universe is fine tuned for life, how come we have such a large universe devoid of life?”. Well, as I said earlier, it does not follow that the universe being fine tuned for the appearance of life necessitates that life be abundant through-out the entire universe. Secondly, the universe has to be as big and empty as it currently is for life to emerge (given current form of laws). If it was too dense or too small, it would collapse in on itself due to gravitational effects. If it was too sparse and too large, no matter would coalesce into planets and atmospheres. Hence, the universe is just right for the appearance of life

 

[The_Barbarian]

Again, this depends on the goal of the designer

Which is why it’s not science, but a religion. The “goal” can be adjusted to any result. There is no possible universe that wouldn’t be consistent with a designer; just change the goal to fit.

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi The Barbarian,

Which is why it’s not science, but a religion. The “goal” can be adjusted to any result. There is no possible universe that wouldn’t be consistent with a designer; just change the goal to fit.

Who said it was science? I would call the fine tuning argument philosophy or theology, not science. It uses scientific conclusions about the constants and laws, but is never meant to be called science.

As for your goal comment I disagree. A completely chaotic universe, whereby laws changed at random, matter popped in and out of existence at large scales etc. could not be considered to be designed by any stretch of the imagination.

If there is something wrong with the argument, please attack the relevant premise. The argument is sound or not regardless of how flexible the idea of a designer is.

 

[crowonsnow]

Hi crowonsnow,

It does not follow that if the universe is finely tuned for carbon based life to appear, that therefore all carbon in the universe must be somehow used in a life form. In fact, I would say it is an impossibility for a universe to support life if all carbon actually had to somehow be transformed into life. How could that actually happen, given the general laws that we know?

Carbon is made in the furnace of giant or supergiant stars, which is then scattered over the universe in supernova explosions and condenses due to gravitational effects (along with heavier elements) into planets. By what mechanism could all of this carbon somehow be “sucked up” into hospitable atmospheres to create life? Remember, the fine tuning argument does not contend with the forms of the laws, only the constants and ratios which govern the strength of these laws.

Then you’re arguing for carbon, not carbon based life, and that the universe is fine tuned for the production of carbon.

There are far more electrons, protons and neutrons in the universe, and they too are necessary for life. Like Barbarian said, just change the goal and argue that the universe is finely tuned for electron-proton-neutron based life. Or we could argue for gravitationally based life if we want.

When water freezes it can become a lot of different things. Maybe it’s part of a glacier, maybe a snowflake, maybe an icicle, maybe an iceberg, maybe an ice cube in my freezer. Which of these things do you think frozen water is “finely tuned” to become?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Who said it was science?

Discovery Institute, in their stuff intended for the public. (Privately, they admit it’s a religion)

I would call the fine tuning argument philosophy or theology, not science. It uses scientific conclusions about the constants and laws, but is never meant to be called science.

The guys who invented it disagree with you, at least when they think other people are listening.

As for your goal comment I disagree. A completely chaotic universe, whereby laws changed at random, matter popped in and out of existence at large scales etc. could not be considered to be designed by any stretch of the imagination.

Hey, the designer just wanted a completely random universe. No problem. With a designer, it can be whatever he designed it to be.

If there is something wrong with the argument, please attack the relevant premise. The argument is sound or not regardless of how flexible the idea of a designer is.

An ideology which cannot be tested is pretty much useless.

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi crowsonnow,

Then you’re arguing for carbon, not carbon based life, and that the universe is fine tuned for the production of carbon.

No, I’m not. Many things are necessary for life, not just carbon. For instance, stable planets are needed for life, a temperate environment on such planets, a long time for the evolutionary process to occur etc. The argument looks at the likelihood of all these things coming together by chance, a likelihood which turns out to be crushingly small.

There are far more electrons, protons and neutrons in the universe, and they too are necessary for life. Like Barbarian said, just change the goal and argue that the universe is finely tuned for electron-proton-neutron based life. Or we could argue for gravitationally based life if we want.

The reason I am talking about carbon based life is because scientists have trouble envisaging life forming from any other molecule. Carbon has unique properties that allow it to form large complex molecules, such as amino acids, DNA and cells which seem to be necessary for complex life. To talk about electron-proton-neutron, or gravitionally based life (whatever that could mean) misses the point. Not just any form of matter is capable of organising itself into complex life-forms. Helium and hydrogen are much more common in the universe than carbon (as they are more readily formed in stars), but they are not capable of forming complex molecules.

Hi TheBarbarian,

Discovery Institute, in their stuff intended for the public. (Privately, they admit it’s a religion)

I’m unfamiliar with the goings on of this institute.

The guys who invented it disagree with you, at least when they think other people are listening.

What guys would they be? This Discovery Institute? As far as I am aware, the people who first started to talk about this fine tuning were the scientists who first realised that such fine tuning existed. Even renowed atheist scientist Fred Hoyle said the universe seemed to be a “put up job”.

Hey, the designer just wanted a completely random universe. No problem. With a designer, it can be whatever he designed it to be.

Since when is something that is completely random and unpredictable indicative of design?

An ideology which cannot be tested is pretty much useless.

So I take it you don’t want to refute one of the premises?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Richard Dawkins said in one of his publicity interviews that the argument from fine tuning is the best argument for intelligent design. However; he said that it can be refuted by positing the existence of an infinite number of universes.

What do you think about this?

“Infinite number”??? Seems to me if anything can be numbered, it is necessarily finite.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The biblical worldview starts with the presumption that we are alone and the Earth is the center of the universe. That is far different than the worldview that science has presented us with.

Has it? To one standing on the earth, it is the center of the universe, relative to which everything else is in motion. To one standing on some moon on some distant galaxy, that moon is the center of the universe. It seems to me if relativity has any merit to it, you can’t get away from that.