Fine Tuning

[Bradski]

The argument runs that God has fine tuned the universe for us. That is, if the physical constants that rule literally everything had been anything other than what they are now (speed of light, gravity, the Hubble constant etc) then we wouldn’t be here. That it is too much of a coincidence that they just happen to be what they are by pure chance.

So what is being said is that there is a very specific set of rules that must be followed if the creation of the universe is to end up in a condition that is suitable for us.

So…

Either God had to follow these rules, in which case He is not omnipotent…

Or the rules that he set up are purely arbitrary in which case the concept of fine tuning becomes meaningless.

 

[ccmnxc]

The argument runs that God has fine tuned the universe for us. That is, if the physical constants that rule literally everything had been anything other than what they are now (speed of light, gravity, the Hubble constant etc) then we wouldn’t be here. That it is too much of a coincidence that they just happen to be what they are by pure chance.

So what is being said is that there is a very specific set of rules that must be followed if the creation of the universe is to end up in a condition that is suitable for us.

So…

Either God had to follow these rules, in which case He is not omnipotent…

Or the rules that he set up are purely arbitrary in which case the concept of fine tuning becomes meaningless.

I don’t get this objection. First of all, why would they be arbitrary as opposed to being so for some good (though non-necessitated) reason? I would agree that, by all means, there are many ways disposable to God with which He could create life. There is no fine-tuning for Him. The method of escape you advocate (that fine-tuning becomes meaningless, presumably because God is not constrained) is to cede the entire game inasmuch as fine-tuning becomes meaningless only if God exists.

 

[Bradski]

I don’t get this objection. First of all, why would they be arbitrary as opposed to being so for some good (though non-necessitated) reason? I would agree that, by all means, there are many ways disposable to God with which He could create life. There is no fine-tuning for Him.

The term ‘fine tuning’ stands on its own. It is not specifically relevant to God and not to us. Your suggestion that there are many ways (surely an infinite number?) in which God could have created life means, literally, that there is not a fixed and definitive set of laws via which the universe needed to be created. That God could have chosen any set of an infinite number of laws which would have done the job. Which makes those laws arbitrary.

The method of escape you advocate (that fine-tuning becomes meaningless, presumably because God is not constrained) is to cede the entire game inasmuch as fine-tuning becomes meaningless only if God exists.

No. It is meaningful only if you believe that life as we know it should be exactly as we experience it. That is not a requirement, whether God exists or not. There is no specific reason (other than natural ones) why we are bi-pedal, oxygen breathing, carbon based life forms with a use-by date of some 7 or 8 decades. You could say that God wanted us to be bi-pedal etc in which case he was constrained in the ‘method of construction’.

 

[Rhubarb]

Physical laws are a description of how things behave, not a prescription for behavior. I like this passage from Russell’s argument - “We now find that a great many things we thought were natural laws are really human conventions. You know that even in the remotest depths of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a law of nature. And a great many things that have been regarded as laws of nature are of that kind. On the other hand, where you can get down to any knowledge of what atoms actually do, you will find they are much less subject to law than people thought, and that the laws at which you arrive are statistical averages of just the sort that would emerge from chance. There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design; on the contrary, if the double sixes came every time we should think that there was design.”

 

[littlestsouls2]

Either God had to follow these rules, in which case He is not omnipotent…

Or the rules that he set up are purely arbitrary in which case the concept of fine tuning becomes meaningless.

God can suspend such laws (miracles). But He will not do so arbitrarily.

Our part of the universe is “tuned” for human life. There are only so many conditions in which we fragile creatures can live. Things could be somewhat different, but not too different.

 

[Bradski]

Our part of the universe is “tuned” for human life. There are only so many conditions in which we fragile creatures can live. Things could be somewhat different, but not too different.

So God was constrained by the conditions. He was restricted in the manner in which He designed the universe for us. You are saying that He was limited in His options.

 

[ccmnxc]

The term ‘fine tuning’ stands on its own. It is not specifically relevant to God and not to us. Your suggestion that there are many ways (surely an infinite number?) in which God could have created life means, literally, that there is not a fixed and definitive set of laws via which the universe needed to be created. That God could have chosen any set of an infinite number of laws which would have done the job. Which makes those laws arbitrary.

No idea if there is an infinite number, but “getting the job done” in terms of creating a life-permitting universe that has certain constants fall into a small but necessary range of parameters may not be the only criterion. There could be an element of beauty or elegance, ease/difficulty of formulation or modelling of such laws, and the like. There could be multiple ways that God could make us exist, but there might be some ways better than others over and above them being in such-and-such a way as to permit life.

No. It is meaningful only if you believe that life as we know it should be exactly as we experience it. That is not a requirement, whether God exists or not. There is no specific reason (other than natural ones) why we are bi-pedal, oxygen breathing, carbon based life forms with a use-by date of some 7 or 8 decades. You could say that God wanted us to be bi-pedal etc in which case he was constrained in the ‘method of construction’.

The question is not why we are the way we are but why there is a universe in which there is a “we” at all. I have no principled objection to life-forms that aren’t carbon based. I’m much less on board with the idea of fundamentals like the cosmological constant and the constants that regulate nucleons being tampered with. In that case, a naturalistic and Godless picture alone cannot account for our existence given these constants.
Now I could indeed say that God wanted us to be such and such, but I don’t see how He must be constrained, then, except by His own will. He simply used one means of creating such creatures.
Let’s look at it this way: If God is constrained, it is so either by logical necessity or metaphysical necessity or physical necessity. If it is by logical necessity, then it is not a violation of omnipotence since the Godhead cannot do the logically impossible. There is no power to make a contradiction true. It cannot be physical because the physical depends upon God, should He exist. I suppose one might be able to advance the case that He was metaphysically constrained, though I see no reason why this might be the case.

 

[Bradski]

No idea if there is an infinite number, but “getting the job done” in terms of creating a life-permitting universe that has certain constants fall into a small but necessary range of parameters may not be the only criterion. There could be an element of beauty or elegance, ease/difficulty of formulation or modelling of such laws, and the like. There could be multiple ways that God could make us exist, but there might be some ways better than others over and above them being in such-and-such a way as to permit life.

Then this becomes a different argument. That the constants of which we are aware are there because they are ‘more beautiful’ or ‘more elegant’ than others. I assume that you mean to God, because our impressions of the universe would change depending on the type of universe. Otherwise we are back to the nonsensical suggestion that grass is green because green is a pleasing colour. In any case, it‘s not an argument that’s ever been put forward.

Even if it was, then if I ask: ‘Is the universe fine-tuned for life?’, your answer would need to be: ‘No, it’s that way because God likes it that way’.

 

[fisherman_carl]

God created everything. He set up the rules. It does not follow that he set them up arbitrarily or that he is powerless to change them.

 

[fisherman_carl]

If I knew exactly how God did it, I’d be God. None of us could comprehend it.

We think we know something when we comprehend our little models of the universe that we can come up with. God just sits there and laughs.

 

[e_c]

Some distinctions have to be made.

1. The necessary conditions of human life are separate from but dependent on the laws of the physical universe, and if there were different laws then there could be different necessary conditions for human life.
2. The “fine tuning argument” is useful only as an indication of the unlikelihood of the universe producing the necessary conditions for human life, suggesting a designer that guides it there.
3. Omnipotence never extends to contradictories, a principle which could lead us to a subtle discussion of what kinds of things in existence are purely arbitrary (like how much stuff is in the universe) and what is in at least some sense necessary (like geometry), but could not lead us to conclude that the FTA does not fulfill its rhetorical function.
4. The FTA should not be thought to be a demonstration but rather a suggestion of probabilities, and as such not only isn’t a watertight argument but also confuses the idea of God’s existence.

 

[aclausen]

Physical laws are a description of how things behave, not a prescription for behavior. I like this passage from Russell’s argument - “We now find that a great many things we thought were natural laws are really human conventions. You know that even in the remotest depths of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a law of nature. And a great many things that have been regarded as laws of nature are of that kind. On the other hand, where you can get down to any knowledge of what atoms actually do, you will find they are much less subject to law than people thought, and that the laws at which you arrive are statistical averages of just the sort that would emerge from chance. There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design; on the contrary, if the double sixes came every time we should think that there was design.”

But fine tuning is more than just measuring. Take the Fine Structure Constant, which is usually the value that is talked about when referring to the Fine Tuning argument. The Fine Structure constant is a measured value for the coupling of a charged particle with an electromagnetic field. To be able to form matter as we know it, particularly as it relates to the formation of more complex elements inside stars, there is a very narrow range, perhaps no more than a 4% differential, that will allow the formation of carbon. Carbon is a fairly unique element in the kinds of bonds and the sheer number of molecules it can form by itself or with other elements, and it is this unique quality of carbon that is the reason it is the underlying component of life on Earth.

So this isn’t a matter of a sort of physical “truism”, but rather an inherent quality in our universe that, if it were significantly different, would make life as we know it impossible, and would probably mean that the universe would be a far more barren place, with only a subset of the periodic table.

 

[aclausen]

Some distinctions have to be made.

1. The necessary conditions of human life are separate from but dependent on the laws of the physical universe, and if there were different laws then there could be different necessary conditions for human life.
2. The “fine tuning argument” is useful only as an indication of the unlikelihood of the universe producing the necessary conditions for human life, suggesting a designer that guides it there.
3. Omnipotence never extends to contradictories, a principle which could lead us to a subtle discussion of what kinds of things in existence are purely arbitrary (like how much stuff is in the universe) and what is in at least some sense necessary (like geometry), but could not lead us to conclude that the FTA does not fulfill its rhetorical function.
4. The FTA should not be thought to be a demonstration but rather a suggestion of probabilities, and as such not only isn’t a watertight argument but also confuses the idea of God’s existence.

There is a serious fallacy in trying to apply probability arguments where you have a sample size of one. Since we know nothing about the initial conditions that lead to the observable universe, we cannot apply a useful statistical analysis to the likelihood of a particular physical principle being one way or the other. About all the Anthropic Principle can really say is that if the universe weren’t like it was, we wouldn’t be here to talk about it.

And it’s not just theologians and philosophers that are bothered by it. Physicists, even those nasty rotten atheistic ones, ponder entities like the Fine Structure Constant. In fact, I’d say at least some of the motivation of those advocating brane and multiverse theories is to create some sort of statistically relevant sample size (as in, 3 out of 10 universes have a Fine Structure Constant that can support a large periodic table of elements).

What if only a narrow band of physical constants can lead to a universe capable of sustaining complex structures? What if the majority of possible starting conditions lead to universes that are stillborn; they don’t expand, they collapse back into a singularity, they are never capable of producing more than a haze of subatomic particles?

If, as you say, omnipotence cannot confer the ability to create logical contradictions (as in, not even God can make 2+2=5), then certain facets of inhabitable universe very likely are themselves derived from certain logical and coherent precepts. In other words, if there is a God, and that being did create the Universe, perhaps He had very little freedom in the starting conditions and fundamental constants that physical laws are built on.

I used the example in another thread of the proverbial pizza chef, who has a vast menu, millions, even billions of possible toppings, but only a very small subset of that menu will produce a pizza anyone could eat. Yes, he could put arsenic pellets and botulism bacteria on a pizza, so in that way he has near unlimited freedom, but if he’s going to make a pizza that anyone could or even would eat, he’s stuck with a menu of maybe twenty or thirty toppings.

So far as we understand it, that is what the Universe is like. Certain basic constants and physical laws may be variable, but those that can produce a universe capable of producing and sustaining complex structures of matter and energy are probably only a small subset of that larger set of values.

 

[aclausen]

God created everything. He set up the rules. It does not follow that he set them up arbitrarily or that he is powerless to change them.

Perhaps God has such freedom, but if only some rules can lead to a non-sterile universe, that’s not exactly total freedom. ONe would presume an omnipotent being could alter the Fine Structure Constant tomorrow by 30%, but then that would pretty much wipe out much of the matter we know in the universe, so the freedom to change the rules isn’t the freedom from the consequences of changing the rules.

 

[ccmnxc]

Then this becomes a different argument. That the constants of which we are aware are there because they are ‘more beautiful’ or ‘more elegant’ than others. I assume that you mean to God, because our impressions of the universe would change depending on the type of universe. Otherwise we are back to the nonsensical suggestion that grass is green because green is a pleasing colour. In any case, it‘s not an argument that’s ever been put forward.

Even if it was, then if I ask: ‘Is the universe fine-tuned for life?’, your answer would need to be: ‘No, it’s that way because God likes it that way’.

I agree with this statement as is, but not with where it is going. The universe is the way it is because (for some reason or another) God likes it as such. In this sense the universe isn’t fine-tuned inasmuch as it’s not the case that God knew the one in a million (well, larger, but you get the picture) window for things to work. We could have existed differently if God wanted it to be that way. But, fine-tuning still exists inasmuch as the universe as a Godless one cannot account for the existence of life. Think of it like a reductio (and I’m not behind this entire argument without qualification, but it is a useful illustration):

1. God does not exist (Assumption).
2. Fine-tuning exists.
3. Fine-tuning is explained by design or chance or necessity.
4. Fine-tuning is not explained by chance or by necessity.
5. Therefore, fine-tuning is explained by design.
6. If fine-tuning is explained by design, then God exists.
   7.Therefore, God exists.
   But this contradicts the assumption, therefore, it is not the case that God does not exist.

Now, if I am understanding your earlier line of thought, given that I think God can make things whichever way, I would be compelled to deny premise 2, correct? But, this denial of 2 is premised upon God’s already existing, so I don’t see how this would save the atheist from the argument anyways. I might ultimately be forced to reject the argument, but it would be for reasons you yourself would not be able to commit to.

 

[aclausen]

I agree with this statement as is, but not with where it is going. The universe is the way it is because (for some reason or another) God likes it as such. In this sense the universe isn’t fine-tuned inasmuch as it’s not the case that God knew the one in a million (well, larger, but you get the picture) window for things to work. We could have existed differently if God wanted it to be that way. But, fine-tuning still exists inasmuch as the universe as a Godless one cannot account for the existence of life. Think of it like a reductio (and I’m not behind this entire argument without qualification, but it is a useful illustration):

1. God does not exist (Assumption).
2. Fine-tuning exists.
3. Fine-tuning is explained by design or chance or necessity.
4. Fine-tuning is not explained by chance or by necessity.
5. Therefore, fine-tuning is explained by design.
6. If fine-tuning is explained by design, then God exists.
   7.Therefore, God exists.
   But this contradicts the assumption, therefore, it is not the case that God does not exist.

Now, if I am understanding your earlier line of thought, given that I think God can make things whichever way, I would be compelled to deny premise 2, correct? But, this denial of 2 is premised upon God’s already existing, so I don’t see how this would save the atheist from the argument anyways. I might ultimately be forced to reject the argument, but it would be for reasons you yourself would not be able to commit to.

Unless of course it’s simply a case that if the starting conditions and constants weren’t within a certain range, it would be a lifeless universe, and thus life is simply a possible outcome of universes with that range of values.

 

[ccmnxc]

Unless of course it’s simply a case that if the starting conditions and constants weren’t within a certain range, it would be a lifeless universe, and thus life is simply a possible outcome of universes with that range of values.

But the question remains as to why this universe has the precise values it does as opposed to some slightly (or massively) different values that would make life impossible.

 

[aclausen]

But the question remains as to why this universe has the precise values it does as opposed to some slightly (or massively) different values that would make life impossible.

Because if life were impossible, we wouldn’t be here talking about?

But more seriously, we don’t know. We don’t know whether other kinds of universes are possible and exist, or if other regions of space may have different values (for instance, there is some evidence that there were very small differences in the Fine Structure Constant’s value early in the Universe’s evolution).

Could there be a Prime Mover that kicked it off? Well sure, though I think that’s assuming an entity for no other reason than filling a gap in our knowledge. But what Fine Tuning suggests is that even if there is such an entity, it had very little freedom in the physical laws that would lead to the kind of universe capable of producing life, or at least life in any form we know.

If Fine Tuning is an argument for God, it isn’t an argument for the kind of God most Christians believe in.

 

[littlestsouls2]

So God was constrained by the conditions. He was restricted in the manner in which He designed the universe for us. You are saying that He was limited in His options.

God is constrained by logic, charity and truth. If He created beings that need oxygen, then He will create oxygen. God would be “constrained” in this sense; if He wants us to survive, He must give us oxygen in some way.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

…

Even if it was, then if I ask: ‘Is the universe fine-tuned for life?’, your answer would need to be: ‘No, it’s that way because God likes it that way’.

God has in many ways “gone into a far country”. He knows in advance when there is going to be a change in outer space or on earth, therefore he knows the issues that will arise when that intermeshes with people’s lives. He has sent the Paraclete, not a deus ex machina (miracles, which are very few, are the exceptions meant to “prove” the rule precisely by being “exceptions” which were never meant to be impossible entirely).

We still have to allow for the truth that there may be even more to such concepts as “omnipotent”, “for life”, “tuned” etc than we are inclined to think.

Why should the plans of the giving God be thought “arbitrary”?

None of these concepts will ever be meaningless because the framework we have for living in is where we can act as opposed to react (while we do sometimes wonder whether we are doing any more than the latter, because we aren’t very good at “seeing”!).