The one fact that ruins the fine-tuning argument

[Luke_K]

…we don’t know what other kinds of life are possible, even if the universe were entirely different. We have no idea if a change in a universal constant would prevent any kind of life developing anywhere in the universe.

Thoughts?

 

[vera_dicere]

I don’t see how people can get all angsty over the possibility of life existing offworld somehow being an argument that God doesn’t exist. Its more than possible. When you consider the vaste array of life on this planet and the environments they exist in, then how far a stretch is it to think there are other earth like planets out there? Other planets we in our limited knowledge deem “inhabitable” could indeed, have life on them. I read somewhere about a form of life found in the antartic and for time immemorial people said life couldn’t exist there.

The question from a theological position shouldn’t be if there is other life, but what kind of relationship does that life have with God?

 

[edwest2]

There are a lot of things science cannot show as conclusive but there sure are a lot of pronouncements about parallel universes and other dimensions outside of ours that might hold another universe. The fine tuning argument bothers some because it assigns critical parameters for the only known form of life we’re familiar with – our own. Even the Vatican accepts that there may be other forms of life out there.

I don’t understand the comment about the Antarctic, the earliest explorers found life there, like penguins.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Just_One_Touch]

There are a lot of things science cannot show as conclusive but there sure are a lot of pronouncements about parallel universes and other dimensions outside of ours that might hold another universe. The fine tuning argument bothers some because it assigns critical parameters for the only known form of life we’re familiar with – our own. Even the Vatican accepts that there may be other forms of life out there.

I don’t understand the comment about the Antarctic, the earliest explorers found life there, like penguins.

Peace,
Ed

The question is, what would be the point of creating life elsewhere? The Good Lord already made humans and animals here.

 

[AntiTheist]

I don’t see how people can get all angsty over the possibility of life existing offworld somehow being an argument that God doesn’t exist.

Luke wasn’t suggesting that it’s an argument that God doesn’t exist.

He was merely saying that the “argument from fine-tuning” (i.e. “There must be a God because the universe is set up for life to appear on this planet”) is flawed because different conditions would have produced a different universe, which may or may not have given rise to a different kind of life entirely.

Luke’s observation is correct. The argument from “fine-tuning” is a particularly bad argument.

 

[danserr]

…we don’t know what other kinds of life are possible, even if the universe were entirely different. We have no idea if a change in a universal constant would prevent any kind of life developing anywhere in the universe.

Thoughts?

different conditions would have produced a different universe, which may or may not have given rise to a different kind of life entirely.

The fine-tuning argument is not one of my favorites; I am not sure why, I just find others more compelling. But it’s also often a very misunderstood argument.

A brief form of it would run like this:

• There are a dozen or so qualities and constants in the universe that must be incomprehensibly fine-tuned for life to exist. These include the gravitation constant, the weak force, the strong force, the entropy level of the universe, expansion rate of the universe 10^-43 second after the Big Bang etc.

1. The fine tuning of the universe is either to chance, necessity, or design. (This seems to account for all the alternatives.
2. The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to chance or necessity.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

As for your question; you speculate on “other kinds of life that might be possible.” And say that we don’t know that a change in the constant would prevent life from developing elsewhere.

• The constants and qualities govern the whole universe, not only part of it. P.C.W. Davies, for instance, says that a change in the weak force by one part in 10^100 would have prevented a life permitting universe. This change would apply to the whole universe, not just a part of it.
• Stephen Hawking estimates that an increase in the expansion rate of the universe by one part in a hundred thousand million million one second after the big bang would have prevented the galaxies condensing out of the expanding matter.
• The structure of the Big Bang must have been severely contained in order that thermodynamics as we know it should have arisen. Roger Penrose calculates the odds of our universe having that special loew entropy condition at at least as small as one part in 10^10(123).

I’ll quote what one writer (WLC) says on the subject (Reasonable Faith p.159).
“Laymen might think that if the constants and qualities had assumes different values, ten other forms of life might well have evolved. But this is not the case. By “life” scientists mean the property of organisms to take in food, extract energy from it, grow, adapt to their environment, and reproduce. The point is that in order for the universe to permit life so defined, whatever form organisms might take, the constants and qualities have to be incomprehensibly fine-tuned. In the absence of fine-tuning, not even atomic matter or chemistry would exist, not to speak of planets where life might evolve!”

So I would say that we do have a pretty good idea that even a minuscule change in one of these constants or qualities would prevent a life permitting universe.

 

[Luke_K]

I’ll quote what one writer (WLC) says on the subject (Reasonable Faith p.159).
“Laymen might think that if the constants and qualities had assumes different values, ten other forms of life might well have evolved. But this is not the case. By “life” scientists mean the property of organisms to take in food, extract energy from it, grow, adapt to their environment, and reproduce. The point is that in order for the universe to permit life so defined, whatever form organisms might take, the constants and qualities have to be incomprehensibly fine-tuned. In the absence of fine-tuning, not even atomic matter or chemistry would exist, not to speak of planets where life might evolve!”

So I would say that we do have a pretty good idea that even a minuscule change in one of these constants or qualities would prevent a life permitting universe.

But if you define life as what we’re familiar with, then it just becomes a tautology. Of course the universe has the special conditions needed for the life we’re familiar with, because otherwise we wouldn’t be around to talk about it.

In Christian theology, we hold that God could have created any universe he wanted, and therefore any form of life or being necessary for being in a personal relationship with him. Therefore, it seems that there are infinite possibilities for universes in which some kind of life were possible. If this is not the case, then God is not omnipotent.

I do not think we have a pretty good idea that a small change would prevent life altogether. We only know that a small change would prevent the familiar carbon-chemistry based life we know of.

 

[danserr]

But if you define life as what we’re familiar with, then it just becomes a tautology. Of course the universe has the special conditions needed for the life we’re familiar with, because otherwise we wouldn’t be around to talk about it.

In Christian theology, we hold that God could have created any universe he wanted, and therefore any form of life or being necessary for being in a personal relationship with him. Therefore, it seems that there are infinite possibilities for universes in which some kind of life were possible. If this is not the case, then God is not omnipotent.

I do not think we have a pretty good idea that a small change would prevent life altogether. We only know that a small change would prevent the familiar carbon-chemistry based life we know of.

*in the absence of fine-tuning, not even atomic matter or chemistry would exist, not to speak of planets where life might evolve!" *

What sort of life do you propose that would not be made up of atomic matter?

I am using the terms life as every scientist uses it, so no one can make the accusation that I am just changing the definition of life to suit my needs. If it changed from this commonly used and accepted definition, then it would not describe life, it would describe something else. Asking if a kind of life could form that is not made of atomic matter, does not reproduce, take in energy, adapt to its environment etc. borders on being an incoherent statement (like asking if a married bachelor could exist). And if incoherent, then it can’t exist, and even God can’t do it (see below).

In Christian theology, we hold that God could have created any universe he wanted, and therefore any form of life or being necessary for being in a personal relationship with him. Therefore, it seems that there are infinite possibilities for universes in which some kind of life were possible. If this is not the case, then God is not omnipotent.

Omnipotence is not understood as raw power, but in terms of ability to actualize potential states of affairs. So God can’t create a stone so big that God cannot lift it because that does not describe a potential state of affairs. Similarly God can’t create a square circle, because that does not describe a potential state of affairs. It is simply nonsense, and as CS Lewis says, “nonsense remains nonsense even when we speak it of God. Nonsense does not acquire meaning because we put the words “God can” in front of it.” God remains omnipotent because he can do all things, but nonsense and contradictions are not things, but empty words.

Of course the universe has the special conditions needed for the life we’re familiar with, because otherwise we wouldn’t be around to talk about it.

This was a former skeptical attack on the fine-tuning argument called the Anthropic principle. It is no longer well regarded since Richard Swinburne (I think it was him) came up with this counterargument.
-you are making the claim, “we should not be surprised that the universe is finely tuned for life, since otherwise we would not be around to observe it.”

• this confuses the true claim: A: “if observers who have evolved within a universe observe its constants and qualities, it is highly probable that they will observe them to be fine tuned for their existence,” with the false claim A’: "It is highly probable that a universe exist which is finely tuned for the evolution of observers within it.
• Consider this illustration. I am dragged before a firing squad of 100 trained expert marksman. The command is given, “read, aim, fire.” They all fire, I hear the roar of guns, and they all miss. Should I conclude “well, I shouldn’t be surprised that they missed, because if they hadn’t, I wouldn’t be here to observe it?” Rather, given the enormous improbability of the marksman’s all missing, you should suspect that something more than just chance is at play.

 

[Luke_K]

Well I’ve realized on my own how to counter my argument. Bear in mind that it assumes there is a finite number of actually existing universes.

Even if there are infinitely many possible universes in which life exists, one can argue that there are even more universes in which life is impossible. If for every 1 universe with the conditions necessary for life, there are 100 universes which prohibit it, then it is unlikely that the universe would have the life-appropriate conditions by chance.

By analogy, if you had an infinitely small dart and threw it at the real number line, there is an infinitely small chance that it would land on an integer, even though there are infinitely many integers. This is because for every integer, there are infinitely many non-integers (think of the number of numbers between 1 and 2).

Now, it may not be the case that for every life-universe there are infinitely many possible non-life universes, but as long as there are many, many more possible universes that prohibit life then the fine-tuning argument still has a chance.

 

[praxising]

What sort of life do you propose that would not be made up of atomic matter?

Eternal life?

One of the points of interest is that defining exactly what “life” is, is not as easy as our teachers told us. Biological life is actually a fairly non-essential facet of Life.

 

[Luke_K]

*in the absence of fine-tuning, not even atomic matter or chemistry would exist, not to speak of planets where life might evolve!" *

What sort of life do you propose that would not be made up of atomic matter?

I am using the terms life as every scientist uses it, so no one can make the accusation that I am just changing the definition of life to suit my needs. If it changed from this commonly used and accepted definition, then it would not describe life, it would describe something else. Asking if a kind of life could form that is not made of atomic matter, does not reproduce, take in energy, adapt to its environment etc. borders on being an incoherent statement (like asking if a married bachelor could exist). And if incoherent, then it can’t exist, and even God can’t do it (see below).

Omnipotence is not understood as raw power, but in terms of ability to actualize potential states of affairs. So God can’t create a stone so big that God cannot lift it because that does not describe a potential state of affairs. Similarly God can’t create a square circle, because that does not describe a potential state of affairs. It is simply nonsense, and as CS Lewis says, “nonsense remains nonsense even when we speak it of God. Nonsense does not acquire meaning because we put the words “God can” in front of it.” God remains omnipotent because he can do all things, but nonsense and contradictions are not things, but empty words.

This was a former skeptical attack on the fine-tuning argument called the Anthropic principle. It is no longer well regarded since Richard Swinburne (I think it was him) came up with this counterargument.
-you are making the claim, “we should not be surprised that the universe is finely tuned for life, since otherwise we would not be around to observe it.”

• this confuses the true claim: A: “if observers who have evolved within a universe observe its constants and qualities, it is highly probable that they will observe them to be fine tuned for their existence,” with the false claim A’: "It is highly probable that a universe exist which is finely tuned for the evolution of observers within it.
• Consider this illustration. I am dragged before a firing squad of 100 trained expert marksman. The command is given, “read, aim, fire.” They all fire, I hear the roar of guns, and they all miss. Should I conclude “well, I shouldn’t be surprised that they missed, because if they hadn’t, I wouldn’t be here to observe it?” Rather, given the enormous improbability of the marksman’s all missing, you should suspect that something more than just chance is at play.

You are thinking inside the box. God can create any universe which involves no logical contradiction. He is not confined to creating universes which operate by atoms, gravity, electromagnetism, etc. Therefore, he could create any sort of universe with intelligent beings, or life, that he wants. I don’t care if atoms or planets are possible. Changing the universal constants only prohibits life when the universe operates under the physical laws we’re familiar with. God could have created any universe with any laws he wanted.

The fact that you think I’m proposing a logical contradiction reveals your tautological approach to the issue. Yes, it would be a logical contradiction to say that God could create a life-as-we-know-it universe without the parameters necessary for life-as-we-know-it. But the point is that familiar life (or a familiar universe!) isn’t the only kind possible, and therefore it may not be improbable that intelligent life exists to reflect on the “improbability” of its existence.

Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out, as you did, that changing the universal constants even slightly would likely prohibit life from existing in a universe which operates under the laws we’re familiar with. Therefore, it seems that for a given universe and a given set of laws, there are many, many more possibilities for non-life.

 

[danserr]

Well, Luke, I know it sounds great to talk about thinking outside the box, but it depends what sort of box you are talking about. I mean you can’t tell me to think outside the box and imagine that a married bachelor could exist. And I do think there is the potential for your thought to contain something incoherent when you say something like:

Therefore, he could create any sort of universe with intelligent beings, or life, that he wants. I don’t care if atoms or planets are possible

If there is no matter, how is physical life possible? That seems to border on incoherent. If you mean only spiritual life like angels, then fine, but that is not relevant to the fine-tuning argument and I don’t think that is what you mean.

Now you are saying two things, one is plausible, the other is not. The implausible thing is that maybe if the qualities and constants were different, then different forms of life could emerge. This seems to me to border on incoherence. You can’t just put “life-as-we-know-it” in quotes as if that solves the issue. If would be like me talking about “a-square-as-we-know-it.” And then me suggesting that in a different universe, maybe a square could be different. But if it were different, it would not be a square. Similarly if “life” were different (from the standard and scientifically accepted definition), then it would not be life. You can’t just dismiss this as “tautological.”

The plausible thing that you don’t quite say, but seem to hint at is that maybe under universes governed by different laws of nature, such disastrous consequences might not result if the qualities and constants were altered. This may be true (or may not). But, it is irrelevant to the argument. The issue for the argument is to show that among possible universes governed by the same equations as the actual universe, life permitting universes are extraordinarily improbable. And this, as you mention, seems clear. And, as you acknowledge, changing those qualities and constants even a hair would prevent a life-permitting universe, therefore the number of life-permitting universes will be minuscule compared to the number of life prohibiting universes. Hence, it is incredibly improbable that the universe should be life-permitting, and the simple fact that we observe it, does not make it probable that it should be so (think of the illustration with the marksman). So the fine-tuning argument maintains its value.

 

[Luke_K]

Well, Luke, I know it sounds great to talk about thinking outside the box, but it depends what sort of box you are talking about. I mean you can’t tell me to think outside the box and imagine that a married bachelor could exist. And I do think there is the potential for your thought to contain something incoherent when you say something like:

If there is no matter, how is physical life possible? That seems to border on incoherent. If you mean only spiritual life like angels, then fine, but that is not relevant to the fine-tuning argument and I don’t think that is what you mean.

Now you are saying two things, one is plausible, the other is not. The implausible thing is that maybe if the qualities and constants were different, then different forms of life could emerge. This seems to me to border on incoherence. You can’t just put “life-as-we-know-it” in quotes as if that solves the issue. If would be like me talking about “a-square-as-we-know-it.” And then me suggesting that in a different universe, maybe a square could be different. But if it were different, it would not be a square. Similarly if “life” were different (from the standard and scientifically accepted definition), then it would not be life. You can’t just dismiss this as “tautological.”

The “Box” that you need to think outside of is the subatomic particles and physical laws that exist in our universe. If you think that any universe or physical reality that doesn’t operate under the mathematical equations, protons, electrons, neutrinos, etc. of our universe implies a logical contradiction/is incoherent, then that means God had no choice in creating this particular universe.

Perhaps our point of confusion with each other is that “life” under the scientifically accepted definition is not what I think is important to the fine-tuning argument. What IS important is some sort of intelligent being which can reflect on the improbability of its existence, based on what specific parameters were required for its existence. This intelligence could be physical, but it doesn’t have to be life as we define it, and its existence still could be highly dependent on the parameters of its universe. The fine-tuning argument doesn’t depend on life, per se, but only on self-conscious beings who wouldn’t be around if things were slightly different.

As a side note, physicists ideally want their equations to have as few constants as possible, because constants are arbitrary. They exist only to make equations fit with observations. It may be discovered in the future that the things we consider constants are actually the result of some more fundamental principle. But if we eventually find out that all physical laws are only the result of geometric and mathematical constraints, it seems that that would mean God had no choice in creating this particular universe…This was something Einstein pondered, and it is a profound question.

 

[JimG]

One can imagine a universe different from ours in which physical laws apply.
One could also imagine a universe different from ours in which physical laws do not apply.

The first case would be, as far as we know now, a construct of science fiction.
The second case would be a construct of fantasy.

The fine-tuning argument applies to the real universe as well to science fictional universes.
It doesn’t apply to fantasy.

But I think that God uses physics more than fantasy.

 

[tonyrey]

The only form of life and the only universe we know are those which exist in our experience. We also know very stringent conditions are required for life as we know it. This fact alone makes it extremely improbable that life is a fortuitous occurrence when taken in conjunction with our existence as rational beings. Even scientists without any religious belief have conceded that the most advanced forms of life are less likely to have developed or survived than the simplest organisms - which have outlasted many other species. Both size and complexity are handicaps when it comes to survival because there is more risk of accident or malfunction.

It is unreasonable to attribute the existence of reason to its survival value because it greatly exceeds what is needed to preserve life and it even poses the greatest threat to life on this planet. We are far more likely to become extinct than amoeba!

There are probably other forms of life of which we have no inkling but until they are discovered they have no bearing on the fine-tuning argument. Neither science nor philosophy can be based on sheer speculation…

 

[tonyrey]

One can imagine a universe different from ours in which physical laws apply.
One could also imagine a universe different from ours in which physical laws do not apply.

The first case would be, as far as we know now, a construct of science fiction.
The second case would be a construct of fantasy.

The fine-tuning argument applies to the real universe as well to science fictional universes.
It doesn’t apply to fantasy.

But I think that God uses physics more than fantasy.

Jim, I hadn’t read your post when I wrote mine - but we reach the same conclusion…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AntiTheist

**Luke’s observation is correct. The argument from “fine-tuning” is a particularly bad argument. **

Especially for the atheist.

 

[buffalo]

Fine tuning is indeed a formidable challenge for a materialist. This has been a thorn in their side for 50 years.

 

[JDaniel]

Luke wasn’t suggesting that it’s an argument that God doesn’t exist.

He was merely saying that the “argument from fine-tuning” (i.e. “There must be a God because the universe is set up for life to appear on this planet”) is flawed because different conditions would have produced a different universe, which may or may not have given rise to a different kind of life entirely.

Luke’s observation is correct. The argument from “fine-tuning” is a particularly bad argument.

AT:

It is “correct” as far as an “argument” goes (form and matter of argument, etc.), but, it is pure conjecture. We learn nothing from it. And, actually, it does nothing whatsoever to the “fine tuning argument.”

God bless,
jd

 

[Luke_K]

AntiTheist

**Luke’s observation is correct. The argument from “fine-tuning” is a particularly bad argument. **

Especially for the atheist.

I don’t think it’s such a bad argument anymore, at least in the face of my objection. If we consider the only evidence we have, which is this universe, it currently appears that there are many, many more possible anti-life universes than life-universes- even if there are many which are life-permitting.