And denied by others. Can the proponents present actual evidence for their assertion that the “constants” are actually “variables” - since they “could have been different”? If so, let’s see their evidence. If no, then they are simply engaging in empty speculation.
These “others” who deny it are mostly a one-man-show: Victor Stenger. I have extensively debunked his views in my article, and if you want a devastating critique of his views by a cosmologist, try this one:
arxiv.org/abs/1112.4647
Just like Michael Behe (
Darwin’s Black Box), Victor Stenger contradicts mainstream science in an unjustified manner *), and both have in common to twist or ignore scientific facts for the purpose of advancing their respective world views. In other words, the opinions of those who base their cosmological views on Stenger can be taken seriously to no greater extent than the opinions of those anti-evolutionists who base their views on the writings of Behe.
What if the physical constants are immutably fixed against one another and simply could not be any other way? Or if they are not fixed, what if the specific physical constants of our universe are highly probable to occur since certain regions of parameter space are much more likely to be occupied than others? Then the emergence of life is either a necessary or a distinctly probable, natural outcome of how nature works, plain and simple. Yet such necessity or probability of the laws of nature cannot be logically sustained.
Yes, the specific values of the physical constants, which would have to include all the initial conditions of the universe, might be a necessary or highly probable outcome due to a unified basic system and/or a particular universe-creating mechanism that is associated with it. However, even if such necessity or probability of specific physical constants were true – and current knowledge of the physical world makes that seem extremely unlikely – the basic system could also be founded on principles other than those of general relativity and quantum mechanics (possibly unifiable into a theory of ‘quantum gravity’) which hold for our particular universe. The laws of nature could be based on any of an infinitude of other mathematically self-consistent systems imaginable, and specific universe-creating mechanisms that accompany them. Therefore, even if not necessarily within a framework combining general relativity and quantum mechanics, the laws of physics could, in fact, be different in infinitely many ways. This cannot be logically disputed.
Thus, there cannot be either a necessity or a favorable probability of the laws of nature – unless one suggests that “the fabric of nothing” may only allow for certain frameworks of physical laws or law-generating mechanisms to arise. Yet then ‘nothing’ would have to have properties, which is philosophically and logically absurd. Nothing has no properties whatsoever – nothing is, in fact, nothing.
(The ‘physical nothing’ of empty space, the quantum vacuum, is not really nothing at all. For the current common confusion, see the article “Of Nothing” by cosmologist Luke Barnes:
letterstonature.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/of-nothing/ )
In light of all of this, the question will always remain legitimate: why this particular universe, with its exceedingly special laws that allow for physical and biological evolution, for life – and not any other? Again, the issue is that ‘any other’ universe will not suffice, but only very select universes, given the extreme fine-tuning of laws of nature that is necessary for the existence of life.
The only way to circumvent the problem on a naturalistic basis would be by postulating that everything that can exist in fact does exist. Yet this would radically violate Occam’s razor.
Even when it comes to just the framework of general relativity and quantum mechanics, the idea that there might be unique laws of nature (they simply had to be this way) is not one that appears to be upheld by any leading physicists. As cosmologist Lee Smolin writes about a theory that requires uniqueness of physical constants so that they are immutably fixed against each other (
The Life of the Cosmos, p. 37, emphasis mine):
“For better or for worse, no such theory has ever been found. Nor is there any reason,
besides faith, to hope that a consistent theory that was able to describe something like our world should be unique.”
On p. 76 of the book he says:
“We have so far no evidence to support the conjecture that the requirement that the laws of nature be mathematically consistent, or agree with quantum theory and relativity, constrains significantly the possible masses of the elementary particles or the strengths of the different forces.”
You have this penchant of referring to “authority”.
But this is unavoidable when it comes to scientific consensus. You do the same: your entire ‘scientific’ worldview is based on the authority of science. Or have you personally studied all the transitional fossils? Have you personally done all the sequencing that amasses the vast genetic evidence for evolution? Have you personally done all the observations and calculations of galaxy redshift, nucleogenesis and microwave background radiation that lead to and confirmed the Big Bang theory? No, of course you haven’t.
In fact, all scientists have to rely on the findings of other scientists before them, since no-one has all the time and expertise to perform all the confirmation of findings underlying their work themselves.
*) also with other cosmological opinions, such as his contention that the universe was initially in a state of chaotic high entropy, while mainstream science holds that the initial state of the universe at the Big Bang was one of extremely low entropy (extremely high degree of order).
) value survival, well-being, love, happiness.
