Does the Universe need a Cause?

[David M]

ACCORDING TO GROWING NUMBERS OF SCIENTISTS, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence. In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences" are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse "The Anthropic Principle," which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind. Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the "fine-tuning" and conclude that the universe is "too contrived" to be a chance event.

And they are demonstrably wrong. The weak nuclear force can be reduced and even removed completely and different values of the other 3 forces that govern how atoms form would still give exactly the same universe as we see today.

Therefore the universe is not fine-tuned, it just exists with one of many combinations of various values sufficient to support life.

And the basic claim is ridiculous anyway as the universe is overwhelmingly hostile to life.

 

[Frank Merton]

There is a natural human inclination to assume that everything that happens must have a cause. I don't know if this is genetically wired into us or is something we learn as babies and seem unable to question. However, there is nothing in logic that makes this necessary, and, in fact, a deep understanding of any two events said to be causally connected reveals something much more statistical and not causal. At the atomic level the reactions are probabilistic; the illusion of deterministic causation only results from the application of the law of large numbers (each ball is composed of gazillions of atoms).

 

[Frank Merton]

And they are demonstrably wrong. The weak nuclear force can be reduced and even removed completely and different values of the other 3 forces that govern how atoms form would still give exactly the same universe as we see today.

This is news to me. I have to wonder why I've never seen anything like this in the journals I read. Please give me a citation.

I might also mention that the "tuning" of the weak force is but one of quite a few similar things. Another is the force of gravity; were it only 20% or so different, stars would never have formed.

Therefore the universe is not fine-tuned, it just exists with one of many combinations of various values sufficient to support life.

Maybe: this seems to be wishful thinking on your part.

And the basic claim is ridiculous anyway as the universe is overwhelmingly hostile to life.

That you use words like "ridiculous" tells me you are not objective. That life is present at all is sufficient for the case.

Let me be clear: I do not buy the god of the gaps argument that because the universe as a whole is fine tuned to make life possible proves God. That doesn't work; all it shows is that we have an interesting situation that we need to think about. A far more likely reason for the situation we see is any of quite a few multi-universe theories.

 

[McBell]

Now Is the question "who caused the Creator" valid?

When your argument that there has to be a creator defines your creator, then yes, it is a valid question.

For example, when people claim that anything complex has to have a creator, then say that the universe is complex and needs a creator, then the same would have to apply to the creator.

 

[McBell]

That life is present at all is sufficient for the case.

For what case?

 

[Frank Merton]

For what case?

That life is possible in our universe; with the physical constants as they are.

 

[McBell]

That life is possible in our universe; with the physical constants as they are.

What does that have to do with:

ACCORDING TO GROWING NUMBERS OF SCIENTISTS, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence. In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences" are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse "The Anthropic Principle," which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind. Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the "fine-tuning" and conclude that the universe is "too contrived" to be a chance event.

​

 

[Frank Merton]

The statement you quote is an accurate summary of how most physicists see the issue.

Few take this as evidence of a creator; more take it as evidence of the existence of many "universes." Most take it as something that needs more work before we can draw conclusions.

 

[PolyHedral]

INTERESTING! Name me a few to think about.

Aleph number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Frank Merton]

Aleph number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He may not have stated himself clearly, 'cause I though of that when he said it, but I don't think the ability we have to set up "types" of infinite sets that don't go into one-to-one correspondence with other infinite sets is really pertinent here.

The point is that infinity is not a number. We cannot think of the positive integers as beginning at zero and ending at infinity: there is no ending. There is no "number," infinity.

This is the crux of the Aristotelian-Thomistic argument of why the universe had to have a beginning. If, as so many glibly argue, it is easy to say that it has always existed, then one is faced with the difficult problem of explaining how it got from "there" (infinitely far away) to "here."

I side-step the argument by agreeing there may have been a beginning of time -- if so it was uncaused. (It is no more difficult to say space-time is uncaused than to say God is uncaused).

 

[McBell]

The statement you quote is an accurate summary of how most physicists see the issue.

If you are referring to the quote I posted I am going to have to ask you to support that claim.

Now to be clear on what it seems to me the claim is...

The universe was "fine-tuned" to support life.
​

Few take this as evidence of a creator; more take it as evidence of the existence of many "universes." Most take it as something that needs more work before we can draw conclusions.

Since I am still unsure what "case" you are talking about...


I aks because I do not understand how something can think that the mere existence of life is enough to make the claim that the universe was "fine-tuned" to support life.

 

[PolyHedral]

The point is that infinity is not a number. We cannot think of the positive integers as beginning at zero and ending at infinity: there is no ending.

Of course not, but that doesn't mean that the integers as a group do not have a size.

 

[Frank Merton]

If you are referring to the quote I posted I am going to have to ask you to support that claim.

I'm not going to do your research for you: I'm too old for that and my library had to stay behind in America. The issue has been out there for quite awhile -- I think Paul Dirac was the first important physicist to point it out.

Now to be clear on what it seems to me the claim is...

The universe was "fine-tuned" to support life.​

No, the issue is that the universe is "fine-tuned" to make life possible. (Not was, and not to support life).
​

I ask because I do not understand how something can think that the mere existence of life is enough to make the claim that the universe was "fine-tuned" to support life.

The presence of life is not the evidence.

To summarize the issue, we see the constants of the universe taking values over a huge range of orders of magnitude. Gravity, for example, is millions (actually much more) of times weaker than electromagnetism. The question arises of what would the universe be like if they were, as logic would suggest, closer to each other. The answer is that we would not be here.

It is not a fine argument either -- it is quite gross. If any of a dozen numbers were more than a few percentage points different (even though they vary among themselves by millions of percentage points), there would be no universe, no stars -- only either a re-collapsed black hole or a diffuse electronic gas.

 

[Frank Merton]

Of course not, but that doesn't mean that the integers as a group do not have a size.

Well I guess we have to get into a philosophical discussion as to whether we can talk about sizes of groups of numbers. Personally I think the word "size" is highly misleading when you speak of matching the members of a set with each other. In other words, it is not meaningful to say one infinite set is larger than another, even though you have members "left over" in one when you match them. Infinities do not follow such intuitive rules.

 

[PolyHedral]

If any of a dozen numbers were more than a few percentage points different (even though they vary among themselves by millions of percentage points), there would be no universe, no stars -- only either a re-collapsed black hole or a diffuse electronic gas.

You're being somewhat selective here. You can remove an entire quarter of physics, (i.e. the weak interaction) and the universe still produces very complicated structures. Obviously, we haven't investigated far enough to see if life emerges, but there's no reason to think it's impossible.

Well I guess we have to get into a philosophical discussion as to whether we can talk about sizes of groups of numbers. Personally I think the word "size" is highly misleading when you speak of matching the members of a set with each other. In other words, it is not meaningful to say one infinite set is larger than another, even though you have members "left over" in one when you match them. Infinities do not follow such intuitive rules.

Then counting finite sets is not meaningful.

 

[McBell]

I'm not going to do your research for you:

It is not MY homework.
I did not make the claim.

You made the claim, so the homework is yours.
Not mine.

Now since you refuse to fill in the gaps on how you conclude that the presence of life is enough to support the "case" that the universe is "fine tuned for life"...

 

[Frank Merton]

Sheesh! What an idiotic way to proceed. Did you even read the rest of the message? Do a little research and stop being so foolish or you will never learn anything.

 

[Frank Merton]

You're being somewhat selective here. You can remove an entire quarter of physics, (i.e. the weak interaction) and the universe still produces very complicated structures. Obviously, we haven't investigated far enough to see if life emerges, but there's no reason to think it's impossible.


Then counting finite sets is not meaningful.

I guess the members of this board; at least the two on right now, are quite utterly ignorant of what they want to pontificate about. I am not going to provide an education in fundamental physics. If you are not informed, go to a different topic.

Your last sentence was nothing more than a silly non sequitur.

 

[McBell]

Sheesh! What an idiotic way to proceed. Did you even read the rest of the message? Do a little research and stop being so foolish or you will never learn anything.

Worry not.
I am not waiting for you to teach anything.

I was merely trying to figure out how you think that life existing makes a "case" for the universe being "fine tuned for life".
Which is exactly what you said based upon the conversation in the thread.
Now it seems you are trying to back peddle.

now since I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, I.E. you inadvertently left out a part or two that would tie them together or there is something assumed that I am not aware of, I inquired about it.

Do not worry, I will refrain from making the error of thinking you capable of explaining anything in the future.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Bare with me:


If :


Infinity - 1 = Infinity

Infinity - 1000 = Infinity

Infinity minus any number is Infinity.


Then Infinity is a mathematical construct or concept that cannot be exported into our world; Infinity can not "actually" exist.

Therefore Infinity is "Potential", and not "Actual".

The world exists, then the world is "actual", which implies that the Universe cannot be Infinite since the concept of Infinity is Potential and not actual.

Anything that is not infinite must have had a beginning, and for anything to begin to exist from nothing it needs a Cause. The Cause is the Creator of the Universe.


Now Is the question "who caused the Creator" valid?


Not at all: If we were to assume that there should be infinite causes then there will be no effect, nothing will begin to exist. For example, If i needed to take permission from someone to perform a certain action, and that someone needs to take permission from someone else, and it goes all the way to an infinite number of persons (or causes), then the permission will not be initiated and the action will not take place. If we applied this concept to the Universe, then the Universe could have never existed.


For the Universe to Exist from nothing; that singularity of infinite density and zero volume (nothingness) that exploded into shaping our fine tuned universe, it must have a Cause; The Creator. God.

ACCORDING TO GROWING NUMBERS OF SCIENTISTS, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence. In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences" are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse "The Anthropic Principle," which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind. Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the "fine-tuning" and conclude that the universe is "too contrived" to be a chance event.

In a BBC science documentary, "The Anthropic Principle," some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.

Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories: "If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop."

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University: "If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all."

Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University: "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. Davies adds "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job.'"

According to the latest scientific thinking, the matter of the universe originated in a huge explosion of energy called "The Big Bang." At first, the universe was only hydrogen and helium, which congealed into stars. Subsequently, all the other elements were manufactured inside the stars. The four most abundant elements in the universe are, in order, hydrogen, helium, oxygen and carbon. When Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be, in the "blast-furnaces" of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were numerous "fortunate" one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate that puposeful "adjustments" had been made in the laws of physics and chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon.

Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:

"A COMMON SENSE INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS SUGGESTS THAT A SUPERINTENDENT HAS MONKEYED WITH THE PHYSICS, AS WELL AS CHEMISTRY AND BIOLOGY, AND THAT THERE ARE NO BLIND FORCES WORTH SPEAKING ABOUT IN NATURE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY PHYSICIST WHO EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE COULD FAIL TO DRAW THE INFERENCE THAT THE LAWS OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS HAVE BEEN DELIBERATELY DESIGNED WITH REGARD TO THE CONSEQUENCES THEY PRODUCE WITHIN STARS."

Adds Dr. David D. Deutch: "If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely."

I used to believe in the Anthropic Principle, but, you know what? It ain't scientific. Not a predictive model... it's really that simple. I mean, for validity, it is far better to use established theory than what amounts to - an idea of last resort. Which is what many scientists actually believe: it is an interesting coincidence that provides an avenue for exploration when, you know, the more sensible alternatives fail to generate valid theory... I mean, I can come up with details; I'd be surprised if someone around here did more research on the Anthropic Principle than I... but let's get right down to it.

Anthropic Principle does not support your kind of god. It supports my kind of god. A deistic god, a mathematical god, a god of science and discovery. You wanna argue about fine structure in universal constant, you are arguing against everything written about god. This is all about programming parameters into a system, and letting the system run, see what happens; not about serpents and gardens, and fall from grace. That's like saying, god didn't know what the heck he was doing, don't know his system from his node. And not in the sense that "well, the god in the Bible looks pretty incompetent;" because we all know the real deal. If god had to look less that glorious for the spiritual advancement of his followers, or because his prophets could handle so much information; that's one thing. But a god that looks dumb offstage, is just dumb. And both of these considerations, creation of object and creation of framework; these are behind-the-scenes, in the beginning, manipulations. One or the other.

And you best be all jiggy with the evolution.

I mean, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that you got Anthropic Principle from some pop-science type running a religious agenda. Happens all the time, some Righteous Rodney gets a hold of a scientific notion with half his brain; goes on the lecture circuit trying to preach some scientific gospel... and what else happens every time, Righteous Rodney's rickshaw collapses under scrutiny.

Seriously. I wouldn't put your god in a contraption that's gonna make both of you look dumb. You might have some later to consider...

What else we got here? Infinity? Cause that just made me laugh. Infinity cannot exist in the universe... so, yours is a finite god? Or, yours is an infinite, non-existent god; who creates both objects and parameters and is limited to cause and effect...

I mean, if this were like the dark ages; and we were, like, competing bishops presenting doctrine to the pope or something... someone would be getting racked up right now...