-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the cosmos "fine-tuned"?
- Thread starter LegionOnomaMoi
- Start date
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Of course I know it. We are discussing the fine tuning argument for God, not why the universe is how it is. Didn't you know that? This is a religious forum, the context is religion.,
I went with 4 this time, but if you find 4 to be a "text-wall" I will delete one of them:
“The literature around this issue can be divided into two main classes of solutions: "God" or "Multiverse". Either it is God who created the Universe with all its parameters fit for life and intelligence; or there is a huge number of other universes with different parameters, so that it is very probable that there is one containing life and intelligence. The fact that it is the one we happen to inhabit is an observational selection effect which thus makes fine-tuning less mysterious (e.g. Carr 2007a; Bostrom 2002)."
Vidal, C. (2010). Computational and biological analogies for understanding fine-tuned parameters in physics. Foundations of Science, 15(4), 375-393.
“The question “why does the universe exist?” is not the same as the question “why is the universe the way it is?” Nor are the answers necessarily the same. The first question relates to the existence of the universe and the second to the fine tuning of the fundamental constants of physics and the compatibility of the universe with the existence of life. From the theological viewpoint the subjects of creation and fitness of the universe are intimately related, and the evidence of the latter serves as proof of intelligent design in the former. From a scientific viewpoint, however, the subjects of creation and fitness involve very different issues, and recognition of this difference facilitates rational inquiry.
I discuss the creation of the universe and the fitness of the universe (the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of physics) in relation to three cosmological principles: (A) the theistic principle, (B) the anthropic principle, and (C) the natural selection principle.”
Harrison, E. (1998). Creation and Fitness of the Universe. Astronomy & Geophysics, 39(2), 2-27.
“As is well known, the issue here is the apparent “fine-tuning” of the universe that makes the biological evolution of life possible. As numerous scholars have argued in detail, the physical conditions which make evolution possible impose an extremely narrow restriction on both the form of the fundamental laws of physics and the values of the constants of nature. If there is only one universe, as standard Big Bang depicts, it seems quite reasonable to ask why the laws of physics and the values of the constants of nature which characterize this universe happen to lie within these restrictions.”
Russell, R. J. (2001). Did God Create Our Universe?. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 950(1), 108-127.
“there are many motivations for invoking a multiverse. For some, it is claimed as the inevitable outcome of the physical process that generated our own universe. For others, it is proposed as an explanation for why our universe appears to be fine-tuned for life and consciousness.”
Carr, B., & Ellis, G. (2008). Universe or multiverse?. Astronomy & Geophysics, 49(2), 2-29.
“The literature around this issue can be divided into two main classes of solutions: "God" or "Multiverse". Either it is God who created the Universe with all its parameters fit for life and intelligence; or there is a huge number of other universes with different parameters, so that it is very probable that there is one containing life and intelligence. The fact that it is the one we happen to inhabit is an observational selection effect which thus makes fine-tuning less mysterious (e.g. Carr 2007a; Bostrom 2002)."
Vidal, C. (2010). Computational and biological analogies for understanding fine-tuned parameters in physics. Foundations of Science, 15(4), 375-393.
“The question “why does the universe exist?” is not the same as the question “why is the universe the way it is?” Nor are the answers necessarily the same. The first question relates to the existence of the universe and the second to the fine tuning of the fundamental constants of physics and the compatibility of the universe with the existence of life. From the theological viewpoint the subjects of creation and fitness of the universe are intimately related, and the evidence of the latter serves as proof of intelligent design in the former. From a scientific viewpoint, however, the subjects of creation and fitness involve very different issues, and recognition of this difference facilitates rational inquiry.
I discuss the creation of the universe and the fitness of the universe (the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of physics) in relation to three cosmological principles: (A) the theistic principle, (B) the anthropic principle, and (C) the natural selection principle.”
Harrison, E. (1998). Creation and Fitness of the Universe. Astronomy & Geophysics, 39(2), 2-27.
“As is well known, the issue here is the apparent “fine-tuning” of the universe that makes the biological evolution of life possible. As numerous scholars have argued in detail, the physical conditions which make evolution possible impose an extremely narrow restriction on both the form of the fundamental laws of physics and the values of the constants of nature. If there is only one universe, as standard Big Bang depicts, it seems quite reasonable to ask why the laws of physics and the values of the constants of nature which characterize this universe happen to lie within these restrictions.”
Russell, R. J. (2001). Did God Create Our Universe?. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 950(1), 108-127.
“there are many motivations for invoking a multiverse. For some, it is claimed as the inevitable outcome of the physical process that generated our own universe. For others, it is proposed as an explanation for why our universe appears to be fine-tuned for life and consciousness.”
Carr, B., & Ellis, G. (2008). Universe or multiverse?. Astronomy & Geophysics, 49(2), 2-29.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I have always wondered how it is you think posting quotes from people who agree with you is actually an argument. I could find 400 scientists who support creationism and post a list of their names and quotes from them as you do - but don't because it is not an argument. It is just an appeal to authority, or popularity.
Here's what you said:
This is quite simply nonsense. It's so obviously wrong a cursory examination of the literature would tell you this.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
For what its worth.
"The Anthropic Principle
Victor J. Stenger
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/ant_encyc.pdf
"The Anthropic Principle
Victor J. Stenger
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/ant_encyc.pdf
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Just saying that something is wrong is hardly an argument either.
You are gong to ignore any examples I give anyway - so lets leave it there.
Actually my argument here is that you are misrepresenting physics literature. The only way I can demonstrate that you are is by quoting physics literature.
That's true. What you can't find 400 peer-reviewed articles by specialists in relevant fields claiming that fine-tuning isn't a problem (or that it doesn't exist), unless you count those who don't find it a problem because they are believers.
I love this. I refer to literature to try to give you an idea of what actual physicists think about "fine-tuning" and whether it is a "problem", and you accuse me of appealing to authority. In the very next post, I am castigated because I didn't provide evidence to support my claims about what physicists think about fine-tuning. Out of curiousity, is there some number of papers you would consider sufficient to demonstrate that fine-tuning is and has been accepted within physics and that it is a problem is a mainstream view?
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
No, the only way to do it is to engage with my responses and come up with some sort of rational response, rather than just appeals to authority.
Sure I could, but it would be a waste of time. You are never interested in counter examples to your arguments and just ignore them.
If I prove my point you simply respond with 'I'm not interested in what you can prove' and then repeat some earlier contradiction you have invented by taking comments of mine out of context.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
No, of course not - just as there is no number of counter examples that you would ever consider. Let alone any I specify. I did refer to one of the most prominent physicists alive today - but you refused to engage with what he said, as you refuse to engage with anything anyone says who disagrees with you.
You tend to post long lists of quotes to support your argument, and simply ignore any to the contrary - I never understood what point you think there is to such a tactic.
lovemuffin
τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
This is not quite right. The "fine tuning" is a fact. It is very much in evidence. What is not a fact, or what there is not evidence for, is that the so-called "fine tuning" requires a "designer" or god in order to be explained, or even that it is the sort of fact that has an explanation or requires one.
50 years of research and literature from across various fields in physics all for something without evidence. If only you had been there to inform physicists they don't know physics.
Abe, H., Kobayashi, T., & Omura, Y. (2007). Relaxed fine-tuning in models with nonuniversal gaugino masses. Physical Review D, 76(1), 015002.
Anderson, G. W., & Castano, D. J. (1995). Measures of fine tuning. Physics Letters B, 347(3), 300-308.
Barbieri, R., & Strumia, A. (1998). About the fine-tuning price of LEP. Physics Letters B, 433(1), 63-66.
Casas, J. A., Espinosa, J. R., & Hidalgo, I. (2004). The MSSM fine tuning problem: a way out. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2004(01), 008.
Chankowski, P. H., Ellis, J., Olechowski, M., & Pokorski, S. (1999). Haggling over the fine-tuning price of LEP. Nuclear Physics B, 544(1), 39-63.
Collins, J., Perez, A., Sudarsky, D., Urrutia, L., & Vucetich, H. (2004). Lorentz invariance and quantum gravity: an additional fine-tuning problem?. Physical review letters, 93(19), 191301.
Dermíšek, R., Gunion, J. F., & McElrath, B. (2007). Probing next-to-minimal-supersymmetric models with minimal fine tuning by searching for decays of the Υ to a light C P-odd Higgs boson. Physical Review D, 76(5), 051105.
Hotchkiss, S., Mazumdar, A., & Nadathur, S. (2011). Inflection point inflation: WMAP constraints and a solution to the fine tuning problem. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2011(06), 002.
Jain, P., & Ralston, J. P. (2005). Supersymmetry and the Lorentz fine tuning problem. Physics Letters B, 621(1), 213-218.
Kitano, R., & Nomura, Y. (2005). A solution to the supersymmetric fine-tuning problem within the MSSM. Physics Letters B, 631(1), 58-67.
Matacz, A. (1997). Inflation and the fine-tuning problem. Physical Review D, 56(4), R1836.
Maggiore, M., & Sturani, R. (1997). The fine tuning problem in pre-big-bang inflation. Physics Letters B, 415(4), 335-343.
Nomura, Y., & Tweedie, B. (2005). Supersymmetric fine-tuning problem and TeV-scale exotic scalars. Physical Review D, 72(1), 015006.
Turner, M. S., & Weinberg, E. J. (1997). Pre-big-bang inflation requires fine-tuning. Physical Review D, 56(8), 4604.
Vidal, C. (2010). Computational and biological analogies for understanding fine-tuned parameters in physics. Foundations of Science, 15(4), 375-393.
Wetterich, C. (1984). Fine-tuning problem and the renormalization group. Physics Letters B, 140(3), 215-222.
Yanagida, T. T., & Yokozaki, N. (2013). Focus point in gaugino mediation—Reconsideration of the fine-tuning problem. Physics Letters B, 722(4), 355-359.
Zhou, B. R. (1993). Heavier fermions and fine-tuning problem in top-quark condensate scheme. Physical Review D, 47(7), R2656.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
This is true, but it could be phrased "requires a fine adjustment of physical constants"
Life in the Universe
Stephen Hawking
'That carbon atoms should exist at all, with the properties that they have, requires a fine adjustment of physical constants, such as the QCD scale, the electric charge, and even the dimension of space-time. If these constants had significantly different values, either the nucleus of the carbon atom would not be stable, or the electrons would collapse in on the nucleus. At first sight, it seems remarkable that the universe is so finely tuned. Maybe this is evidence, that the universe was specially designed to produce the human race. However, one has to be careful about such arguments, because of what is known as the Anthropic Principle. This is based on the self-evident truth, that if the universe had not been suitable for life, we wouldn't be asking why it is so finely adjusted. "
Life in the Universe - Stephen Hawking
Why the universe wasn't fine-tuned for life
"A general mistake made in search of fine-tuning, he points out, is to vary just one physical parameter while keeping all the others constant. Yet a "theory of everything" - which alas we do not yet have - is bound to reveal intimate links between physical parameters. A change in one may be compensated by a change in another, says Stenger.
In addition to general mistakes, Stenger deals with specifics. For instance, British astronomer Fred Hoyle discovered that vital heavy elements can be built inside stars only because a carbon-12 nucleus can be made from the fusion of three helium nuclei. For the reaction to proceed, carbon-12 must have an energy level equal to the combined energy of the three helium nuclei, at the typical temperature inside a red giant. This has been touted as an example of fine-tuning. But, as Stenger points out, in 1989, astrophysicist Mario Livio showed that the carbon-12 energy level could actually have been significantly different and still resulted in a universe with the heavy elements needed for life.
CultureLab: Why the universe wasn't fine-tuned for life
We both know that these discussions are typically geared to argue in favor of ID. Which is fine, honestly. But, let's not pretend on a religious forum, in the religious debate subforum...that we're merely discussing the parameters of physics.
gsa
Well-Known Member
In addition to the problems Stenger addresses, and consistent with another problem that he has also addressed, the "fine tuning" argument ignores the possibility of phenomena similar to life, but not, for example, carbon-based. There’s no reason to suppose that alternative forms of "life" wouldn’t emerge in these other, hypothetical universes.
Moreover, there’s almost no reasonable inference of a deity with the characteristics of Yahweh/Allah, even if we accepted the theistic inference. Deism would be far more probable on the available evidence.
Moreover, there’s almost no reasonable inference of a deity with the characteristics of Yahweh/Allah, even if we accepted the theistic inference. Deism would be far more probable on the available evidence.
It's also called "naturalness" among other things. The point is the same: we find there is an extremely precise and extremely surprisingly precise range for the parameters used in our models of the universe.
1) That isn't a very accurate description of fine-tuning, in that it isn't simply letting one parameter vary while keeping the other constant. One could vary all of them, and we'd find the same thing, we'd just have no idea whether or not changes to all but one of the parameters made 0 difference.
2) A "theory of everything" would by definition explain all the parameters and everything else.
Here's what Stenger actually says:
""The next important step in the history of fine-tuning occurred in 1952 when astronomer Fred Hoyle used anthropic arguments to predict that an exicited carbon neucleus, 6C12, has an energy level at around 7.7 MeV...The probability of three bodies [necessary for Hoyle's predicted carbon nucleus] coming together simultaneously is very low...A laboratory experiment was undertaken, and, sure enough, a previously unknown excited state of carbon was found...Hoyle's prediction provied scientific legitimacy for anthropic reasoning." (emphasis added)
Intelligent design concerns biological processes. The fact that something like the (weak) anthropic principle or fine-tuning, which is mainstream physics, is equated with pseudo-science like ID is part of the problem I sought to address. It is just that kind of misunderstanding that makes believers leap on fine-tuning as proof of god and non-believers reject it as nonsense with neither knowing what it is.
I'm not a believer in any religion, I work as a researcher in the sciences, and my work is primarily (albeit mostly accidentally) in mathematical and quantum physics, and I started this thread. The point was both to evaluate actual arguments for & against the conclusion that fine-tuning implies or perhaps is even evidence for design and, even more importantly, define exactly what actual physicists mean when they refer to fine-tuning in actual physics literature. It was not to argue for some god I don't even believe exists. And it sure as hell wasn't to advocate pseudo-scientific nonsense like ID.But, let's not pretend on a religious forum, in the religious debate subforum...that we're merely discussing the parameters of physics.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
We both know that these discussions are typically geared to argue in favor of ID. Which is fine, honestly. But, let's not pretend on a religious forum, in the religious debate subforum...that we're merely discussing the parameters of physics.
We know this is used for a case for a God, basically always for the one the person believes in of course.
But it was learned by physics not religion.and is a physics issue, some religious people have taken hold of to support a God, which maybe true perhaps, but that doesn't help us really sort it out either. Humans just can't resist the temptation to use it to support a designer whatever that designer might be and why, seems there could have been a lot easier ways to achieve the goal by most people's definition of a diety as a designer and our universe and size ect.. As well as we haven't yet found other life forms, some could be silicon life forms and they would be quite different then us.
The answer may lie still in physics and they don't know everything nor do they say they do, unlike some religious people who start with a preconcived fact , and that is why science calls it research.
Of course some latch on to something like the word "Fine tuned" and don't get evolution at all or a lot of the other sciences right.