Is the cosmos "fine-tuned"?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Do enlighten me.

I did. I refered to several dozen peer-reviewed sources in various fields of physics that are relevant and offered repeated explanations. What more enlightenment do you require? That is, given that you haven't apparently understood dozens of posts, and I am alas unable to determine what your disconnect here is, could you explain how the current state of research in physics seems to render your position specious, inadequate, false, and flawed is research that should be disregarded?

 

[lovemuffin]

I would say that if those constants can pick different values, so that they are merely nomologically constants, than this would be an argument against fine tuning, not for fine tuning.

From a metaphysical standpoint, we don't know if they "can" have different values. All we know is the values we observe. As legion has said, physicists tend to assume they could have been different because they have no reason to think they couldn't. It's more of a philosophical question than a scientific one. But "fine tuning" is simply the observation that if we tweak the values of those parameters in the models by very small amounts, then the models predict a physical universe which would not generate life as we know it, because for example there would be no stars or planets. So the idea that, if they can pick different values, that's an argument against fine tuning is wrong. The assumption that they can pick different values is implicit and necessary to the observation. The observation depends on the assumption. This goes back to the analogy of the 14 scrabble tiles. If there were only one way the scrabble tiles could be arranged, it would not be a meaningful coincidence to observe them in that arrangement. The meaningfulness depends in part on the fact that there could have been many values, the value observed is unlikely, and that it also suggests a hidden causal structure. Without the assumed variability of the parameters, there would be no "fine tuning".
With physics, the variability is assumed mathematically, the unlikelihood of the parameters taking on the values they have depends on the same assumption. What is an open question is whether or not the coicidence is "meaningful"

You said that if it wasn't, there would be no universe. Ergo, a universe is tautologically fine tuned.

This is more or less the anthropic principle, although I think "no universe" might be slightly misleading. I think it refers to the idea that if you change certain parameters you can have immediately a big crunch where there is no inflation from the initial big bang into the "universe" as we know it, but just back into a singularity. It's still a "universe" in some sense. I think the physics gets a little fuzzy as to how to interpret the math in some of these scenarios.

 

[bishblaize]

I did. I refered to several dozen peer-reviewed sources in various fields of physics that are relevant and offered repeated explanations. What more enlightenment do you require? That is, given that you haven't apparently understood dozens of posts, and I am alas unable to determine what your disconnect here is, could you explain how the current state of research in physics that so renders you position specious, inadequate, false, and flawed is research that should be disregarded?

That post was just more bluster.

I'm asking if you would be so kind as to explain how a consciousness can exist separate from a living system.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

although I think "no universe" might be slightly misleading. I think it refers to the idea that if you change certain parameters you can have immediately a big crunch where there is no inflation from the initial big bang into the "universe" as we know it, but just back into a singularity. It's still a "universe" in some sense. I think the physics gets a little fuzzy as to how to interpret the math in some of these scenarios.

I have learned at least enough to know that what I take as clarity others find misleading. So let me specify that "no universe" as I have referenced does indeed refer to the immediate "big crunch". Basically, what Well Named explained more adequately than I did or likely could.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm asking if you would be so kind as to explain how a consciousness can exist separate from a living system.

Most living systems are incapable of consciousness because their capacity to process information is entirely syntactical. They encode information via changes in their physical states that reflect automated responses to their environments as mediated via time. They are not aware of anything, let alone self aware.

Conscious systems are incredibly rare. They require brains capable of conceptual processing, which we are currently unable to explain (unlike the learning processes most living systems are capable of).

 

[viole]

From a metaphysical standpoint, we don't know if they "can" have different values. All we know is the values we observe. As legion has said, physicists tend to assume they could have been different because they have no reason to think they couldn't. It's more of a philosophical question than a scientific one. But "fine tuning" is simply the observation that if we tweak the values of those parameters in the models by very small amounts, then the models predict a physical universe which would not generate life as we know it, because for example there would be no stars or planets. So the idea that, if they can pick different values, that's an argument against fine tuning is wrong. The assumption that they can pick different values is implicit and necessary to the observation. The observation depends on the assumption. This goes back to the analogy of the 14 scrabble tiles. If there were only one way the scrabble tiles could be arranged, it would not be a meaningful coincidence to observe them in that arrangement. The meaningfulness depends in part on the fact that there could have been many values, the value observed is unlikely, and that it also suggests a hidden causal structure. Without the assumed variability of the parameters, there would be no "fine tuning".
With physics, the variability is assumed mathematically, the unlikelihood of the parameters taking on the values they have depends on the same assumption. What is an open question is whether or not the coicidence is "meaningful"



This is more or less the anthropic principle, although I think "no universe" might be slightly misleading. I think it refers to the idea that if you change certain parameters you can have immediately a big crunch where there is no inflation from the initial big bang into the "universe" as we know it, but just back into a singularity. It's still a "universe" in some sense. I think the physics gets a little fuzzy as to how to interpret the math in some of these scenarios.

It depends.

We have to assume that this "tweaking" was a one-shot event, before we can wonder the luck we had, if we really feel the need to. Once variation is possible, everything goes.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I have learned at least enough to know that what I take as clarity others find misleading. So let me specify that "no universe" as I have referenced does indeed refer to the immediate "big crunch". Basically, what Well Named explained more adequately than I did or likely could.

With the possible exception that "little crunch" might be more appropriate.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Parsimony]

The simplified version is in the source I provided earlier. However, I don't like not providing answers to questions that are meaningful. The problem is that the answer depends upon how much you know about stellar equations of state and astrophysics in general. Are you fairly familiar with these topics such that I can refer to technical concepts, notions, research. etc., and you will be able to glean from these the answer to your question? Or are you like the vast majority of people (from genius to lawyers) who are not able to evaluate such statements as they require a great deal of background knowledge?

Although I consider myself well-versed in astronomy, the specifics of the math are not something that I tend to be familiar with (unless it's algebra. Calculus goes over my head). Feel free to go over it as well as you can and I'll try to keep up. Since gravity alone seems to be sufficient to pull together large clumps of material to form planets, I'm guessing the key is when the particles are too small for gravity to dominate (such as with dust grains)? Not that long ago I heard on television that electrostatic attraction is thought to have played an important role in getting those particles to adhere to each other.

They have comparatively short lifespans

Red dwarfs have much longer lifespans than G-class main-sequence stars like the Sun. Their low temperature ensures that they burn fuel more slowly.

The gravitational constant is incredibly precise, but is far, far, far, less precise than the cosmological constant. Arbitrary deviance from the value of the latter constant means no universe. No universe means no stars, planets, etc.

Does it really mean "no Universe" or "no Universe as we know it"? Then again, perhaps you are right. Maybe the cosmological constant does have to be that precise. However, my main focus is on gravity and whether or not greatly different strengths of gravity would prevent life from forming.

 

[bishblaize]

Most living systems are incapable of consciousness because their capacity to process information is entirely syntactical. They encode information via changes in their physical states that reflect automated responses to their environments as mediated via time. They are not aware of anything, let alone self aware.

Conscious systems are incredibly rare. They require brains capable of conceptual processing, which we are currently unable to explain (unlike the learning processes most living systems are capable of).

That doesn't answer my question.

 

[lovemuffin]

It depends.

We have to assume that this "tweaking" was a one-shot event, before we can wonder the luck we had, if we really feel the need to. Once variation is possible, everything goes.

I don't know exactly what it would mean for the values of various fine tuning parameters to have changed at various points in the evolution of the universe, or now, but I think we can be sure at least that if they had not had fairly precise values during certain stages of that evolution that life would not exist. So in that sense, the "fine tuning" refers to the values at those periods, and is still an interesting observation. It may be the case that now, after the universe has grown to a very large size, if the values changed it would not have as profound of an effect, but that doesn't invalidate the observation of fine tuning. Presumably, if the values varied over periods of time in which there existed physicists to measure them, we could know that they changed. Obviously the length of time in which this has been the case so far is very very tiny.

 

[lovemuffin]

bish: I think the reason Legion thinks "fine tuned for life" is a better characterization than "fine tuned for consciousness" is simply that there is more life (relative to the universe as a whole) than there is consciousness. This is not changed by the fact that conscious life is a subset of life such that all consciousness is alive. Or perhaps it's that the fine tuning that supports life does not necessarily entail supporting consciousness, unless the development of biological life leads necessarily to the development of conscious life. That is not known. I'm not sure the distinction is really that important. You could say "fine tuned to allow for the potential of conscious (or sentient?) life, which means fine tuned for life also, since life is a necessary precondition of conscious life".

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The universe if it is 'fine-tuned' must be in favour of the howling wilderness of interstellar vacuum. I do however love the pointless shenanigans of pretending to be able to calculate probabilities for the way things are.

Many philosophers have also pointed out that fine tuning is a better argument for atheism than for god.

The universe appears to be fine tuned to render god redundant, it is fine tuned for life to emerge naturally - with no need for a god. The universe looks exactly as it should if there were no God.

See: Brian's Paradox.

our perception of probability is a funny thing isn't it?

It's interesting, that most atheists would accept the simplest mathematical sequence drifting across the galactic airwaves, as proof positive of alien intelligence (and hence humanity's insignificance).. (what other explanation could there possibly be?!)

while the multitude of staggeringly specific and finely tuned mathematical equations that permeate the universe, which make life possible, as observed in the universal constants, physics, DNA may be safely assumed to have accidentally blundered into existence for no particular reason...

it seems like these contradicting 'probabilities' are determined by their own implications rather than the math

 

[leibowde84]

1) I haven't the foggiest idea what you mean by "the rest of the COSMOS baron"
2) I don't believe in any god, so I can't possibly speculate as to the motives of an entity I don't believe exists.


I find it fascinating that individuals believe as you do with no evidence whatsoever and granted probability theory which ensures that the chances of this are arbitrarily close to 0.


Physics.

Physics doesn't explain anything on the Quantum level. You need Quantum Physics, with different laws, for that, most of which we don't even know. Thus, limiting your view to Physics is in error.

In regards to extraterestrial life, even the encounters that people have witnessed (lets say the Pheonix Lights which were viewed simultaneously by thousands of people) are substantiated more than anything in the Bible, as we have multiple accounts of 1st hand observations. The Bible contains 0 first hand accounts.

And, also, barren just means "without life or vegatation."

 

[bishblaize]

bish: I think the reason Legion thinks "fine tuned for life" is a better characterization than "fine tuned for consciousness" is simply that there is more life (relative to the universe as a whole) than there is consciousness. This is not changed by the fact that conscious life is a subset of life such that all consciousness is alive. Or perhaps it's that the fine tuning that supports life does not necessarily entail supporting consciousness, unless the development of biological life leads necessarily to the development of conscious life. That is not known. I'm not sure the distinction is really that important. You could say "fine tuned to allow for the potential of conscious (or sentient?) life, which means fine tuned for life also, since life is a necessary precondition of conscious life".

Thanks. I was just exploring his claim that this had nothing to do with consciousness.

I had a run through your posts but couldn't spot an answer, so I'll ask anyway. As a Christian is fine tuning any part of your belief, and if so in what way? If this isn't the time or place to explain that, no worries.

 

[leibowde84]

It is a scientific theory. It is blatantly, obviously, and clearly so. A vast amount of physics literature supports this or doesn't but accepts it as a scientific theory. To argue otherwise is to ignore entire scientific fields.

You are 100% wrong about that, buddy. It is a "scientific hypothesis," not a "scientific theory" because it is not falsifiable. See below:

The multiverse hypothesis is a source of debate within the physics community. Physicists disagree about whether the multiverse exists, and whether the multiverse is a proper subject of scientific inquiry.[2] Supporters of one of the multiverse hypotheses include Stephen Hawking,[3]Steven Weinberg,[4]Brian Greene,[5][6]Max Tegmark,[7]Alan Guth,[8]Andrei Linde,[9]Michio Kaku,[10]David Deutsch,[11]Leonard Susskind,[12]Raj Pathria,[13]Sean Carroll, Alex Vilenkin,[14]Laura Mersini-Houghton,[15][16] and Neil deGrasse Tyson.[17] In contrast, critics such as Jim Baggott,[18]David Gross,[19]Paul Steinhardt,[20]George Ellis[21][22] and Paul Davies have argued that the multiverse question is philosophical rather than scientific, that the multiverse cannot be a scientific question because it lacks falsifiability, or even that the multiverse hypothesis is harmful or pseudoscientific. It is, however, agreed that the multiverse hypothesis cannot be considered scientific theory until our ability to observe it has been achieved.

Basically, theoretically it can be shown, but that is not observation, which is necessary for a scientific hypothesis to become a scientific theory.

1. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

 

[viole]

I don't know exactly what it would mean for the values of various fine tuning parameters to have changed at various points in the evolution of the universe, or now, but I think we can be sure at least that if they had not had fairly precise values during certain stages of that evolution that life would not exist. So in that sense, the "fine tuning" refers to the values at those periods, and is still an interesting observation. It may be the case that now, after the universe has grown to a very large size, if the values changed it would not have as profound of an effect, but that doesn't invalidate the observation of fine tuning. Presumably, if the values varied over periods of time in which there existed physicists to measure them, we could know that they changed. Obviously the length of time in which this has been the case so far is very very tiny.

This is not my point. I am ready to accept that they stay constant once the Universe is in place.

But since we are discussing their value in order for them to generate stable Universes (and not the value when the Universe is in place) it is entirly posible that they sort of vary and resonate in order to produce the right Universe, that then locks in with that particular value. Namely, the values that render it stable. Almost tautologically. If I wildly try to tune my guitar, then it is possible that I stop when people say: what a nice sound! No surprise my guitar is in tune.

Wild speculation. I agree. But if variation is in the cards, then, well, why not? My argument is as strong, or weak, considering how little we know about these things. We have not even managed to marry gravity to QM, for Thor's sake.

Ciao

- viole

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Physics doesn't explain anything on the Quantum level.

How utterly absurd. So physics doesn't explain why Newtonian mechanics completely fails? Why does it not explain "quanta"? What does explain mean according to your understanding of physics such that perhaps the most successful theory in the sciences of all time "doesn't explain anything"?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Small changes produce dramatic effects

I think that's a key observation of the state of the early universe, the singularity, was literally a highly compressed self extracting archive of information

if you scramble some information in uncompressed data, representing a movie, you'll get static on the picture and sound, but it's watchable

scramble the compressed digital version, and you get nothing but an error

In this sense the singularity was the entire movie of the universe from start to finish, in it's most compressed possible form?

 

[lovemuffin]

I had a run through your posts but couldn't spot an answer, so I'll ask anyway. As a Christian is fine tuning any part of your belief, and if so in what way? If this isn't the time or place to explain that, no worries.

I think the cosmology and physics are fascinating, and the argument from fine tuning is at least a better argument than the traditional arguments (from design, the cosmological and ontological arguments, and etc). It is not particularly important to Christian life for me though. I am not particularly concerned with objective demonstrations or proofs of the existence of God.

 

[Deidre]

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.

If you wanted to stay away from religion, why place this thread here, though? That's where my confusion comes in. I understand your approach here, and I like the topic, but whenever I see threads in this section, I assume (maybe that's wrong of me) that the topic is going to weave some component of religion into the fold.