Is the cosmos "fine-tuned"?

[lovemuffin]

The guy who wasn't working on the plans for infinitely many universes: Bob Cratchit

I want to make a joke referencing a jewish rabbi who said "We know the Name!" but, ironically, I can't remember who said that.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Not "for no particular reason," as there is presumably a reason, in the sense of a cause. But that cause probably has nothing to do with life. Again, this is where the weak anthropic principle comes into play.

As others have pointed out, there are also ways to vary constants to make the universe more hospitable to life.

I take your point on 'reason' though in the context 'no particular reason' means in the sense of purpose, intent etc..

The universe as far as we know contains one single sentient being out of millions, in a galaxy that is so far silent, who is capable of pondering the universe, acknowledging a creator and giving thanks for creation.
This is consistent with being the primary beneficiaries of that creation.

atheists use the speculation that the universe is teaming with life as an argument against God, against humanity being special..

i.e. as in many things, it's the finely tuned balance, the uniqueness of humanity that infers the work of creative intelligence, not simply a bulk quantity of life.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm not your friend. You represent a position that I believe plagues the discourse between scientists and the public, which is misused by politicians, corporations, and even scientists. I have devoted years to attempts to counterbalance some small part of this. Your posts represent my failure and all those who, like me, which that the sciences were better understood.


What databases did you search?

Wow. It's just an expression, but I guess it's possible you have not heard it before. You don't even know me other than brief posts on an internet forum, but I would have to assume that I'm better off.

Below is yet another explanation found easily online written by one of your "fellow scientists." This might help you understand the distinction I am trying to make. It shows the difference between a "scientific theory," a "scientific hypothesis" and a "scientific law/fact." Every single source describing the function of the Scientific Method claims that it is only designed to substantiate scientific theories, like Evolution or Climate Change. And, pleases try your best to be civil.

Using Appropriate Terminology
In casual conversation we might say, “I think the Niners are gonna’ win the big game,” rather than, “I’ve got a hypothesis about who is going to win the football game this weekend.” Socially, the second version may seem stilted, but etymologically it is quite correct. While in the classroom, in contrast to our time off-campus, we should use appropriate terms, particularly when words have both popular and scientific definitions that are not necessarily in synch.

Theory vs. hypothesis
A theory is an explanation. The validity of a theory rests upon its ability to explain phenomena. Theories may be supported, rejected, or modified, based on new evidence. Gravitational theory, for example, attempts to explain the nature of gravity. Cell theory explains the workings of cells. Evolutionary theory explains the history of life on Earth.

A hypothesis is a testable idea. Scientists do not set out to “prove” hypotheses, but to test them. Often multiple hypotheses are posed to explain phenomena and the goal of research is to eliminate the incorrect ones. Hypotheses come and go by the thousands, but theories often remain to be tested and modified for decades or centuries. In science, theories are never hunches or guesses and to describe evolution as “just a theory” is inappropriate.

Believe or accept
“Do you believe in evolution?” is a question often asked of biology teachers by their puzzled students. The answer is, “No, I accept the fact that the Earth is very old and life has changed over billions of years because that is what the evidence tells us.” Science is not about belief—it is about making inferences based on evidence.

This is why Scientific Theories developed through the Scientific Method do not claim to be "fact," but, instead, merely inferences based on evidence. So, I fail to see where your problem is. Is your problem with people erroneously using the Scientific Method for something that it was not designed for?

 

[outhouse]

Were it different, no life would be possible

You mean life as you know it would be different.


Life is in the most unexpected places.


If there was no water there would be no fish, but no one designed the water for fish. That is the sum of your argument. You need something stronger.

 

[nazz]

Yes.

Wow, this thread has really taken off. I hope my response does not get lost in the shuffle. This has been a very interesting discussion so far.

OK, so we are on the same page so far. But for some reason you seem to take issue with my extrapolation of those points to this question. What I basically said was that if universe creation is the result of some random process that has at its disposal an infinite number of possible values for the constants then the odds of it resulting in the constants we find in this universe is one chance in infinity (which I think you stated was a probability of 0?) Now if we go back to picking the ace of spades out of a deck containing an infinite number of cards it does seem possible. After all that ace of spades is somewhere in that infinite deck. Heck, you might be so lucky as to even pick it on the first try. But there are an infinite number of chances that you won't pick it. Ever. True or not? If true then explanation #3 given in the original video is really just as fantastic as it would be if there is only one universe and therefore does nothing to address the problem of fine tuning. That was my point.

But I mentioned earlier there is a problem with all this. We do not understand exactly what results in universe formation. We do understand a great deal about the very early universe up to a few micro-seconds of the beginning of the BB. But it's the initial first moments that remain mysterious. And if there was time before these things we also do not know if that was the case. So the idea there is some random process which creates a universe, or a multiverse, that has at its disposal an infinite number of possible values for the constants is simply a conjecture with no foundation. It's possible that whatever that process might be it has only a small number of possible values to "choose" from or maybe even just one. Of course if the latter is the case that in itself is pretty amazing and mind blowing and looks like just another example of fine tuning regressed back further in time.

 

[Gambit]

Fine tuning makes sense only if you can answer the question: fine tuned for what?

Fine-tuned to support sentient life forms.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If it was, it was fine tuned by something or someone that loves violence, struggle, gore, suffering, death and decay.

 

[gsa]

Given the scale of the universe, the reality of deep time and the probable communication difficulties between sentient life that would exist under the best of circumstances, there is almost nothing that can be inferred from the so-called "Great Silence."

As we have discussed elsewhere and above, there's no reason to infer a monotheistic creator god from the existence of human life.

I take your point on 'reason' though in the context 'no particular reason' means in the sense of purpose, intent etc..

The universe as far as we know contains one single sentient being out of millions, in a galaxy that is so far silent, who is capable of pondering the universe, acknowledging a creator and giving thanks for creation.
This is consistent with being the primary beneficiaries of that creation.

atheists use the speculation that the universe is teaming with life as an argument against God, against humanity being special..

i.e. as in many things, it's the finely tuned balance, the uniqueness of humanity that infers the work of creative intelligence, not simply a bulk quantity of life.

 

[gsa]

If it was, it was fine tuned by something or someone that loves violence, struggle, gore, suffering, death and decay.

Yes it is rather unpleasant to construct an actual "natural theology" based on something like "fine tuning." The universe is, overall, quite hostile to life. So if it was designed for life, the designer might have quite a low view of life.

 

[Bunyip]

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?!)

LOL Are you making up this stuff as you go along? I don't know of any atheists who think that the existence of alien intelligences has been proven. I love the idea of just making up some silly claim and
pretending atheists think it - can I have a go too?

Um......Yeah but most theists would accept that Smurfs invented icecream and that bananas can see dead people!

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

Please show the math for the probability of the existence of your magical uber daddy in the sky?
Won't hold my breath.

 

[Gambit]

Believe or accept
“Do you believe in evolution?” is a question often asked of biology teachers by their puzzled students. The answer is, “No, I accept the fact that the Earth is very old and life has changed over billions of years because that is what the evidence tells us.” Science is not about belief—it is about making inferences based on evidence.

This is why Scientific Theories developed through the Scientific Method do not claim to be "fact," but, instead, merely inferences based on evidence. So, I fail to see where your problem is. Is your problem with people erroneously using the Scientific Method for something that it was not designed for?

I would argue that accepting an inference based on evidence qualifies as a belief.

 

[Bunyip]

I take your point on 'reason' though in the context 'no particular reason' means in the sense of purpose, intent etc..

The universe as far as we know contains one single sentient being out of millions, in a galaxy that is so far silent, who is capable of pondering the universe, acknowledging a creator and giving thanks for creation.
This is consistent with being the primary beneficiaries of that creation.

No, not at all - in fact it is consistent with not having explored said universe yet. It's like sitting in the dark of a cave, and assuming that you must therefore be the only person in existence.

atheists use the speculation that the universe is teaming with life as an argument against God, against humanity being special..

i.e. as in many things, it's the finely tuned balance, the uniqueness of humanity that infers the work of creative intelligence, not simply a bulk quantity of life.

 

[leibowde84]

I would argue that accepting an inference based on evidence qualifies as a belief.

Beliefs aren't inferences based on evidence. They are ways of "filling in the gaps." They seem to be methods used by the human brain/mind to copensate for our natural inability to understand all of cosmos we live in.

 

[Bunyip]

I'll summarize: your "old argument" is quite new.

No, the argument from design is ancient. Only the labels 'fine tuning' and 'anthropomorphic fallacy' are new.

And given that this is the starting point of the anthropic principle, why is this so surprising or impossible?


It's called a problem within physics for a reason. Nobody was looking for it and precious few want it. Entire classes of solutions to this "problem" exist within the literature and have for some ~50 years.




Fine-tuning concerns parameters (fundamental constants). There is no chain of events.

 

[nazz]

If it was, it was fine tuned by something or someone that loves violence, struggle, gore, suffering, death and decay.

Hence the gnostic notion of the demiurge

 

[Bunyip]

Yes it is rather unpleasant to construct an actual "natural theology" based on something like "fine tuning." The universe is, overall, quite hostile to life. So if it was designed for life, the designer might have quite a low view of life.

And a deep fascination for vacuum.

 

[bishblaize]

Yes it is rather unpleasant to construct an actual "natural theology" based on something like "fine tuning." The universe is, overall, quite hostile to life. So if it was designed for life, the designer might have quite a low view of life.

I suppose if you believed that god viewed humans as special, then it wouldn't be a problem that most of the observable universe seems inhospitable. All that matters is that there's a little corner that does support life.

 

[Gambit]

Beliefs aren't inferences based on evidence. They are ways of "filling in the gaps." They seem to be methods used by the human brain/mind to copensate for our natural inability to understand all of cosmos we live in.

Merriam-Webster defines "belief" as "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence."

I suspect the (vast) majority of physicists do not believe that the physical constants were "finely-tuned." But some physicists do.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Given the scale of the universe, the reality of deep time and the probable communication difficulties between sentient life that would exist under the best of circumstances, there is almost nothing that can be inferred from the so-called "Great Silence."

As we have discussed elsewhere and above, there's no reason to infer a monotheistic creator god from the existence of human life.

nothing is conclusive obviously, but we know our technological civilization is extremely rare at the very least, and when you crunch the numbers, I think the universe may be far too small to make another one probable.

AS a hypothetical let me as you this, if it could be determined that we were the only intelligent being, capable pondering these questions- i.e. the only means by which the universe can contemplate itself, be experienced,
would this give you pause? or would feel comfortable writing this off as yet one more staggering coincidence?

 

[Salvador]

Yes, there is evidence that the universe is fine-tuned by God. The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning