Is the cosmos "fine-tuned"?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I think it's we who are fine tuned by the Reality we find ourselves in, not vice versa.

I don't know that I'd describe us as being particularly "fine" anything, but there are a number of constants or parameters that have values which require precision beyond that we could ever have imagined. Consider the number pi. In most applications, 3.14 is an appropriate approximation for this infinite decimal. I can't think of one that would require precision to 20 decimal places. Yet for a number of these fine-tuned constants(FTCs) the precision required is twice that, or three times that, or more. And deviations from that precision mean (depending upon the parameter/constant) no universe or no life.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is very hard for me to separate out "fine tuned" from the "tuning" - an act pregnant with intentionality. One imagines an Agent carefully turning the knob until it results in Cosmos capable of hosting a Mozart yet massively inhospitable to sentience.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It is very hard for me to separate out "fine tuned" from the "tuning" - an act pregnant with intentionality. One imagines an Agent carefully turning the knob until it results in Cosmos capable of hosting a Mozart yet massively inhospitable to sentience.

I'm not sure what you mean by massively inhospitable. Perhaps that the vast majority (maybe even everywhere that isn't Earth) is inhospitable or not hospitable enough for life? One of the reasons the Earth is hospitable has to do with the fact that so much of the universe isn't. Given arbitrarily small changes, no solar system could form around a star such as is the case with Earth, or alternatively no stars would exist, or alternatively no universe would. One might think of it as akin to the ways in which Earth itself was highly inhospitable for life for a very long time, but eventually certain processes and properties allowed it to become the only place life exists that we know of.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

One of the reasons the Earth is hospitable has to do with the fact that so much of the universe isn't.

Interesting. Still, that B necessitates A does not mean that A intended B.

 

[outhouse]

The standard explanation given by non-believers is multiverse theory, which borders on the religious all by itself.

Actually it is backed by some very plausible evidence far from faith in ID.

The universe was born from a singularity, the universe is chocked full of small singularities. Singularities seem to be the rule, not the exception.

And our universe has a high degree of probability of originating from one, a large one

 

[outhouse]

and we have no basis to rule out an intelligent creator of our universe.

We have no basis to rule one in.

No where, no where on earth in any aspect of nature, or as far out in the universe as we can detect or see, is there any handprint or evidence of any kind, of any ancient human mythology such as creation.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Actually it is backed by some very plausible evidence far from faith in ID.

"Despite the growing popularity of the multiverse proposal, it must be admitted that many physicists remain deeply uncomfortable with it. The reason is clear: the idea is highly speculative and, from both a cosmological and a particle physics perspective, the reality of a multiverse is currently untestable. Indeed, it may always remain so...
For these reasons, some physicists do not regard these ideas as coming under the purvey of science at all. Since our confidence in them is based on faith and aesthetic considerations (for example mathematical beauty) rather than experimental data, they regard them as having more in common with religion than science." (emphasis added)
from the editor's introductory paper to the peer-reviewed volume Universe or Multiverse? (Cambridge University Press; 2007).

 

[outhouse]

the reality of a multiverse is currently untestable.

True.

it must be admitted that many physicists remain deeply uncomfortable with it

Sure, it is outside math. And so is a singularity. Some things we can test.

Until we have TOE, we are all guessing here.

 

[Bunyip]

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.

 

[outhouse]

We are at our infancy in understanding the universe, and thus, it a little early in the game to attribute anything when we know so little.


And how does one, create and design a universe anyway,,,,,,,,,,,,,, magic ?

 

[Parsimony]

Found a copy of the paper for free: The significance of numerical coincidences in nature

That's quite a lengthy paper. Can you give me the page number where it is stated that stars could not form if the strength of gravity was significantly different? Thanks in advance.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sure, it is outside math. And so is a singularity.

Actually singuilarities are more mathematical than physical. When they are physical it's simply that we have a singularity in the mathematical model, but they are always mathematical and show up all the time without any physical meaning, but never with physical meaning and no math.

Until we have TOE, we are all guessing here.

True.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If fine tuning can be identified, then what can be regarded as being not fine tuned?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That's quite a lengthy paper. Can you give me the page number where it is stated that stars could not form if the strength of gravity

It's not that stars couldn't form but that there'd be no life because no stars required for it could. Unfortunately that paper isn't the one that I have, and is more involved. So, I scanned the original paper and ran it through the character recognition software that comes with adobe acrobat pro (so you can actually search it; honestly I did that more because I find it so cool). I've uploaded/attached it. The most relevant pages (although it is still hard to distill down to one specific portion are 296 (last paragraph) to 297. The nice thing about this paper is that it includes the clear connection between stars and planet formation, although it is not as up to date as his arXiv paper or others on this (even Barrow and Tipler's classic work discusses this, albeit briefly). In fact, he cites this paper as source 3 in the source provided. Apart from that, I'd have to give you a scattered number of references to equations and paragraphs.

If that doesn't make sense, say so and I'll either break it down or break down the later paper and/or provide other sources.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If fine tuning can be identified, then what can be regarded as being not fine tuned?

Anything for which nearly infinitesimal variations in value would cause the entire universe or at least all life as we know it to change drastically (in the former case) or not exist (in both cases).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The universe if it is 'fine-tuned' must be in favour of the howling wilderness of interstellar vacuum.

Then that's what we'd find. We don't. Ergo, it isn't.

I do however love the pointless shenanigans of pretending to be able to calculate probabilities for the way things are.

Not probabilities. Certainly not in any sense that you may be familiar with.

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

Such as?

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.

This has been addressed ad nauseum, as it collapses to the "by chance" or fortuitous situation. In which case we are again left with the problem of explaining why unheard of precision exists in such a way that allows our existence that we can't explain by physics, cosmology, or even the sciences in general as it must be taken as given despite the fact that it shouldn't be as the only reason we have for taking it as given rather than as absurdly, astronomically implausible is that it happened when it need not have.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We are at our infancy in understanding the universe

Newton was able to prove Kepler's laws several hundred years ago. Cosmology, once more metaphysics and philosophy than science, has long now been a scientific field. There is much we do not understand. And there is always the hope (though fewer and fewer hold it) that we will still be able to explain everything in terms of fundamental forces and particles (and that this fundamental level will also be the simplest, which is not true currently of particle physics). However, research on fine-tuning or the anthropic principle is over a half century old now. In the decades since the first fortuitous coincidences were discovered, all we've done is add to the list of such phenomena and the precision required of them.

And how does one, create and design a universe anyway,,,,,,,,,,,,,, magic ?

Now that is an important question. Let us imagine that we were able to determine these "finely tuned" constants were exactly that: fine-tuned. Let us further suppose that we allow this as evidence for design. We are still left without any explanation for the nature of the designer or the mechanisms of design.

 

[shawn001]

We know there are carbon based life forms and although maybe a smaller percentage perhaps, there maybe silicon life forms out there.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Anything for which nearly infinitesimal variations in value would cause the entire universe or at least all life as we know it to change drastically (in the former case) or not exist (in both cases).

Seems to me it's the contrast itself which brings out nuances of fine tuning from a background of what's not finely tuned, becomes essential by which if there we're no contrast, we wouldn't notice anything save for what our state of mind brings forth.

It kind of brings out a variation in studying a sutra in discussing as to wether the universe is fine tuning us, or we are actually fine tuning the universe.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Seems to me it's the contrast itself which brings out nuances of fine tuning from a background of what's not finely tuned, becomes essential by which if there we're no contrast, we wouldn't notice anything save for what our state of mind brings forth.

Here's a simplistic answer (from a simplistic source, albeit one from an academic publisher, that I almost quoted last time but didn't want to and do so now just because I know I'm not good at explaining via this medium), which asks why fine-tuning requires an answer at all and gives a bit more about its nature)
"Why think we need an explanation for the actual value that it has?
When it comes to fine-tuning, it isn’t merely the small odds involved but the extreme, negative results arising from a small change. A very slight difference in the values of the FTCs produces dramatic change in the universe when it comes to habitability. We exist in a fantastically narrow window of possibilities outside of which life is impossible. Contrast this with the oxygen-atoms-in-the-room example. We can survive with much less oxygen, with air that is polluted, with various ratios of oxygen and nitrogen, etc. Life does not depend on the precise number of oxygen atoms in the room. The amount of oxygen could change over a fairly large range but would produce few noticeable differences vis-à-vis habitability. In contrast, life itself depends on the FTCs having the precise values that they do.
One would have expected a priori that life is stable with respect to changes in the physical constants and initial conditions. In other words, we would expect the FTCs to behave like the oxygen example in which a slight change makes little observable difference. Small changes produce small effects. What makes the FTCs special is that slight changes in their values have effects such as altering the chemical composition of the universe! Small changes produce dramatic effects. Nonetheless, that is what current physics tells us would happen, and it is that narrow, life-supporting range in the FTCs that requires an explanation. Coincidence is not a plausible response."
Koperski, J. (2015). The Physics of Theism: God, Physics, and the Philosophy of Science. Wiley-Blackwell.