Is the cosmos "fine-tuned"?

[Ben Dhyan]

Of course, all of this breaks down even assuming the big bang initiated all spacetime/space & time and for a time-like interval after the big bang.

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

matter/energy is eternal...

Not according to either the big bang theory or theoretical physics.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?

Neither. I'm simply stating facts about the state of modern physics.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not according to either the big bang theory or theoretical physics.

The operative word is theory.....I otoh am stating facts as to the limitation in this regard of present practical physics...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Neither. I'm simply stating facts about the state of modern physics.

Ok...now understood...

 

[idav]

Of course, all of this breaks down even assuming the big bang initiated all spacetime/space & time and for a time-like interval after the big bang.

The math breaks down when the equations get to tume equals zero but thats a math issue, in practical language the theoretical singularity would be some sort of pause mode timelessness, according to what we know and can test. Eternal is the same thing. Light going the optimal speed is theoretically outside of time.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The math breaks down when the equations get to tume equals zero but that's a math issue

Without the math, we have no theory here at all: no big bang, no possible alternatives, no anything.

in practical language

...singularities are undefined. After all, singularities are mathematical notions.

the theoretical singularity would be some sort of pause mode timelessness

The big bang "singularity" is the breakdown of mathematical models.

 

[idav]

Without the math, we have no theory here at all: no big bang, no possible alternatives, no anything.


...singularities are undefined. After all, singularities are mathematical notions.


The big bang "singularity" is the breakdown of mathematical models.

Yes agreed but reality doesnt break down when thr math does and they have been attempting to observe as close to the beginning as possible which continues to confirm the big bang.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes agreed but reality doesnt break down when thr math does

A widely held position about reality is that "realism" is dead-in-the-water thanks to the mathematics of quantum mechanics (which allow the success of QM). Better still, we only know the reality of the emergence of the universe through mathematics (albeit based upon empirically tested theories of physics and similar scientific evidence). If it is easier to swallow, modern physics tells us that modern physics breaks down not only when it comes to the big bang but in a time-like interval after it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

That's what I mean by matter/energy......nothing can be added to the cosmos, nor can it be removed....matter/energy is eternal...

And the sum total of all creation is zero. Creatio ex nihilo, and, ex nihilo, nihilo fit. Creation from nothing, and from nothing comes nothing.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

And the sum total of all creation is zero. Creatio ex nihilo, and, ex nihilo, nihilo fit. Creation from nothing, and from nothing comes nothing.

The quote is "Nihilo ex nihilo, ex nihilo, nihil fit" Which translates to nothing comes from nothing and from nothing nothing comes.

Also you have been corrected before, the sum total of the universe is not zero.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Perhaps there were billions or trillions of similar "Big Bangs" and "Big Crunches" in our universe's past, but this was one time when things actually worked out in favor for the formation life.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Perhaps there were billions or trillions of similar "Big Bangs" and "Big Crunches" in our universe's past, but this was one time when things actually worked out in favor for the formation life.

Assuming there are such events such as 'big bangs'...not only could these events be occurring sequentially eternally....there could also be infinite numbers of such universes in existence simultaneously...

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The quote is "Nihilo ex nihilo, ex nihilo, nihil fit" Which translates to nothing comes from nothing and from nothing nothing comes.

Also you have been corrected before, the sum total of the universe is not zero.

It is 2 different quotes. But you are right that it is nihil not nihilo.

And as before you have been corrected on your idea that the totality of the universe is not zero. You understand absolutely nothing whatsoever about the logical ordering of 0, so your authoritarian comments are without merit.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But you are right that it is nihil not nihilo.

The preposition "ex" takes the ablative case, and "nihil" is nominative. It can't be nihil.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It is 2 different quotes. But you are right that it is nihil not nihilo.

And as before you have been corrected on your idea that the totality of the universe is not zero. You understand absolutely nothing whatsoever about the logical ordering of 0, so your authoritarian comments are without merit.

And you have been shown that your reasoning and sources are inadequate at best. The sum total of the universe is not zero and there is no evidence stating that it is. In fact the existence of the universe would require it NOT to be zero.

 

[Milton Platt]

The answer is...yes.

Before I am besieged by an angry mob all responding with posts concerning the problems with ID, who designed the designer, probability arguments, etc., I must clarify. Yes, the universe is “fine-tuned” in that there are certain constants (sometimes called fine-tuned constants or FTCs) that, were they ever-so-slightly altered, we wouldn’t exist. For some, no life would exist and possibly no universe. This interpretation of fine-tuning is similar to the “weak anthropic principle” (WAP), which is essentially a tautology. It asserts that because we exist, the nature of the cosmos must have properties such that we can exist, for if it did not, we wouldn’t be here.

But I wouldn’t start a thread just to note that some uses of two terms have an entirely non-religious context. To me, the fine-tuned argument (FTA), which uses fine-tuning as evidence for design, provides the best evidence for the existence of a “god” or “designer” available, but it is generally misunderstood. I will seek to remedy these (hopefully) over the course of this discussion, but I can’t just reference the FTA without addressing what it is.


The FTA has, essentially, to components. One is not disputed: there are a number of properties of physics, such as the strength of gravity, which, had its force been stronger or weaker by about one in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, life wouldn’t exist (no stars). Then there is the big bang, which requires a much, much larger number to represent how little a change would be needed in order for the big bang to either immediately turn into a “big crunch” or expand far to rapidly for life. The list goes on and on, but here I am just introducing issues, and the list is for debate/discussion.


The other component of the FTA is that so many properties of the universe require such extreme, unimaginable precision indicates design (and thus a designer). Normally, this part of the argument is (usually badly) justified on the basis of probability. Probability is a deceptively and deeply philosophical matter with important implications for most of the sciences. I bring this up because one counter-argument to the FTA is simply that we have no idea what the “probability space” is such that we can determine the probability that e.g., gravity would have the force it does. This interpretation of probability is frequentist. It assumes that events/outcomes are some subset from a set of all possible outcomes and the probabilities of these are determined in advance just the way we determine the probability of a coin flip to be 1/2.


The Bayesian approach is different. It is different in application, but more importantly it is also different philosophically, in that it does not posit probabilities to be viewed in absolute, idealized terms that are never actually realized, but in terms of likelihood given our state of knowledge. Thus we need not necessarily ask about the probability of a particular FTC, but rather its likelihood (in the technical sense of the term).


With as minimal information as I could manage to start this thread, I invite comments, questions, positions, arguments (for or against), criticisms, credit card information, and donations.

Kind of a silly question. Any universe that may hae eveer existed or that may yet exist would always be fine tuned to exist in the particular state it existed in, no matter how different from tnis one. We have no other universes to compare ours with, so could this one be more fine tuned???

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Any universe that may hae eveer existed or that may yet exist would always be fine tuned to exist in the particular state it existed in

No. Any "universe" must exist as it does and have the properties it does. This isn't fine-tuning. It isn't what makes physicists so deeply uncomfortable they prefer to explain fine-tuning by asserting that there exist infinitely many universes in which essentially all possible combinations of values for parameters are realized, and thus there are bound to be some in which all of them allow for life (or atoms, for that matter).

We have no other universes to compare ours with, so could this one be more fine tuned???

Because we have good reason to think that small changes (in certain cases so small we could barely measure them) would mean that basically planets, stars, galaxies, etc., wouldn't exist. Put differently, there are infinitely many universes we can compare ours with in much the same way that we determine the probability of a fair coin is 1/2 or getting a 6 by rolling a die is 1/6. We allow for an idealized "experiment" (in the probability theory sense of the term) repeated exactly infinitely many times, and based upon this idealization we can prove the probabilities 1/2 and 1/6 are correct. Simulations of changes to idealized systems are essential to understanding them, not just in physics but chemistry, biology, economics, neuroscience, etc. There is always a sense in which we assume randomness (usually in the form of the normal distribution, particularly when we have little else to go on) in outcomes, because variability is the norm and rule.

Actual fine-tuning is generally mistaken in two related ways. Often one is asked to imagine flipping a coin a million times or some other high number and getting all heads. This is a flawed argument, as the probability of getting any sequence given a million coin tosses is equal to any other. However, the probability of getting a distribution of heads that is roughly equal to tails is vastly more probable than getting a million heads. We can (and do) imagine what would happen if the fundamental components/properties of the cosmos were changed. It is surprising (and for many if not most physics deeply disturbing) that we find that changing any of these by much (sometimes by practically an infinitesimal degree) while holding all the rest fixed fundamentally changes everything (and makes life impossible). We shouldn't expect that the immensely high pressures and temperatures of the chaos following the big bang should cool, expand, and "evolve" (in the dynamical, not biological, sense) so far from randomness that tiny fluctuations which should be likely would ensure that atoms couldn't form or that the universe couldn't, rather than a set of "tunings" of parameters out of this chaos that is just right for life.

It is trivially true that the universe must be right for life and for us, because we're here. The problem is that we shouldn't expect the incredible precision required for us to be here such that highly probable differences from the way the universe (and the constants, forces, etc.) emerged from initial conditions (particularly given those initial conditions, and not just because it came as a great surprise that there were any) can't also allow for our existence. Given that you win the lottery, the probability of winning is 1. That doesn't mean you can't ask what the probability of winning was before you did win.

 

[Curious George]

No. Any "universe" must exist as it does and have the properties it does. This isn't fine-tuning. It isn't what makes physicists so deeply uncomfortable they prefer to explain fine-tuning by asserting that there exist infinitely many universes in which essentially all possible combinations of values for parameters are realized, and thus there are bound to be some in which all of them allow for life (or atoms, for that matter).


Because we have good reason to think that small changes (in certain cases so small we could barely measure them) would mean that basically planets, stars, galaxies, etc., wouldn't exist. Put differently, there are infinitely many universes we can compare ours with in much the same way that we determine the probability of a fair coin is 1/2 or getting a 6 by rolling a die is 1/6. We allow for an idealized "experiment" (in the probability theory sense of the term) repeated exactly infinitely many times, and based upon this idealization we can prove the probabilities 1/2 and 1/6 are correct. Simulations of changes to idealized systems are essential to understanding them, not just in physics but chemistry, biology, economics, neuroscience, etc. There is always a sense in which we assume randomness (usually in the form of the normal distribution, particularly when we have little else to go on) in outcomes, because variability is the norm and rule.

Actual fine-tuning is generally mistaken in two related ways. Often one is asked to imagine flipping a coin a million times or some other high number and getting all heads. This is a flawed argument, as the probability of getting any sequence given a million coin tosses is equal to any other. However, the probability of getting a distribution of heads that is roughly equal to tails is vastly more probable than getting a million heads. We can (and do) imagine what would happen if the fundamental components/properties of the cosmos were changed. It is surprising (and for many if not most physics deeply disturbing) that we find that changing any of these by much (sometimes by practically an infinitesimal degree) while holding all the rest fixed fundamentally changes everything (and makes life impossible). We shouldn't expect that the immensely high pressures and temperatures of the chaos following the big bang should cool, expand, and "evolve" (in the dynamical, not biological, sense) so far from randomness that tiny fluctuations which should be likely would ensure that atoms couldn't form or that the universe couldn't, rather than a set of "tunings" of parameters out of this chaos that is just right for life.

It is trivially true that the universe must be right for life and for us, because we're here. The problem is that we shouldn't expect the incredible precision required for us to be here such that highly probable differences from the way the universe (and the constants, forces, etc.) emerged from initial conditions (particularly given those initial conditions, and not just because it came as a great surprise that there were any) can't also allow for our existence. Given that you win the lottery, the probability of winning is 1. That doesn't mean you can't ask what the probability of winning was before you did win.

Yes, but aren't you not trying to calculate probability in the dark still?


Consider the oft quoted gedanken demonstration. Without non locality the probability of getting the data that we do would be infinitely less likely.

But, given only slightly better understanding than we had decades ago, we come to expect such results. I do not know what small changes but I accept there are many. My point, or rather question, is how can we be so sure that when we calculate for the probability of a different universe we are calculating correctly?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes, but aren't you not trying to calculate probability in the dark still?

Sure. But this is always true. Granted, sometimes it is more true than others, but actual probability applications are a lot messier than textbook examples because we can't perfectly replicate experiment once nor can we imperfectly replicate one infinitely many times, because no coin is actually fair, because all dice are loaded and subject to atmospheric conditions among others, and we are usually dealing with estimations of distributions obtained from assumptions, samples, and (too often) a misunderstanding of the CLT and (weak and strong) laws of large numbers.

In addition to interpretations of probability that define probability in terms of optimal methods for rationally changing beliefs, we have statistical analyses and probability methods designed specifically to calculate probability when we're really in the dark. Physics rests on certain assumptions (although just about all of these have either been heavily criticized or abandoned in the last few decades or more). It is oft forgotten that Hoyle coined the term "big bang" out of derision, because it was too akin to the Genesis creation myth. Likewise, thanks partly to the influence of a book cited by many more popular books and probably not read by most who cite it (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle), it is often forgotten that the anthropic principle is not controversial because of religious connotations, but because adopting it means abandoning the very foundations of physics: the quest for foundational principles whence all phenomena could be explained or at least be found consistent with.

Once the big bang theory was widely accepted, it became extremely important to understand its nature as the theory entails there was a time after the "bang" during which basically all of physics and virtually all that is physical didn't exist, yet somehow these conditions resulted in the universe we find ourselves in. When there exists no reason to suspect that this process should occur in particular ways, and no reason that this process couldn't have resulted in vastly different fundamental forces or constants and so forth, then we aren't exactly calculating in the dark. If we have no reason to suspect a particular set of conditions, values for parameters, strength of forces, etc., then Bayesian analysis (among other approaches to this sort of issue) dictates we assume that the possible distribution or the configuration space is both infinite and unbiased towards a particular configuration. We also should not be able to use the fact that we exist to derive theory or as a replacement for first principles/fundamentals. In short, while we absolutely must be able to say that the conditions allowed for the our existence, our existence doesn't allow us to weigh as more probable a particular set of conditions. Since there is no other reason to weigh as more probable the conditions that allow for our existence and the universe we find ourselves in, we would like different conditions to allow for the same or at least similar results. Instead, we find that for no good reason the conditions required for something remotely like our universe are interrelated, highly "tuned", and vastly improbable given the configuration space.

Without non locality the probability of getting the data that we do would be infinitely less likely.

This is why I used the lottery example. Conditionals are tricky enough; conditional probability more so (and counterfactual conditional probability even more so). We certainly don't ask what the probability of winning the lottery is given that we won the lottery. But we might ask what the probability of winning the lottery would have been if we hadn't or what it was before we did.

Another example is (many types of) climate models. We have simulations of temperatures that we use to build a model (along with what we know about the climate) such that the model will predict the records we already have. Of course, this in and of itself is pointless. We have the simulations of temperatures already, so why predict them? Because we then run the model into the future. Similarly, in seeking to understand the physical system that is the whole universe (and therefore physics), we would wish to be able to construct a model based on known "laws" and our "record" such that we can show how physics caused the universe to emerge as it did. We can't. However, we can if we assume our existence, but this again means abandoning the foundations of physics as the scientific enterprise it has been for centuries.

My point, or rather question, is how can we be so sure that when we calculate for the probability of a different universe we are calculating correctly?

We can't. But we shouldn't need to (that's the problem). Either there should be a reason why the conditions were not astronomically improbable because e.g., there are infinitely many universes with different laws and thus one was bound to have these conditions or because there is something about the big bang that necessitated the values for the infamous parameters or really anything other than that we simply chalk up to chance the fact that an extremely tiny window allowed for our universe and give up on understanding the nature of the emergence of the universe.