Is the cosmos "fine-tuned"?

[Gambit]

Currently, string theory and its more advanced forms are mathematical. I do not mean they involve mathematics, I mean the theory itself is mostly based on mathematical reformulations/equations. Additionally, we have little idea as to how most of the mathematical representations in modern physics correspond to anything physical.

IOW, the "genetic material" for these universes are actually "immaterial, mathematical, abstractions" that spontaneously ("magically") emerge as physical universes. Right?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

IOW, the "genetic material" for these universes are actually "immaterial, mathematical, abstractions" that spontaneously ("magically") emerge as physical universes. Right?

No. If we knew what the mathematical abstractions corresponded to, we'd have solve the impossible. We haven't, so we cannot say what the relationship between the mathematical representation and the system represented is.

 

[Gambit]

No. If we knew what the mathematical abstractions corresponded to, we'd have solve the impossible. We haven't, so we cannot say what the relationship between the mathematical representation and the system represented is.

So, it doesn't sound like you can say that the mathematical abstractions actually represent anything physical.

 

[bishblaize]

As far as I’m concerned the FTA is just a reframing of a very old argument. Namely “The universe is so amazing it must have been created”. It brings no evidence to the table to support it. And it also drags poor probabilities into an argument in which they have no place.

 

[viole]

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.

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

Second question: we have to put a lot of effort to tune things because, otherwise, they will not tune themselves for obvious thermodynamical reasons. Do you think this sorta tuning makes sense for whole Universes as well?

Ciao

- viole

 

[lovemuffin]

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

That part is easy, the argument is that it is fine tuned for life as we know it. I suppose the OP doesn't actually state that explicitly, although it's implied by the anthropic principle

 

[viole]

That part is easy, the argument is that it is fine tuned for life as we know it. I suppose the OP doesn't actually state that explicitly, although it's implied by the anthropic principle

Yes, obviously. But it smells like question begging a bit. Maybe it is fined tuned to generate Mount Everest, or some dead planet in the galaxy of Andromeda, who knows?

Why is life so important to justify the question?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Gambit]

As far as I’m concerned the FTA is just a reframing of a very old argument. Namely “The universe is so amazing it must have been created”. It brings no evidence to the table to support it. And it also drags poor probabilities into an argument in which they have no place.

It doesn't appear that you fully appreciate what is at issue here. Biological organisms (at least, at first blush) appear to have been designed. (Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins would agree with this assessment.) Therefore, the materialist is obligated to account for the apparent design. Likewise, the physical constants of the universe (at least, at first blush) appear to have been fine-tuned. (Physicist Leonard Susskind would agree with this. assessment.) Therefore, the materialist is obligated to account for this apparent fine-tuning.

 

[lovemuffin]

Yes, obviously. But it smells like question begging a bit. Maybe it is fined tuned to generate Mount Everest, or some dead planet in the galaxy of Andromeda, who knows?

I think this sort of misunderstands what the fine tuning argument is. It's not that specific. "Life as we know it" in this context includes Everest and would also include the dead planet in Andromeda if it at some point sustained biological life similar to earth. It is reasonable to be skeptical about whether the question that is raised is actually meaningful, but the problem with the fine tuning argument isn't that it's unclear about what it is that seems like a meaningful coincidence. And really that's all that "fine tuned" means in this context. It doesn't really imply a conscious intent or a "Designer" as such. It is the observation that, as far as we can tell, it appears that in order for the kind of physical complexity that seems to be a precursor for sentient life to exist, certain constants in our physical models have to fall within very narrow ranges, numerically, and the narrowness is so narrow that it is astounding to our intuition. That is a different sort of idea than "fine tuned to generate Everest".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is the observation that, as far as we can tell, it appears that in order for the kind of physical complexity that seems to be a precursor for sentient life to exist, certain constants in our physical models have to fall within very narrow ranges, numerically, and the narrowness is so narrow that it is astounding to our intuition.

… which, of course, in no way indicates that sentient life (or, for that matter, anything else) was intended.

 

[lovemuffin]

… which, of course, in no way indicates that sentient life (or, for that matter, anything else) was intended.

I believe I said as much in the sentence directly before the one you quoted

 

[viole]

I think this sort of misunderstands what the fine tuning argument is. It's not that specific. "Life as we know it" in this context includes Everest and would also include the dead planet in Andromeda if it at some point sustained biological life similar to earth. It is reasonable to be skeptical about whether the question that is raised is actually meaningful, but the problem with the fine tuning argument isn't that it's unclear about what it is that seems like a meaningful coincidence. And really that's all that "fine tuned" means in this context. It doesn't really imply a conscious intent or a "Designer" as such. It is the observation that, as far as we can tell, it appears that in order for the kind of physical complexity that seems to be a precursor for sentient life to exist, certain constants in our physical models have to fall within very narrow ranges, numerically, and the narrowness is so narrow that it is astounding to our intuition. That is a different sort of idea than "fine tuned to generate Everest".

I don't see why.

I could say Everest as we know it necessitates life as a by-product, so to speak. Probably, the tuning required to generate Everest is vastly bigger than the tuning required to generate life.

The question of course is what the measure of the set of possible initial conditions that generate life is, compared with the measure of the set of initial conditions that can generate Everest. I can say with a certain confidence that:

1) if the initial conditions are such that Everest has the form, substance and location it has, then this will automatically require life as a by-product
2) the contrary is not true: you can have life without Everests

So, we should be much more stunned by the initial conditions that gave rise to things like Everest. But we are not. Why not?

Ciao

- viole

 

[lovemuffin]

we should be much more stunned by the initial conditions that gave rise to things like Everest. But we are not. Why not?

Because those conditions don't appear as apparently fundamental physical constants

 

[viole]

Because those conditions don't appear as apparently fundamental physical constants

Are you tellng me that if I change even slightly the fundamental "constants" of nature, i will still have Everest, in its current form and shape and location within the Universe?

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

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.

It seems far more reasonable to assume that we ONLY exist because of the nature of our universe rather than the universe was "fine-tuned" so that we could survive. It seems clear from the fact that nearly 100% of the known universe cannot sustain life that the universe was not setup for our interest or that of life. Look at how 99.999999999% of species that have existed have all gone extinct.

 

[lovemuffin]

Are you tellng me that if I change even slightly the fundamental "constants" of nature, i will still have Everest, in its current form and shape and location within the Universe?

No. The argument is if you change those fundamental constants even slightly you won't even have stars, let alone planets, let alone Everest. But the point is that, it's not a question of having or not having Everest or any very specific physical feature. The argument is more general than that.

I think you are getting at a question which is about what makes coincidences meaningful. And the answer is that it's not a question of sheer probabilistic unlikelihood, since so many things are fantastically unlikely if you define the space of possibilities as broadly as possible. Rather, what makes coincidence meaningful is when there is something in it that suggests an unexpected causal structure. (see here for an argument). This explains why the mere existence of Everest is not intellectually challenging even though it's exceptionally unlikely per se, but the values of the so-called fine-tuning constants are. It's because the latter, in the way they appear in fundamental physics, are more suggestive of a deeper causal significance, which is not just a question of raw probability.

It is actually the case that people have made intuitive arguments in the past that something like the magnificence of Everest (as a symbol of the magnificence of the universe in general) is evidence of a creator. But that argument is not the fine tuning argument as such, even if there is some superficial similarity between them.

 

[viole]

No. The argument is if you change those fundamental constants even slightly you won't even have stars, let alone planets, let alone Everest. But the point is that, it's not a question of having or not having Everest or any very specific physical feature. The argument is more general than that.

I think you are getting at a question which is about what makes coincidences meaningful. And the answer is that it's not a question of sheer probabilistic unlikelihood, since so many things are fantastically unlikely if you define the space of possibilities as broadly as possible. Rather, what makes coincidence meaningful is when there is something in it that suggests an unexpected causal structure. (see here for an argument). This explains why the mere existence of Everest is not intellectually challenging even though it's exceptionally unlikely per se, but the values of the so-called fine-tuning constants are. It's because the latter, in the way they appear in fundamental physics, are more suggestive of a deeper causal significance, which is not just a question of raw probability.

It is actually the case that people have made intuitive arguments in the past that something like the magnificence of Everest (as a symbol of the magnificence of the universe in general) is evidence of a creator. But that argument is not the fine tuning argument as such, even if there is some superficial similarity between them.

"Meaningful" assumes a meaning for things being the way they are. I don't see how to integrate meaning with the fine tuning argument without falling into hopeless circularity.

And magnificence, like meaning I would say, is in the eye of the beholder. No beholder, no magnificence. Basically.

Ciao

- viole

P.S. Never understood why we behold Everest and not things like the Ebola virus or the Black Death becterium. If life is so important we should behold the latter.

 

[lovemuffin]

To elaborate a little further, here is an analogy that I stole from the Cognition article I linked.

If you place 14 randomly selected scrabble tiles on the floor in order, the prior probability of any particular sequence of tiles occurring is the same, and it's a very small number for every combination. The probability of seeing "bpxmnqwwaxgret" and "constantinople" is the same. But if you walk into a room and see scrabble tiles arranged to spell "constantinople", it will be reasonable to assume that it's not a pure coincidence, but that someone has arranged the tiles. The reasonability of that inference is not because the combination of tiles is unlikely to happen by chance, but because you recognize "constantinople" as an english word, and the fact that english words make up a very small part of the probability space of 14-letter combinations. It's the combination between the unlikelihood of the event happening by chance and the fact that the pattern appears meaningful.

By analogy, the fine-tuning argument seems to rely on an intuition that the existence of life is a meaningful pattern in the way that "constantinople" is, and that, I think, is its weakness, rather than the problem being that the unlikelihood of the constants taking on that particular value is no more unlikely than the existence of Everest.

I started writing this before your most recent reply, but I think this clarifies that we are in agreement, basically.

 

[viole]

To elaborate a little further, here is an analogy that I stole from the Cognition article I linked.

If you place 14 randomly selected scrabble tiles on the floor in order, the prior probability of any particular sequence of tiles occurring is the same, and it's a very small number for every combination. The probability of seeing "bpxmnqwwaxgret" and "constantinople" is the same. But if you walk into a room and see scrabble tiles arranged to spell "constantinople", it will be reasonable to assume that it's not a pure coincidence, but that someone has arranged the tiles. The reasonability of that inference is not because the combination of tiles is unlikely to happen by chance, but because you recognize "constantinople" as an english word, and the fact that english words make up a very small part of the probability space of 14-letter combinations. It's the combination between the unlikelihood of the event happening by chance and the fact that the pattern appears meaningful.

By analogy, the fine-tuning argument seems to rely on an intuition that the existence of life is a meaningful pattern in the way that "constantinople" is, and that, I think, is its weakness, rather than the problem being that the unlikelihood of the constants taking on that particular value is no more unlikely than the existence of Everest.

I started writing this before your most recent reply, but I think this clarifies that we are in agreement, basically.

I could not have said that better.

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

There is no evidence outside imagination or personal perception for FTA.

It is identical to saying a concrete slab is finely tuned to grow a garden in, because a weed popped up in a crack.

The universe is no more tuned then a concrete slab is for plant life. Just because a weed can grow in a crack, doesn't mean the concrete was laid out to grow a garden.


Anyone can use philosophy to try and argue around reality.