Is the cosmos "fine-tuned"?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You ask for a discussion on fine tuning, but refuse to even consider any of the arguments against it.

I affirmed one in the first page and have continually done so since.

I would have cited research from formal peer review, rather than Krauss' brilliant article - but of course it doesn't appear in formal physics research, only in apologetics.

"One measure of the naturalness of a cosmological scenario is its sensitivity to initial conditions. Indeed, the primary motivation for the inflationary paradigm was to solve the naturalness problems that arose because the standard cosmology appeared to require a finely tuned initial state."
Turner, M. S., & Weinberg, E. J. (1997). Pre-big-bang inflation requires fine-tuning. Physical Review D, 56(8), 4604.

"all of the theories we study with weak-scale SUSY are both supersymmetric and finely tuned, with an enormous fine-tuning for the cosmological constant."
Arkani-Hamed, N., & Dimopoulos, S. (2005). Supersymmetric unification without low energy supersymmetry and signatures for fine-tuning at the LHC. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2005(06), 073.

"The “fine-tuning” problem in quintessence models comes from the tendency for

to evolve away from

. Equation (1) is achieved in these models either (i) by fine-tuning initial conditions or (ii) by introducing a small scale into the fundamental Lagrangian which causes

to only start the acceleration today."

I'll leave it at three this time, lest I be accused of presenting a text wall again, but I'd be happy to show you how completely wrong you've shown yourself to be, and eagerly await your inventive ways of explaining how you were wrong was actually something else.

 

[Bunyip]

I could imagine some kind of spiritual beings that could live under any circumstances. But that is not what physical beings are. Maybe the designer of this universe wanted it to be just as it is. Have you considered that possibility?

But we have organisms that live in acid, in volcanic vents, in boiling water, in radioactive waste and so on. But yes, we come back to the reliance on assumptions about God's intention, his agenda, his capabilities and so on. But have yet to even establish his existence. It is rather like speculating on what colour Gandalf's underpants are. We do not know there is a real Gandalf, let alone that he wears jocks.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Do you think that is accurate?

I know it isn't. Also, were it accurate, than we wouldn't find physicists exploring untestable mathematical cosmological models based on physics that we don't know exists (supersymmetry, for example) in which fine-tuning is taken care of using supersymmetry and the mathematics of strings and branes rather than just noting that there are equivalent values for the constants we find that would give us a similarly hospitable universe (and do so without appealing to theoretical models of physics like M-theory or multiverse cosmology).

 

[Bunyip]

I affirmed one in the first page and have continually done so since.


"One measure of the naturalness of a cosmological scenario is its sensitivity to initial conditions. Indeed, the primary motivation for the inflationary paradigm was to solve the naturalness problems that arose because the standard cosmology appeared to require a finely tuned initial state."
Turner, M. S., & Weinberg, E. J. (1997). Pre-big-bang inflation requires fine-tuning. Physical Review D, 56(8), 4604.

"all of the theories we study with weak-scale SUSY are both supersymmetric and finely tuned, with an enormous fine-tuning for the cosmological constant."
Arkani-Hamed, N., & Dimopoulos, S. (2005). Supersymmetric unification without low energy supersymmetry and signatures for fine-tuning at the LHC. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2005(06), 073.

"The “fine-tuning” problem in quintessence models comes from the tendency for

to evolve away from

. Equation (1) is achieved in these models either (i) by fine-tuning initial conditions or (ii) by introducing a small scale into the fundamental Lagrangian which causes

to only start the acceleration today."

I'll leave it at three this time, lest I be accused of presenting a text wall again, but I'd be happy to show you how completely wrong you've shown yourself to be, and eagerly await your inventive ways of explaining how you were wrong was actually something else.

None of those infer a God, or a challenge to atheism. Discussing the universal constants is of course a scientific persuit - the context here is of FT as an argument for God. When you talk about how you prove me wrong by the way, it is never my argument that you are disproving - what you do is take one comment out of context and contrast it against another out of context and then pretend to have somehow caught me out. I then clarify and try to get you back to the actual argument in hand - but you invariably simple repeat the same accusation (not only across many posts, but several times in a single post) and never permit meaningful dialogue past it.

 

[nazz]

Sure, but I think that is the crux of the matter - it is all drawn from assumptions. In terms of an argument for God it is very much akin to presuppositional apologetics. It does not really translate from theology and apologetics into meaningful physics.

We can only draw conclusions from what we currently know (even if those conclusions prove ultimately wrong). What we know now is that as far as this universe is concerned the 20 some odd constants are just the right values to allow this current universe to exist as it does and support at least one planet with life and that if they were even slightly different at extremely small scales that would not happen. Anything beyond that (multiverses and such) is pure speculation. It is a more reasonable conclusion that the universe is fine tuned by an intelligence than that this happened just by chance (possibly odds of one in infinity). If we get new information it might change our conclusions.

 

[Bunyip]

We can only draw conclusions from what we currently know (even if those conclusions prove ultimately wrong). What we know now is that as far as this universe is concerned the 20 some odd constants are just the right values to allow this current universe to exist as it does and support at least one planet with life and that if they were even slightly different at extremely small scales that would not happen. Anything beyond that (multiverses and such) is pure speculation. It is a more reasonable conclusion that the universe is fine tuned by an intelligence than that this happened just by chance (possibly odds of one in infinity). If we get new information it might change our conclusions.

Let me put the same rationale in a different context ok?

What do you think the probability is that whales live in the oceans instead of in space?
Clearly whales can not survive in space, but need an ocean of salt water. Salt water oceans are an almost infinitely small proportion of the universe - and yet whales just happen to be found in them, and not in space - what is the probability there?

Or another example;

Right now I am wearing a blue singlet. There are an infinite range of different colours, styles and forms of clothing. So the probability that I am wearing a blue singlet right now is pretty much zero right? And yet I am.

 

[nazz]

I know it isn't. Also, were it accurate, than we wouldn't find physicists exploring untestable mathematical cosmological models based on physics that we don't know exists (supersymmetry, for example) in which fine-tuning is taken care of using supersymmetry and the mathematics of strings and branes rather than just noting that there are equivalent values for the constants we find that would give us a similarly hospitable universe (and do so without appealing to theoretical models of physics like M-theory or multiverse cosmology).

OK, thanks

 

[nazz]

Let me put the same rationale in a different context ok?

What do you think the probability is that whales live in the oceans instead of in space?
Clearly whales can not survive in space, but need an ocean of salt water. Salt water oceans are an almost infinitely small proportion of the universe - and yet whales just happen to be found in them, and not in space - what is the probability there?

I really don't see how that relates to what I said. Remember we are talking about the existence of just ONE universe--this one we know of. We don't currently know if there is any other out there. So the analogy then would be that there is only the ocean in which whales can live. Yet we know that there are so many other possibilities besides the existence of a salt water ocean as an environment. So why does it exist and not something else?

 

[nazz]

But we have organisms that live in acid, in volcanic vents, in boiling water, in radioactive waste and so on. But yes, we come back to the reliance on assumptions about God's intention, his agenda, his capabilities and so on. But have yet to even establish his existence. It is rather like speculating on what colour Gandalf's underpants are. We do not know there is a real Gandalf, let alone that he wears jocks.

Can we not use the word "God" in this discussion? The reason I request this is because if there is a creator of this universe I would view him as an inferior, imperfect being who himself the creation of a higher being. All I am saying is that appears from what we know that something intelligent is responsible for this universe. The idea that is less likely than mere random chance is just not believable to me.

 

[nazz]

LegionOnamaMoi, let's take a step backward. I previously stated:

We are not talking about picking one card from 52 but one card in a deck of an infinite number of cards. You could keep picking from that infinite deck for all eternity and never pick the ace of spades.

Just on its own, outside of the larger discussion, would you say that is a logical statement?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

None of those infer a God, or a challenge to atheism.

Physics literature generally discusses physics, and even though the same authors might write elsewhere of God, metaphysics, and/or the implications of fine-tuning, in physics literature we not only find it to be replete with discussions of fine-tuning, but also that e.g.,
1) "the primary motivation for the inflationary paradigm was to solve the naturalness problems that arose because the standard cosmology appeared to require a finely tuned initial state". Now, what's wrong with a finely-tuned state? Why would an entire class of cosmological models be proposed to "solve" this problem?
2) In addition to motivating alternative models, physicists refer to "[t]he “fine-tuning” problem". How is it a problem? It's a problem because we can't explain why such fine-tuning exists, and it shouldn't. Why shouldn't it? Well, because it suggests a designer, or that we just happened to find constants within astronomically improbable ranges that happened to be perfect for us.

It's only a problem if it is significant and something we wouldn't expect.

Discussing the universal constants is of course a scientific persuit

"Responses to fine-tuning like chance, God, multiverse, a fundamental theory, Cosmological Natural Selection (CNS), Cosmological Artificial Selection (CAS) or a combination of them might well be correct."
Vidal, C. (2012). Fine-tuning, quantum mechanics and cosmological artificial selection. Foundations of Science, 17(1), 29-38.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Just on its own, outside of the larger discussion, would you say that is a logical statement?

Yes. And also a true statement (just to be clear).

 

[Bunyip]

Can we not use the word "God" in this discussion? The reason I request this is because if there is a creator of this universe I would view him as an inferior, imperfect being who himself the creation of a higher being. All I am saying is that appears from what we know that something intelligent is responsible for this universe. The idea that is less likely than mere random chance is just not believable to me.

Well what makes you think an intelligence is involved? Where could such an intelligence come from? And what makes you think that an intelligence existing before the universe is more or less likely than any other possibility? How could you calculate the relative probability of a magical being existing before existence compared to any other explanation?

 

[lovemuffin]

We are not talking about picking one card from 52 but one card in a deck of an infinite number of cards. You could keep picking from that infinite deck for all eternity and never pick the ace of spades.

Just on its own, outside of the larger discussion, would you say that is a logical statement?

There's a failure of language and intuition to be perfectly analogous to the way math works. Legion mentioned the idea of probability distributions on the range [0, 1] and the fact that even though the "picking" analogy suggests the probability 0 for any exact number being chosen at random, that's a little bit misleading as to the way it works.

"Intuitively, a continuous random variable is the one which can take a continuous range of values—as opposed to a discrete distribution, where the set of possible values for the random variable is at most countable. While for a discrete distribution an event with probability zero is impossible (e.g., rolling 31⁄2 on a standard die is impossible, and has probability zero), this is not so in the case of a continuous random variable. For example, if one measures the width of an oak leaf, the result of 3½ cm is possible; however, it has probability zero because uncountably many other potential values exist even between 3 cm and 4 cm. Each of these individual outcomes has probability zero, yet the probability that the outcome will fall into the interval (3 cm, 4 cm) is nonzero. This apparent paradox is resolved by the fact that the probability that X attains some value within an infinite set, such as an interval, cannot be found by naively adding the probabilities for individual values. Formally, each value has an infinitesimally small probability, which statistically is equivalent to zero."

-- Probability distribution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

 

[Bunyip]

Physics literature generally discusses physics, and even though the same authors might write elsewhere of God, metaphysics, and/or the implications of fine-tuning, in physics literature we not only find it to be replete with discussions of fine-tuning, but also that e.g.,
1) "the primary motivation for the inflationary paradigm was to solve the naturalness problems that arose because the standard cosmology appeared to require a finely tuned initial state". Now, what's wrong with a finely-tuned state? Why would an entire class of cosmological models be proposed to "solve" this problem?
2) In addition to motivating alternative models, physicists refer to "[t]he “fine-tuning” problem". How is it a problem? It's a problem because we can't explain why such fine-tuning exists, and it shouldn't. Why shouldn't it? Well, because it suggests a designer, or that we just happened to find constants within astronomically improbable ranges that happened to be perfect for us.

It's only a problem if it is significant and something we wouldn't expect.

Correct, that was my point.

"Responses to fine-tuning like chance, God, multiverse, a fundamental theory, Cosmological Natural Selection (CNS), Cosmological Artificial Selection (CAS) or a combination of them might well be correct."
Vidal, C. (2012). Fine-tuning, quantum mechanics and cosmological artificial selection. Foundations of Science, 17(1), 29-38.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well what makes you think an intelligence is involved? Where could such an intelligence come from? And what makes you think that an intelligence existing before the universe is more or less likely than any other possibility? How could you calculate the relative probability of a magical being existing before existence compared to any other explanation?

"It seems that the physical laws and constants of our universe are very finely tuned to support life. How can this be accounted for? The two most popular explanations have been (a) the theistic prinicple (God created the universe) and (b) the anthropic principle"
Byl, J. (1996). On the natural selection of universes. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 37, 369.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Correct, that was my point.

I like how neatly you avoided the quotation whilst contradicting it, what I said, what the references I gave said. So let's try that again, and I'll even through in the other quotation just in case you missed it:

"Responses to fine-tuning like chance, God, multiverse, a fundamental theory, Cosmological Natural Selection (CNS), Cosmological Artificial Selection (CAS) or a combination of them might well be correct."
Vidal, C. (2012). Fine-tuning, quantum mechanics and cosmological artificial selection. Foundations of Science, 17(1), 29-38.

"It seems that the physical laws and constants of our universe are very finely tuned to support life. How can this be accounted for? The two most popular explanations have been (a) the theistic prinicple (God created the universe) and (b) the anthropic principle"
Byl, J. (1996). On the natural selection of universes. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 37, 369.

Now you have peer-reviewed physics literature that specify one solution to the "fine-tuning" problem is god. How many more would you like?

 

[nazz]

Yes. And also a true statement (just to be clear).

OK, great. Now next would you agree that the possible number of values of the constants is an infinite number?

 

[nazz]

Physics literature generally discusses physics, and even though the same authors might write elsewhere of God, metaphysics, and/or the implications of fine-tuning, in physics literature we not only find it to be replete with discussions of fine-tuning, but also that e.g.,
1) "the primary motivation for the inflationary paradigm was to solve the naturalness problems that arose because the standard cosmology appeared to require a finely tuned initial state". Now, what's wrong with a finely-tuned state? Why would an entire class of cosmological models be proposed to "solve" this problem?
2) In addition to motivating alternative models, physicists refer to "[t]he “fine-tuning” problem". How is it a problem? It's a problem because we can't explain why such fine-tuning exists, and it shouldn't. Why shouldn't it? Well, because it suggests a designer, or that we just happened to find constants within astronomically improbable ranges that happened to be perfect for us.

It's only a problem if it is significant and something we wouldn't expect.

Yes, I noticed how both Susskind and Shermer nervously chuckled over the answer "God". What is wrong with that being an explanation?

 

[Bunyip]

I like how neatly you avoided the quotation whilst contradicting it, what I said, what the references I gave said. So let's try that again, and I'll even through in the other quotation just in case you missed it:

"Responses to fine-tuning like chance, God, multiverse, a fundamental theory, Cosmological Natural Selection (CNS), Cosmological Artificial Selection (CAS) or a combination of them might well be correct."
Vidal, C. (2012). Fine-tuning, quantum mechanics and cosmological artificial selection. Foundations of Science, 17(1), 29-38.

"It seems that the physical laws and constants of our universe are very finely tuned to support life. How can this be accounted for? The two most popular explanations have been (a) the theistic prinicple (God created the universe) and (b) the anthropic principle"
Byl, J. (1996). On the natural selection of universes. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 37, 369.

Now you have peer-reviewed physics literature that specify one solution to the "fine-tuning" problem is god. How many more would you like?

Just one in which there is evidence for that probability. One that demonstrates YHWH for example is the solution. Just saying that 'god' is a possible solution is meaningless. Which God? And how do you know such a being exists to attribute anything to?

In the examples you gave, they just mention God as a possible solution - they are not demonstrating or even arguing for it.