Is the cosmos "fine-tuned"?

[lovemuffin]

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

I think you mean "Demiurge" amirite

 

[Bunyip]

"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.

Sure. 'GOD DUN IT!" has always been a popular claim. It is hardly a scientific explanation though - which is what you need an example of.

 

[nazz]

Well what makes you think an intelligence is involved?

Because choosing the only one out of an infinite number of options that leads to a universe that can support life would require intelligence. And adding to that the idea that some of this life developed intelligence itself.

Where could such an intelligence come from?

Well who knows? I've suggested it came from an even higher intelligence.

And what makes you think that an intelligence existing before the universe is more or less likely than any other possibility?

Haven't I already explained that?

How could you calculate the relative probability of a magical being existing before existence compared to any other explanation?

WHAT other explanation? Random chance?

 

[Bunyip]

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?

Well think of yourself right now. What is the probability that you just happen to be on a planet where you can survive? I would say that the probability is one - certain. The probability that things are the way they are is one.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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?

So goal-post moving it is. Got it. In any event, as you bring nothing to the discussion and this:

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.

...turns out to be false even in the narrow interpretation where we aren't just talking about the fine-tuning problem but specifically with reference to God as a solution, you've exhausted any possible contribution you could have provided with your article, as apparently your access to "research from formal peer-review" is too limited for you to even demonstrate a quote-mined understanding of this topic.

 

[nazz]

Well think of yourself right now. What is the probability that you just happen to be on a planet where you can survive? I would say that the probability is one - certain. The probability that things are the way they are is one.

OK, you have officially lost me. WHAT exactly is determining the way things are?

 

[Bunyip]

Because choosing the only one out of an infinite number of options that leads to a universe that can support life would require intelligence. And adding to that the idea that some of this life developed intelligence itself.

No, not at all. There could be an infinite number of universes and of course we must live in one that can be lived in. The probability that we live in a universe in which life is possible is one.

Well who knows? I've suggested it came from an even higher intelligence.

So an infinite regress? Well then that is hardly a solution.

Haven't I already explained that?

No you haven't.

WHAT other explanation? Random chance?

I don't know. Chance does seem far more plausible than an infinite regression of increasingly magical beings. Gosh, pretty much anything would be more plausible.

 

[Bunyip]

OK, you have officially lost me. WHAT exactly is determining the way things are?

Nothing. Things are the way that they are. The probability of the universes constants being what they are is one -certain.

 

[Bunyip]

So goal-post moving it is. Got it. In any event, as you bring nothing to the discussion and this:

...turns out to be false even in the narrow interpretation where we aren't just talking about the fine-tuning problem but specifically with reference to God as a solution, you've exhausted any possible contribution you could have provided with your article, as apparently your access to "research from formal peer-review" is too limited for you to even demonstrate a quote-mined understanding of this topic.

No idea what your gripe is there I'm afraid.
Referencing god as a solution is meaningless, there needs to be a demonstration that such a being exists before attributing anything to it has any merit. Referencing god as a possible solution in a paper is a long way from scientific evidence for a god.

 

[nazz]

No, not at all. There could be an infinite number of universes and of course we must live in one that can be lived in.

I've already addressed why that does nothing to help solve the problem.

The probability that we live in a universe in which life is possible is one.

No, it isn't.

So an infinite regress? Well then that is hardly a solution. No you haven't. I don't know. Chance does seem far more plausible than an infinite regression of increasingly magical beings. Gosh, pretty much anything would be more plausible.

No, I am not arguing infinite regress.

 

[nazz]

Nothing. Things are the way that they are. The probability of the universes constants being what they are is one -certain.

Actually many things are the way they are because of a certain determining factor. Like the fine tuning of the constants for one.

 

[Bunyip]

I've already addressed why that does nothing to help solve the problem.

And how exactly does positing an unspecified magical being solve anything?

No, it isn't.

Of course it is. The probability that a whale would be found in an ocean, rather than a rain forest is also one. The probability that I just happen to be wearing blue shorts right now is one.

No, I am not arguing infinite regress.

My apologies. So the creator who created the creator was the first huh? So how did whatever created the creator come to be?

 

[Bunyip]

Actually many things are the way they are because of a certain determining factor. Like the fine tuning of the constants for one.

I just threw a stick and it landed exactly 35 millimetres away from an old Jarrah leaf on my drive way. The surface area of the earth is about 510 million square kilometres, there are 23,000 species of tree on earth. So what are the odds? Am I so incredibly lucky that a supernatural explanation MUST be the only solution? Or is it just that the stick had to land somewhere and the probability is one?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No, it isn't.

As phrased, it is. The probability that we live in a universe we live in (and thus necessarily, a universe with life) is 1. The probability that the universe would have been the one we live in is unknown and probably a meaningless question (certainly if we restrict ourselves to classical probability theory). However, the likelihood that a universe would have the properties necessary for life, and still more for human life or complex Earth-like life, is another matter entirely. It is incredibly, astronomically unlikely given what we know from physics and cosmology. Hence the word "problem" used in physics literature with reference to fine-tuning. While we can explain the appearance of complex structures, we can explain plausible ways in which life may have originated, we have explained an enormous amount when it comes to how live evolved, and so forth, we have nothing in any theory/model in physics that explains why the fundamental constants/constituents of the universe are so finely-tuned such that the result was (and could be) life. From what we know of the nature of the universe/cosmos, we have no reason for supposing that the values of such constants/parameters shouldn't each be randomly distributed (i.e., capable of having a random value out of an uncountably infinite set), yet we find the opposite: incredibly precise values that are "tuned" just so such that life is possible.

 

[Bunyip]

As phrased, it is. The probability that we live in a universe we live in (and thus necessarily, a universe with life) is 1. The probability that the universe would have been the one we live in is unknown and probably a meaningless question (certainly if we restrict ourselves to classical probability theory). However, the likelihood that a universe would have the properties necessary for life, and still more for human life or complex Earth-like life, is another matter entirely. It is incredibly, astronomically unlikely given what we know from physics and cosmology. Hence the word "problem" used in physics literature with reference to fine-tuning. While we can explain the appearance of complex structures, we can explain plausible ways in which life may have originated, we have explained an enormous amount when it comes to how live evolved, and so forth, we have nothing in any theory/model in physics that explains why the fundamental constants/constituents of the universe are so finely-tuned such that the result was (and could be) life. From what we know of the nature of the universe/cosmos, we have no reason for supposing that the values of such constants/parameters shouldn't each be randomly distributed (i.e., capable of having a random value out of an uncountably infinite set), yet we find the opposite: incredibly precise values that are "tuned" just so such that life is possible.

Just as around a whale we find salt water and not space. As unlikely as it is to find salt water in this universe,- whales just happen to be in it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Referencing god as a solution is meaningless, there needs to be a demonstration that such a being exists before attributing anything to it has any merit.

An interesting counter-example comes from the same standard model: the Higgs Boson. It was predicted based mostly on the same kind of evidence we have here, and then (probably) found. However, we've been testing what we found for ~2 years now because we predicted it to solve a "problem", but having found it we have had to test extensively to determine its properties as we didn't know (and still don't) what these are and how they fit into the model that predicted the particle in the first place.

What we call the big bang is simply the name given to a solution. Actually, it's the name given to a problem, but we've become increasingly comfortable with it as evidence continues to support it indirectly. There are various multiverse theories, none of which are testable let alone require a demonstration and yet we find references to them across the literature from various fields in physics. In fact, in general predictions based upon problems in models or mathematics in general have increasingly tended to dominate findings in the physical sciences. Therefore, there is no a priori need to demonstrate anything about a Creator/Designer/"Fine-Tuner" as an explanation, particularly given the increasing abandonment within physics of the goal for a model that explains everything in terms of the simplest and most fundamental parts & forces. The anthropic principle, for example, uses the fact that we exist as a fundamental explanatory basis. The apparent need for a "Fine-Tuner" was enough to motivate an entire class of cosmological models.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Just as around a whale we find salt water and not space.

What we don't find is that if the salinity of the water changes by 10^120, all life in the ocean will die.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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

Yes.

 

[Bunyip]

An interesting counter-example comes from the same standard model: the Higgs Boson. It was predicted based mostly on the same kind of evidence we have here, and then (probably) found. However, we've been testing what we found for ~2 years now because we predicted it to solve a "problem", but having found it we have had to test extensively to determine its properties as we didn't know (and still don't) what these are and how they fit into the model that predicted the particle in the first place.

Yes, I agree. And that is a fantastic example - it was even referred to as the 'God particle'. But of course it is now the Higgs Boson.

What we call the big bang is simply the name given to a solution. Actually, it's the name given to a problem, but we've become increasingly comfortable with it as evidence continues to support it indirectly. There are various multiverse theories, none of which are testable let alone require a demonstration and yet we find references to them across the literature from various fields in physics. In fact, in general predictions based upon problems in models or mathematics in general have increasingly tended to dominate findings in the physical sciences. Therefore, there is no a priori need to demonstrate anything about a Creator/Designer/"Fine-Tuner" as an explanation, particularly given the increasing abandonment within physics of the goal for a model that explains everything in terms of the simplest and most fundamental parts & forces. The anthropic principle, for example, uses the fact that we exist as a fundamental explanatory basis. The apparent need for a "Fine-Tuner" was enough to motivate an entire class of cosmological models.

Sure, just as the apparent design of animals was once attributed to a god, or the roll of a thunderstorm. So many things we once attributed to the gods motivated intelligent men and women to study them further. Chimpanzees have been known to shake their fists at thunder storms, perhaps a million years from now the brightest amongst them will uncover the truth - just as we did.

 

[Bunyip]

What we don't find is that if the salinity of the water changes by 10^120, all life in the ocean will die.

And yet it is amazingly exactly the right salinity for whales! Incredible! What are the odds?