fine tuning or just chance?

[jonnobody]

is the fine-tuned universe an accepted scientific fact (or theory) or is it just an anthropological centred way of explaining things ?

[StringJunky]

It just says that the room for variation in certain physical constants is very narrow if things are to develop the way they did. On a philosophical viewpoint some might say that says the universe is teleologically-driven but I'm reminded of the 'puddle theory' by Douglas Adams.

Quote

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!” This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this World was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

You might find this Wiki useful for exploring the different ideas from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Edited July 2, 2018 by StringJunky

[MigL]

Or to put it another way...

If it wasn't, who'd be there to notice.

[Strange]

54 minutes ago, jonnobody said:

is the fine-tuned universe an accepted scientific fact

No. It is probably just an indication that our theories are incomplete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuning

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

No. It is probably just an indication that our theories are incomplete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuning

I find this comment from physicist quite illuminating, from my link:

Quote

If the universe was designed for life, it must be said that it is a shockingly inefficient design. There are vast reaches of the universe in which life as we know it is clearly impossible: gravitational forces would be crushing, or radiation levels are too high for complex molecules to exist, or temperatures would make the formation of stable chemical bonds impossible... Fine-tuned for life? It would make more sense to ask why God designed a universe so inhospitable to life. 

 

[Carrock]

20 hours ago, StringJunky said:

If the universe was designed for life, it must be said that it is a shockingly inefficient design. There are vast reaches of the universe in which life as we know it is clearly impossible: gravitational forces would be crushing, or radiation levels are too high for complex molecules to exist, or temperatures would make the formation of stable chemical bonds impossible... Fine-tuned for life? It would make more sense to ask why God designed a universe so inhospitable to life.

"Shockingly inefficient design?" Only if you believe in a rather incompetent intelligent designer.

I'll assume a weak anthropic principle i.e. that our universe is constrained by the necessity of having at least one instance of intelligent life capable of wondering if its universe is constrained by an anthropic principle.

There's no obvious size or practical time constraint imposed by physics, and if the only 'necessity' is having at least one instance of intelligent life, then the laws are only constrained to allow a minimally intelligent-life-tolerant universe. Earth may have been extraordinarily lucky to have remained intelligent life tolerant for so long; the dinosaurs were around for 100 million years without evolving human equivalent abstraction and technology so that may also be extremely rare.

I doubt any anthropic principle will ever become a truly falsifiable theory, but the continuing failure of SETI to find evidence of extraterrestrial life despite improving technology does fit with the idea, dating back to Boltzmann, that the universe is minimally intelligent life tolerant.

 

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, Carrock said:

"Shockingly inefficient design?" Only if you believe in a rather incompetent intelligent designer.

I'll assume a weak anthropic principle i.e. that our universe is constrained by the necessity of having at least one instance of intelligent life capable of wondering if its universe is constrained by an anthropic principle.

There's no obvious size or practical time constraint imposed by physics, and if the only 'necessity' is having at least one instance of intelligent life, then the laws are only constrained to allow a minimally intelligent-life-tolerant universe. Earth may have been extraordinarily lucky to have remained intelligent life tolerant for so long; the dinosaurs were around for 100 million years without evolving human equivalent abstraction and technology so that may also be extremely rare.

I doubt any anthropic principle will ever become a truly falsifiable theory, but the continuing failure of SETI to find evidence of extraterrestrial life despite improving technology does fit with the idea, dating back to Boltzmann, that the universe is minimally intelligent life tolerant.

 

I don't think what you've written is at odds with what I've posted, unless you've interpreted it differently in some way.

[mistermack]

I'm often coming across this fine tuning argument, and a surprising number of people that I expect to be critical a far more tolerant of it than I expected. I really can't see why they give it even token respect. Maybe I'm missing something, so here's what I think.

The argument is that the odds against the universe being the way it is are huge. So lets have a look at long-odds occurrences. 

Imagine meeting a winner of the world's biggest lottery. He's won 200 million dollars, for which they probably sold five hundred million tickets. What would you think, if he claimed that the lottery was fine-tuned so that he would win? He has the evidence, he can show you his winnings. But everyone knows that SOMEONE has to win it. How much would you pay him for his next ticket? 

Really, his sample of one is worthless. It's highly likely that he won by chance, just as all the other lottery winners won by chance. So really, a sample of one tells you nothing about fine tuning. If he won the lottery again, from just one ticket, then everyone would sit up and take notice. And if he said again that the lottery was fine-tuned for him to win,, people would take him very seriously indeed. So when it comes to claiming fine-tuning, a sample of one is worthless, as sample of two is a million times more persuasive, and a sample of three is pretty conclusive.

But with the Universe that we inhabit, we only have a sample of one. Maybe there were millions and billions of ways that they universe could have turned out, with just the tiniest differences in the fundamental constants of space time. But just like the lottery, it had to end up as ONE of those possibilities. And it did. It ended up as what we see. Maybe it could have taken any one of a billion forms. It just so happened to take this one. That's all.

[Carrock]

 

15 hours ago, mistermack said:

I'm often coming across this fine tuning argument, and a surprising number of people that I expect to be critical a far more tolerant of it than I expected........

I'm guessing you're responding mainly to me.

15 hours ago, mistermack said:

The argument is that the odds against the universe being the way it is are huge.

No. I don't know anyone who claims there is any possibility the universe is different from what it is.

But given my limited knowledge, the odds against even the earth being the way I expect it to be next week are huge....

 

 

15 hours ago, mistermack said:

Really, his sample of one is worthless. It's highly likely that he won by chance, just as all the other lottery winners won by chance. So really, a sample of one tells you nothing about fine tuning. If he won the lottery again, from just one ticket, then everyone would sit up and take notice. And if he said again that the lottery was fine-tuned for him to win,, people would take him very seriously indeed. So when it comes to claiming fine-tuning, a sample of one is worthless, as sample of two is a million times more persuasive, and a sample of three is pretty conclusive.

A sample of one where one person has won the lottery once (or twice) tells you nothing about fine tuning. IIRC there have been a few people who've won a major lottery in successive weeks. Why are these people special when single winners are not?

Actually the chance of a single or double winner winning the lottery again, from just one ticket, is exactly the same as for someone who's never won. (In the real world, the chance of an innocent three times winner being convicted of fraud is significant.)

In other words, tossing a fair coin and getting five heads in a row does not change the odds (50%) of getting a head on the next toss. Bayesian probability is calculated on current knowledge. i.e. here the probability of having five heads in a row is 100%; a sixth head is 50% not 1.5625%.

 

As there is not perfect knowledge of the universe, it is possible and useful to predict aspects which have not yet been observed.

 

For example:

The original classical fine tuned universe theory (by Boltmann's assistant) postulated that a random low entropy fluctuation in a heat dead universe created the solar system and everything needed for human observers to evolve. It was noted, in a Bayesian way, that the probability of low entropy in so far unobserved parts of the universe must be less than one in a googolplex i.e. the universe must be minimally life friendly.. The discovery of low entropy in previously unobserved parts of the universe showed that fine tuning theories can be falsifiable.

 

Various theories, such as eternal inflation, postulate the creation of an unlimited number of universes with different laws. It seems to me that the existence of observers in such theories is only really possible in intelligent life tolerant universes with tight parameters, much as human beings pretty much require a life tolerant part of earth, even though it's supposedly not impossible for them to exist briefly as Boltzmann brains.

 

On 03/07/2018 at 7:43 PM, Carrock said:

I doubt any anthropic principle will ever become a truly falsifiable theory, but the continuing failure of SETI to find evidence of extraterrestrial life despite improving technology does fit with the idea, dating back to Boltzmann, that the universe is minimally intelligent life tolerant.

A key aspect of many/most anthropic theories is the prediction that the (unobserved) universe will be found to be minimally tolerant of life with human equivalent abstraction since even finer tuning is required for extra 'unnecessary' life friendliness. Note this may be one observable universe of a possible multiverse; already known facts are of limited or no value (Beyes) as in the disproof of Boltmann's assistant's theory.

It may be be most other intelligent life communicates with yobba rays or whatever, but 'fine tuning' suggests intelligent life is so rare we may never find any despite improving search techniques.

 

Even if this is the one and only universe, it is still worth producing theories which predict things which may exist but have not yet been observed.

[mistermack]

20 hours ago, Carrock said:

I'm guessing you're responding mainly to me.

No, I would have quoted your words. I was really referring to the numerous youtube recordings of debates, in which otherwise sceptical people take the fine tuning argument semi-seriously. 

I don't personally, I think it has the obvious flaws that I pointed out. The main thrust of the fine-tuning argument for a creator is that very tiny differences in the fundamental constants would have resulted in a universe with no life. Or in other words, that the odds against life appearing in a suitable universe are gigantic, so it must have been designed that way. It really is an argument about odds, even if you don't see it that way. The people who are pushing it as an argument for design ARE seeing it that way.

And it really is like the lottery winner example. They are saying, "here we are, in a universe that is SO unlikely, that someone must have made it happen". It's just like a lottery winner claiming that someone must have made it happen.

To me, it's just as silly an argument. Someone HAD to get the winning lottery ticket, and likewise, the universe HAD to turn out in some form or other. The lottery winner can imagine that it was all done for his benefit, but It's a stupid idea. Likewise, claiming that the Universe was done for our benefit is just as stupid.

[Carrock]

7 hours ago, mistermack said:

the odds against life appearing in a suitable universe are gigantic, so it must have been designed that way

Reference?

7 hours ago, mistermack said:

 

I don't personally, I think it has the obvious flaws that I pointed out. The main thrust of the fine-tuning argument for a creator is that very tiny differences in the fundamental constants would have resulted in a universe with no life. Or in other words, that the odds against life appearing in a suitable universe are gigantic, so it must have been designed that way. It really is an argument about odds, even if you don't see it that way. The people who are pushing it as an argument for design ARE seeing it that way.

And it really is like the lottery winner example. They are saying, "here we are, in a universe that is SO unlikely, that someone must have made it happen". It's just like a lottery winner claiming that someone must have made it happen.

To me, it's just as silly an argument. Someone HAD to get the winning lottery ticket, and likewise, the universe HAD to turn out in some form or other. The lottery winner can imagine that it was all done for his benefit, but It's a stupid idea. Likewise, claiming that the Universe was done for our benefit is just as stupid.

Did you actually read my post?

 

I, and perhaps you, stated the probability of the universe being as it is to be unity; but you say I am wrong because I believe the universe is almost certainly different from what it is(!)

 

On 05/08/2018 at 5:07 PM, Carrock said:

The original classical fine tuned universe theory (by Boltmann's assistant) postulated that a random low entropy fluctuation in a heat dead universe created the solar system and everything needed for human observers to evolve.

Where is an intelligent designer required in this (observationally refuted) universe or any of its more sophisticated successors? BTW I should clarify that Boltmann's assistant's universe and AFIK all similar universes are not fine tuned; they do not require an intelligent designer.

I used the human concept of 'fine tuning' which was misleading; the universe is no more 'fine tuned' than a waterfall is 'fine tuned' to be beautiful.

 

Claiming that the universe we exist in (not multiverse in many theories) necessitates the existence of an intelligent designer is just a creationist fantasy.

 

No mention by you of eternal inflation Bayesian probability etc.

Edited August 6, 2018 by Carrock
clarification

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, Carrock said:

Reference?

I wasn't making that claim. I was referring to others, who regularly make it in online debates. If you're not aware of that claim being made by creationists, then this thread isn't going to mean much to you.