Why is a fine-tuned universe a problem?

[34student]

I don't understand in what sense there is an issue here.

 

[erik]

It is too anthropocentric. The idea behind a fine-tuned universe is that a superior entity, like a God, created the universe with the exact parameters that would lead to the existence of life (and by extension mankind). It is derived from philosophers like Leibniz who believed that God created the best of all possible worlds.

Just like the multiverse theories, it is nonscientific because it can not be refuted.

A serious scientist knows that when we measure a constant (such as the Newtonian constant of gravitation) then there is no reason to believe its value could have been different, and there is no reason to believe that there are other universes that have a different value for that constant. All that rubbish is nonscientific. There is only one value, the one we measure, period.

Edited February 11, 2022 by erik

[Genady]

A fine-tuned universe is not a problem, but an observation that the universe is very sensitive to a couple dozens of numbers that we put into our fundamental theories "by hand". These numbers are obtained experimentally or observationally. Relatively small changes in their values would lead to big changes in the observable universe.

Edited February 11, 2022 by Genady

[Genady]

6 hours ago, erik said:

... such as the Newtonian constant of gravitation ...

The Newton constant of gravitation equals exactly 1 in Planck units, so it is not one of the numbers mentioned above.

6 hours ago, erik said:

A serious scientist knows that when we measure a constant (such as the Newtonian constant of gravitation) then there is no reason to believe its value could have been different, and there is no reason to believe that there are other universes that have a different value for that constant.

Scientists such as Alan Guth and Leonard Susskind are "serious scientists" in my book. Evidently, they don't know what you say here.

6 hours ago, erik said:

There is only one value, the one we measure, period.

How do you know this?

7 hours ago, erik said:

Just like the multiverse theories, it is nonscientific because it can not be refuted.

1. The existence or not existence of other universes does not depend on whether you call it scientific or nonscientific.

2. Anyway, how do you know that it cannot be refuted?

[TheVat]

If you 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!'

-- Doug Adams

 

[34student]

9 hours ago, erik said:

It is too anthropocentric.

I meant: why is it even considered by scientists as an issue.  I am where you are in that it is too anthropocentric like you say.  But it seems very hard to know their side of the argument.  That is what I want to know.

4 hours ago, Genady said:

A fine-tuned universe is not a problem, but an observation that the universe is very sensitive to a couple dozens of numbers that we put into our fundamental theories "by hand". These numbers are obtained experimentally or observationally. Relatively small changes in their values would lead to big changes in the observable universe.

There are many very smart scientists that are submerged in this topic and they believe that there is a problem/issue that needs to be solved.  I wish I knew what their issue is with a universe that seems to be fine-tuned for life.

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

If you 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!'

-- Doug Adams

 

Yeah this is where I am at with all of this in that it is just a type of universe that just so happens to have life in it, so what.  But there seems to be another side of this view; I hope to learn what it is.

Edited February 11, 2022 by 34student

[Genady]

51 minutes ago, 34student said:

There are many very smart scientists that are submerged in this topic and they believe that there is a problem/issue that needs to be solved.

Who are they? The only seriously considered related issue that I know of is the value of cosmological constant / vacuum energy density. And this is not because its fitness for life. Rather, the other way around:

if we assume that this number can be different and that it actually is different in different "pocket universes", then the specific value that we observe is what it is simply because most other values don't allow for existence of an observer in those universes.

[34student]

13 minutes ago, Genady said:

Who are they? The only seriously considered related issue that I know of is the value of cosmological constant / vacuum energy density. And this is not because its fitness for life. Rather, the other way around:

if we assume that this number can be different and that it actually is different in different "pocket universes", then the specific value that we observe is what it is simply because most other values don't allow for existence of an observer in those universes.

Here is a quote from Robert Lawrence Kuhn (a neuroscientist himself) who investigates mysteries in science, "How can so many numbers of nature, the constants and relationships of physics, be so spot-on perfect for humans to exist? Beware: there is more than one answer lurking here. Featuring interviews with John Leslie, Steven Weinberg, David Gross, John Polkinghorne, Robin Collins, and Paul Davies.".

Here is the video link if you are interested, 

 

[Genady]

1 minute ago, 34student said:

Here is a quote from Robert Lawrence Kuhn (a neuroscientist himself) who investigates mysteries in science, "How can so many numbers of nature, the constants and relationships of physics, be so spot-on perfect for humans to exist? Beware: there is more than one answer lurking here. Featuring interviews with John Leslie, Steven Weinberg, David Gross, John Polkinghorne, Robin Collins, and Paul Davies.".

I've seen him interviewing Alan Guth. Guth said about the same that I've described regarding the vacuum energy density. Anyway, being interviewed doesn't mean that they "are submerged in this topic and they believe that there is a problem/issue that needs to be solved." Guth is not and does not. I don't know who is / does.

Here it is: Alan Guth - What Does A Fine-Tuned Universe Mean? - YouTube

 

[erik]

4 hours ago, Genady said:

The Newton constant of gravitation equals exactly 1 in Planck units, so it is not one of the numbers mentioned above.

Scientists such as Alan Guth and Leonard Susskind are "serious scientists" in my book. Evidently, they don't know what you say here.

How do you know this?

1. The existence or not existence of other universes does not depend on whether you call it scientific or nonscientific.

2. Anyway, how do you know that it cannot be refuted?

Here's another way to put it. If you make a claim and can not provide a way to test whether it's real or not, then it is nonscientific.

Claiming the constants could be different is a claim made without any proof, it is a claim that does not make any prediction, it is a claim that can not be tested in any way. It is not part of science, period.

As for Leonard Susskind, please don't even get me started.

 

2 hours ago, 34student said:

I meant: why is it even considered by scientists as an issue.  I am where you are in that it is too anthropocentric like you say.  But it seems very hard to know their side of the argument.  That is what I want to know.

It is a problem for at least two reasons. First it is nonscientific as I posted above. When a claim is made without any way to test whether it's real or not, it simply isn't part of science. Secondly, an important trait of the scientific method is to try to be as objective as possible. Anthropocentrism is a bias, and as such it is a problem.

To clarify the above point about anthropocentrism being a bias, we humans instinctively believe that we are the center of the universe because it's a trait acquired through natural selection which has helped us survive. One who naturally believes he is the center of the universe is more likely to survive than one who believes he is irrelevant in the universe. Being advantageous, that trait did spread among "conscious" living beings. However that natural bias has hindered scientific progress, so we had to learn to get past it, in order to benefit from scientific progress.

Edited February 11, 2022 by erik

[Genady]

10 minutes ago, erik said:

... we humans instinctively believe that we are the center of the universe because it's a trait acquired through natural selection which has helped us survive.

How do you test this hypothesis?

14 minutes ago, erik said:

One who naturally believes he is the center of the universe is more likely to survive than one who believes he is irrelevant in the universe.

How do you test this hypothesis?

15 minutes ago, erik said:

Being advantageous, that trait did spread among "conscious" living beings.

How do you test this hypothesis?

[beecee]

2 hours ago, 34student said:

, "How can so many numbers of nature, the constants and relationships of physics, be so spot-on perfect for humans to exist?

If it wasn't that way, we wouldn't be here contemplating it, or anything else. Anthropic Principle.

Makes sense to me.

14 hours ago, 34student said:

I don't understand in what sense there is an issue here.

Agreed.

[34student]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

I've seen him interviewing Alan Guth. Guth said about the same that I've described regarding the vacuum energy density. Anyway, being interviewed doesn't mean that they "are submerged in this topic and they believe that there is a problem/issue that needs to be solved." Guth is not and does not. I don't know who is / does.

Here it is: Alan Guth - What Does A Fine-Tuned Universe Mean? - YouTube

 

In the video you posted, right off the bat Robert presents Alan with 3 explanations about how the universe is so fine-tuned and Alan agrees with him.  The 3 choices are God, multiverse and the universe is not so fine-tuned.  An option that makes sense to me is that the universe we have just so happen to have life in it.  But clearly this is not a good option.  So, I know I am missing something, something that must be so obvious that they do not even need to mention it. 

[beecee]

13 hours ago, erik said:

The idea behind a fine-tuned universe is that a superior entity, like a God, created the universe with the exact parameters that would lead to the existence of life (and by extension mankind).

Not necessarily.

13 hours ago, erik said:

A serious scientist knows that when we measure a constant (such as the Newtonian constant of gravitation) then there is no reason to believe its value could have been different, and there is no reason to believe that there are other universes that have a different value for that constant. All that rubbish is nonscientific. There is only one value, the one we measure, period.

Reasonable speculation is part and parcel of science. While quantum gravity is incomplete, the actions of virtual particles popping into and out of existence, do leave observable effects, and as such we can hypothesise quantum foam. A universe from nothing,as proposed by Lawrence Krauss, redefining the quantum foam as nothing, is far closer to our normal definition of nothing, then anything else one cares to conjur up.

[Genady]

13 minutes ago, 34student said:

An option that makes sense to me is that the universe we have just so happen to have life in it.  But clearly this is not a good option.

I don't see, why it is not. I think so, too. And as I understand, Alan - and many other physicists - think so as well: it just happened so that this universe, either alone or one of many, can and does have life in it. I don't know where the impression of this being an issue came from. I mean, where in the science of physics. Philosophy is a different story, but that would be a different forum.

[beecee]

24 minutes ago, 34student said:

 So, I know I am missing something, something that must be so obvious that they do not even need to mention it. 

 

3 minutes ago, Genady said:

I don't see, why it is not. I think so, too. And as I understand, Alan - and many other physicists - think so as well: it just happened so that this universe, either alone or one of many, can and does have life in it. I don't know where the impression of this being an issue came from. I mean, where in the science of physics. Philosophy is a different story, but that would be a different forum.

Agreed, again the Anthropic Principle, makes perfect sense.

[34student]

25 minutes ago, Genady said:

I don't see, why it is not. I think so, too. And as I understand, Alan - and many other physicists - think so as well: it just happened so that this universe, either alone or one of many, can and does have life in it. I don't know where the impression of this being an issue came from. I mean, where in the science of physics. Philosophy is a different story, but that would be a different forum.

I *think* it has to do with the universe existing the way that it does is too improbable.  Alan, and many others, think we need to resort to a multiverse so that there can exist the more probable universes too.  But it would seem to me that any universe had an equally likelihood of existing, given the randomness of initial conditions at the big bang - I think.  

Edited February 11, 2022 by 34student

[Genady]

13 minutes ago, 34student said:

I *think* it has to do with the universe existing the way that it does is too improbable.  Alan, and many others, think we need to resort to a multiverse so that there can exist the more probable universes too.  But it would seem to me that any universe had an equally likelihood of existing, given the randomness of initial conditions at the big bang - I think.  

If you imagine a probability distribution of different values of Lambda in various universes, then supposedly there are more universes with Lambda many orders of magnitude larger than what we got here. Or, there are more possible initial conditions that lead to the larger Lambda than the ones that lead to such a small Lambda. Each specific universe has the same probability to exist, but by picking a universe at random you get very small probability that it will have our value of Lambda. Vast majority of them will have a much larger value.

Edited February 11, 2022 by Genady

[34student]

15 minutes ago, Genady said:

If you imagine a probability distribution of different values of Lambda in various universes, then supposedly there are more universes with Lambda many orders of magnitude larger than what we got here. Or, there are more possible initial conditions that lead to the larger Lambda than the ones that lead to such a small Lambda. Each specific universe has the same probability to exist, but by picking a universe at random you get very small probability that it will have our value of Lambda. Vast majority of them will have a much larger value.

But you have chosen something in our universe that is unlikely.  You could have chosen something about our universe that is likely.  Then wouldn't they cancel each other out?

[Genady]

1 minute ago, 34student said:

But you have chosen something in our universe that is unlikely.  You could have chosen something about our universe that is likely.  Then wouldn't they cancel each other out?

I don't understand this. The question is not about "something", but specifically about our value of Lambda. Relatively small change in this value of Lambda would lead to a universe without planets, stars, galaxies, almost all chemical elements, etc, i.e. without life.

[34student]

6 minutes ago, Genady said:

I don't understand this. The question is not about "something", but specifically about our value of Lambda. Relatively small change in this value of Lambda would lead to a universe without planets, stars, galaxies, almost all chemical elements, etc, i.e. without life.

But you chose the unlikely variable.  It may be an important or interesting variable to choose for humans, but it is not important or interesting objectively.

[Genady]

Just now, 34student said:

But you chose the unlikely variable.  It may be an important or interesting variable to choose for humans, but it is not important or interesting objectively.

Sorry, I'm missing something in your argument. I didn't chose anything.

[34student]

9 minutes ago, Genady said:

Sorry, I'm missing something in your argument. I didn't chose anything.

Yes you did. You chose the variable lambda to compare us to other universes.

[Genady]

Just now, 34student said:

Yes you did. You chose the variable lambda to compare us to other universes.

The Lambda was what led to the comparison. It was not chosen for comparison. What is your reason for comparison?

[erik]

7 hours ago, 34student said:

In the video you posted, right off the bat Robert presents Alan with 3 explanations about how the universe is so fine-tuned and Alan agrees with him.  The 3 choices are God, multiverse and the universe is not so fine-tuned.  An option that makes sense to me is that the universe we have just so happen to have life in it.  But clearly this is not a good option.  So, I know I am missing something, something that must be so obvious that they do not even need to mention it. 

God and the multiverse are not part of science.

If you care only about science, you should dismiss all that "fine tuned" rubbish and leave it to vain philosophers and theologians.

Edited February 12, 2022 by erik