the universal constants and intelligent design

[gib65]

I've been watching youtube videos of Richard Dawkins lately, especially his arguments against Intelligent Design. One in particular is his openness to the possibility of multiple universes to explain the bizaar fact that our universe seems to have been set just right for the possibility of life to have evolved. I'm sure most of you are familiar with this: all the basic constants of the universe - the mass of electrons, the gravitational constant, the speed of light, etc. - are of such precise values that, should they have turned out to be even the slightest bit off, life as we know it in the universe would have been impossible. It is as though the parameters of the universe can be set according to a set of dials - one for the mass of electrons, one for the gravitational constant, one for the speed of light, etc. - and they have been set at very precise values, precisely the ones at which life is possible. It is as though some intelligent designer set them.

 

Richard Dawkin's reply to this is that it is possible that there were a whole multitude of universes that sprung from the Big Bang - or that Big Bangs happen all the time in some meta-universe - and we just so happen to inhabit one that's just right for life to evolve. This makes our existence seem much less miraculous because it fits with the odds. One should never think of winning the lottery as an act of God.

 

Dawkins doesn't really take this theory seriously, but he puts it out there to show that an equally eccentric theory, like Intelligent Design, has at least one contender - so there's no reason to settle on one over the other.

 

Now, what I want to do is offer a couple of accounts of my own. I don't know if they're as powerful as Dawkins' account, but I hope the scientific community here can give me some feedback. I have two accounts to be exact:

 

1) something interesting happens regardless

 

Maybe it is just the nature of universes - any universe - for there to be a very specific set of conditions under which something interesting or complex happens. It may not be life per se, but something equally interesting and complex nonetheless. Admittedly, I don't know much about how the constants affect the lifespan of the universe, but I'm told that some values won't allow the universe to live passed a few seconds. Well, who's to say that in those universe's, a few seconds isn't enough time for something interesting to happen? Maybe it just so happens that in universes like that, interesting and complex phenomena don't need eons of time before they emerge. But even if I can't argue that, maybe I could argue that there would still be enough possible universes that last for sufficiently long so that finding ourselves in one isn't all that unlikely. Another thing I'm told is that in most universes, you wouldn't get the kinds of things for anything interesting or complex to happen at all. For example, in most universes, all you'd get is electromagnetic waves travelling through space without culminating in anything significant. Well, who's to say that electromagnetic waves travelling through space can't react under very special conditions - conditions so special that it's unlikely that any of us would think of them - in such a way as to give rise to a process through which interesting and complex phenomena occur. After all, we're talking about a universe that we don't, and never will, inhabit. All we have to go on is what we imagine such a universe would be like. Being so unfamiliar with such a universe, we're not really in a position to say what would actually happen. We can predict what would happen, but such predictions would have to be based on our experiences of our own universe, and since our universe is so different from the one in question, such predictions may not be nearly as reliable as we would think.

 

2) the constants can't be different

 

What if the universal constant couldn't be different from what they are. We don't know why they have the values they have. We don't know what created them, what they're based on, why they came to be - so why should we assume they could have been different? I imagine it's like asking what if gravity pulled in another direction than down. What if it pulled up? To the side? At a 45 degree angle? Or how 'bout asking what if fire wasn't hot? What if it was cold? Room temperature? A million degree (assuming it's an ordinary bon fire)? Well, knowing a thing or two about physics, we know these scenarios are impossible. We know that gravity can only pull down because that's where the bulk of the mass is. We know a regular sized bon fire can only be so hot and no cooler. So it doesn't even make sense to ask what if they were different. Maybe it's the same with the universal constants. Maybe, if we knew what gave rise to them or how they got the values they have, we'd realize it couldn't be any other way. Thus, it wouldn't make sense to suppose that the universe could have been otherwise.

 

What do you think?

[insane_alien]

if the physical constants were different enough so life couldn't form then we wouldn't be here to contemplate it.

 

so, by necessity, if life requires certain bounds on physical constants to arise then we will only appear if the universe has those physical constants. as we are here, the universe should have physical constants favourable to earth and surprise surprise this is what we observe.

[D H]

What you are talking about, gib65, is the anthropic principle. The wiki article on this topic, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle, is fairly well written and has a lot of references. Google "anthropic principle" and you will find even more. Warning: A lot of what you will find on the 'net on this topic is pure mumbo-jumbo.

[Mokele]

For a much simpler explanation:

 

"…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!'"

--Douglas Adams

[gib65]

if the physical constants were different enough so life couldn't form then we wouldn't be here to contemplate it.

 

so, by necessity, if life requires certain bounds on physical constants to arise then we will only appear if the universe has those physical constants. as we are here, the universe should have physical constants favourable to earth and surprise surprise this is what we observe.

 

Yes, of course, but the idea is that the constants could have been different. This idea brings into question why we are here. It makes it seem like an amazing coincidence, so amazing that some would like to bring in an intelligent designer.

 

What I'm trying to offer, in addition to Dawkins' multi-universe hypothesis, are reason not to think of it as such an amazing coincidence.

[Kyrisch]

Yes, but what you are trying to offer is unnecessary because the Anthropic Principle already addresses the problem. It's the same problem with trying to stick a supernatural God into processes such as evolution; it simply is unneeded and works consistently and coherently without such an injection, so, due to the principle of parsimony, should not be included.

[gib65]

Yes, but what you are trying to offer is unnecessary because the Anthropic Principle already addresses the problem.

 

I assume what you're talking about is this:

 

Within the scientific community the usual approach is to invoke selection effects and to hypothesize an ensemble of alternate universes' date=' in which case that which can be observed is subject to an anthropic bias.

[/quote']

 

 

Which is basically the same as Dawkins' argument. It's true that if one account works, there's no need to posit others, but it certainly helps the cause. The more accounts, the more alternatives there are to ID, and the less persuasive the latter becomes.

[Kyrisch]

I still don't see the need to posit anything at all. You're working under three assumptions that I don't think hold any water at all: 1) that life as we know it is somehow special and its existence in our universe is something that needs to be explained more than the existence of anything else, 2) that life as we know it could not have come about under any other constants, and 3) that life as we do not know it cannot come about under any other constants or is somehow intrinsically less important.

 

If you drop those assumptions, then the whole "universal constants seem perfect for our kind of life to arise" argument seems both pointless and silly. The constants are also perfect for galaxies to from spiral shapes, but no one really looks at that twice because they just deem it an emergent property of the force of gravity. Why can't we view our life in those simple terms, as well? And who knows what would happen if the constants were different; to imagine something is definitely beyond us and beyond our computing power right now, so to claim anything of that is similarly ludicrous.

[Baby Astronaut]

And who knows what would happen if the constants were different; to imagine something is definitely beyond us and beyond our computing power right now, so to claim anything of that is similarly ludicrous.

I agree. No one's done rigorous testing to see if indeed different variables would result in "no universe".

 

There might be another factor at work, besides. There is a lot we don't know yet, only the variables we've managed to draw predictive power from. I happen to think the multiple universes explanation isn't the best argument.

[gib65]

I still don't see the need to posit anything at all.

 

I thought I addressed this:

 

It's true that if one account works' date=' there's no need to posit others, but it certainly helps the cause.

[/quote']

 

You're working under three assumptions that I don't think hold any water at all: 1) that life as we know it is somehow special and its existence in our universe is something that needs to be explained more than the existence of anything else

 

I don't see how you could say it's not special. It's incredibly complex and sophisticated. Some would say that if the constants were the slightest bit different' date=' you wouldn't get anything nearly as complex and sophisticated.

 

2) that life as we know it could not have come about under any other constants

 

Nope. Read my OP again. One of my arguments is exactly the opposite of this assumption.

 

and 3) that life as we do not know it cannot come about under any other constants or is somehow intrinsically less important.

 

Again' date=' you're wrong. I do not assume this, and my OP makes this clear. It's as though you didn't even read it.

 

If you drop those assumptions, then the whole "universal constants seem perfect for our kind of life to arise" argument seems both pointless and silly. The constants are also perfect for galaxies to from spiral shapes, but no one really looks at that twice because they just deem it an emergent property of the force of gravity.

 

I'd look at that twice, but I think the complexity and sophistication of life is much more interesting.

 

And who knows what would happen if the constants were different; to imagine something is definitely beyond us and beyond our computing power right now, so to claim anything of that is similarly ludicrous.

 

Again, exactly the kind of argument I made.

[Kyrisch]

I understand that you are attempting to solve the problem in a way that does not invoke a God, etcetera, but while your OP argues for a scientific perspective, you continue to address the fact that our universe has the "exact constants for life to arise" as "bizaar [sic]"; my argument is that life is not special in any truly quantifiable way besides complexity, and should demand no special attention. The first self-replicating molecule was not nearly as complex as the spiral galaxies of the universe, and imperfect replication is an extremely efficient way to create complexity, so what we're really arguing is the ability for abiogenesis to occur in the first place, and for that simple molecule to survive long enough to replicate once or twice. If we look at the complexity of a spiral galaxy versus the complexity of a lipid bubble, I'd think that the galaxy would garner more attention.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm sure most of you are familiar with this: all the basic constants of the universe - the mass of electrons, the gravitational constant, the speed of light, etc. - are of such precise values that, should they have turned out to be even the slightest bit off, life as we know it in the universe would have been impossible. It is as though the parameters of the universe can be set according to a set of dials - one for the mass of electrons, one for the gravitational constant, one for the speed of light, etc. - and they have been set at very precise values, precisely the ones at which life is possible. It is as though some intelligent designer set them.

 

But can these things really be changed independently of each other? It could be that an electron's mass and charge are a function of the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. For example, we now know how the emission spectra of hydrogen relates to the laws of physics -- it could not be anything but what it is given the laws of physics -- but before that was not known. If the constants are not independent, then their probability is much higher.

 

Next, we want to know how many of the different possible universes could support intelligence. I don't know if it is possible to know this, and it certainly wouldn't be easy.

 

Next, we want to know how many universes there are. The more universes there are, the more likely one like ours would exist. However, other universes would be unobservable AFAIK. If we can explain how our universe arose, perhaps we could tell whether there are other universes or not, and maybe even how many.

 

Finally, if our universe was not conductive to intelligence, we would not be here to contemplate this. Maybe after the above is taken into account, our universe is still unlikely -- lucky us that it is as it is. Maybe it was very likely that a universe like ours would form. In any case, it clearly is possible that our universe exist, since it in fact exists.

[gib65]

I understand that you are attempting to solve the problem in a way that does not invoke a God, etcetera, but while your OP argues for a scientific perspective, you continue to address the fact that our universe has the "exact constants for life to arise" as "bizaar [sic]"; my argument is that life is not special in any truly quantifiable way besides complexity, and should demand no special attention. The first self-replicating molecule was not nearly as complex as the spiral galaxies of the universe, and imperfect replication is an extremely efficient way to create complexity, so what we're really arguing is the ability for abiogenesis to occur in the first place, and for that simple molecule to survive long enough to replicate once or twice. If we look at the complexity of a spiral galaxy versus the complexity of a lipid bubble, I'd think that the galaxy would garner more attention.

 

That may be, if I knew that to begin with, I'd address the problem as one for spiral galaxies more than life.

 

But look: I think you and I are more in agreement than it might at first seem. I'm arguing against those who think the constants, being what they are, is miraculous. Their main defense of this is that nothing nearly as complex as life or spiral galaxies could have evolves from any other combination of constants, for that's the way the problem has always been articulated when I've heard it. So that's what inspired me to write the OP.

 

In addition to Dawkins' multi-universe proposal, I added 1) that perhaps life, or something equally complex/interesting, would evolve from any set of constants, and 2) that perhaps the constants can't be different from what they are, rendering any stupification over the fact that they are what they are unfounded.

 

If 1) is true, then we get what you're arguing - that life really isn't 'special' just because it's complex - but that does require 1) in order to be appreciated. There are some who, for whatever reason, don't want to grant 1). I'm putting this argument forward for them.

[iNow]

Try explaining to them how these may not have been constants, anyway. I listened to a talk today online by Lee Smolin talking about how cosmological "constants" may actually have evolved, and been different in the past. One example among many is the idea that the speed of light may have been different back closer to the early stages of the inflation.

 

Ergo, you can deflate the ID argument by explaining to their tiny little worldviews that these "constants" may not actually be constant, and may instead be evolving parameters.

[gib65]

But can these things really be changed independently of each other? It could be that an electron's mass and charge are a function of the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. For example, we now know how the emission spectra of hydrogen relates to the laws of physics -- it could not be anything but what it is given the laws of physics -- but before that was not known. If the constants are not independent, then their probability is much higher.

 

Very well said - I wanted to argue something similar, but couldn't do in a succinct way.

 

It's as if we had an equation:

 

universal_constant1 x universal_constant2 = possibility_of_life

 

(oversimplified, I know)

 

If we held possibility_of_life constant, then that would put constraints on universal_constant1 and universal_constant2 such that if one changed, the other would have to change inversely proportionally, make life possible for any possible combination of universal constants.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Try explaining to them how these may not have been constants, anyway. I listened to a talk today online by Lee Smolin talking about how cosmological "constants" may actually have evolved, and been different in the past. One example among many is the idea that the speed of light may have been different back closer to the early stages of the inflation.

 

Ergo, you can deflate the ID argument by explaining to their tiny little worldviews that these "constants" may not actually be constant, and may instead be evolving parameters.

 

That's also an interesting view. It would say that it's not so much that we live in a 'special' universe but in a 'special' time. We so happen to live at a stage in the evolution of the universe when the universal constants have values favorable to life. They may continue to change into the future and take on values that can't support life anymore, and that's the end of our existence.

Edited February 9, 2009 by gib65
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

Try explaining to them how these may not have been constants, anyway. I listened to a talk today online by Lee Smolin talking about how cosmological "constants" may actually have evolved, and been different in the past. One example among many is the idea that the speed of light may have been different back closer to the early stages of the inflation.

 

Ergo, you can deflate the ID argument by explaining to their tiny little worldviews that these "constants" may not actually be constant, and may instead be evolving parameters.

 

I've heard similar to that from Creationists, using similar to argue that decay rates may not have been constant in the past. A valid question, of course, but then they go on to say that the changing decay rates are consistent with a young earth, which is a claim that needs backing up. Of course, using the argument that the constants are just right for life, and also that the constants might change, is just a wee bit hypocritical.

[cameron marical]

the universe isnt perfect for us, were perfect for the universe. we evolved to fit the universe, not the other way around. people say, oh the universe is perfect for us, everything is just the way it should be, well ya, to a degree, but weve also evolved into the universe, so it seems to us that the universe fits us, but instead, we fit the universe. i think its kind of a yin-yang thing going on here.just my thoughts. though i dont doubt the existence of a creator, i prefer the science side a little more, just because it seems a little more..... sciencey, i guess.and exciting.