Design vs. Dumb Luck: Exploring the Fine-Tuning of the Universe

[RAD4921]

Many scientists are asking as to why the universe appears to be "finely tuned". On the other hand some argue that the universe is the way it is because it is like winning a lottery. The odds of winning a lottery are very high but if one did win a lottery of odds such 1 in 12 million, one may think that some "God" was the reason why they won when it was just a matter of odds. Sooner or later someone has to win. One could argue that the apparent design of the universe was caused by a cyclic universe producing an infinite amount of possible configurations and sooner or later a universe with the right conditions would produce a universe that permits the existence of life. Of course this does not take into account the enormous amount of apparent organization that we see in life on earth.
Is it a design or dumb luck?
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

 

[sd01g]

Attempting to explain the natural world in terms of a nonnatural or supernatural God really tells us nothing useful about this world. Until we can find a god or higher power that exists and operates in real time/real space, it seems that 'dumb luck' is the better of two bad choices.

Like everyone else, I do not have an answer (other than pure speculation) but I thought this thread deserved at least one response.

 

[Telos]

Is it a design or dumb luck?

Neither. It is what it is, and how we choose to define it has always been subject to change.

 

[Flexor]

The universe isn't so perfectly tuned. You have to understand that the universe was there first, and everything else (solar systems, planets, lifeforms) have evolved within it, and in function of it's particular properties. If the universe had been different, then what it contains would've been different as well. If the nature of the universe were to suddenly change, then everything would have to adapt or perish. The only reason why everything you see is perfectly tuned with the universe is because everything else that wasn't is long gone.

 

[moving finger]

Neither

= unsubstantiated subjective belief.

It is what it is

= perceptive (but trivial) insight?

the study of "what it is" is ontology

how we choose to define it has always been subject to change.

the question is not about "how we choose to define it", the question is whether we can ever know "what it is"

MF

 

[moving finger]

The universe isn't so perfectly tuned. You have to understand that the universe was there first, and everything else (solar systems, planets, lifeforms) have evolved within it, and in function of it's particular properties.

The fundamental physical properties of the universe (including the so-called laws of physics and the physical constants) appear to have been determined either before or during the earliest stages of the Big Bang, these properties did not evolve as the universe evolved. I believe it is these properties (the fundamental physical properties of the universe) that most people refer to when they say that the universe appears to be fine-tuned in accordance with our existence. See for example Barrow & Tipler's book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle.

If the universe had been different, then what it contains would've been different as well.

Yes, and if the physical properties were different then intelligent life may not have been possible.

If the nature of the universe were to suddenly change, then everything would have to adapt or perish. The only reason why everything you see is perfectly tuned with the universe is because everything else that wasn't is long gone.

This reasoning does NOT apply to the fundamantal physical parameters of the universe, which appear to be fixed at the outset and cannot "adapt or perish".

MF

 

[SpaceTiger]

It's for this sort of philosophical question that I think the anthropic principle is really powerful. A "fine-tuned" universe is logically expected if such a tuning is required for our existence and many other universes (with different parameters) exist. If only the first is true, then our very existence is illogical and one might be prone to invoke a creator. If neither is true and an intelligent species could exist in a wide variety of universes, then such things would seem unnecessary.

All of this presupposes, however, that our idea of "logic" is valid in determining such things. If there is anything beyond that which we can observe, there's no reason to assume it would be rational.

 

[moving finger]

All of this presupposes, however, that our idea of "logic" is valid in determining such things. If there is anything beyond that which we can observe, there's no reason to assume it would be rational.

yep, but we have to start somewhere - and the validity of one's logic is usually a reasonably good axiom (of course we can examine the question using a completely different logic - that is a valid position - but still the fact remains that to make any progress in understanding we have to make some fundamental assumptions)

MF

 

[SpaceTiger]

yep, but we have to start somewhere - and the validity of one's logic is usually a reasonably good axiom

Agreed, but it has always frustrated my scientific mind. :tongue2:

 

[hypnagogue]

There was a lively debate between Leonard Susskind and Lee Smolin on this topic that can be found http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge145.html. Both seem to subscribe to an 'evolutionary' perspective to account for the observed finely tuned constants in nature, although they envision different physical mechanisms for how this might be implemented. Where they substantially differ is on the topic of the anthropic principle (AP), as mentioned here by Space Tiger. Smolin thinks we should not invoke the AP in scientific discussion/explanation, as he claims it is unfalsifiable. Susskind rejects Smolin's reasoning and finds no reason not to invoke the AP. My 2 cents are with Susskind and Space Tiger.

 

[SpaceTiger]

My 2 cents are with Susskind and Space Tiger.

Just a note on that, I'm actually unsure of my position on the anthropic principle's use for scientific purposes. I can imagine it being potentially useful in the future, when there's more information available on the details of the universe and the origins of life, but I have not seen any convincing demonstrations of its use thus far. It's also dangerous because we're prone to fall into the "we must be special" assumption that so dogged Copernicus back in the day.

I mostly consider it for my periodic philosophical musings, in which I don't doubt its applicability.

 

[moving finger]

Where they substantially differ is on the topic of the anthropic principle (AP), as mentioned here by Space Tiger. Smolin thinks we should not invoke the AP in scientific discussion/explanation, as he claims it is unfalsifiable. Susskind rejects Smolin's reasoning and finds no reason not to invoke the AP. My 2 cents are with Susskind and Space Tiger.

Hypnagogue, please restore my faith in humanity and give credit where it is due - within this thread the first reference to the Anthropic (Cosmological) Principle was made not by SpaceTiger, but was in post #6.

MF

 

[hypnagogue]

Just a note on that, I'm actually unsure of my position on the anthropic principle's use for scientific purposes. I can imagine it being potentially useful in the future, when there's more information available on the details of the universe and the origins of life, but I have not seen any convincing demonstrations of its use thus far.

I apologize if I inadvertently put words in your mouth. Still, when it comes to using the AP in the context of explaining why it is that we find ourselves in a region of spacetime with finely tuned constants, I don't really see a knock-down problem. Perhaps asserting the AP here might not be useful for spurring scientific progress, but it certainly seems useful as an explanitory tool in the context of this scientific discussion.

There is the problem of how we can assert for sure that differing kinds of universes could not support intelligent life. This sort of thing would be difficult to show, I imagine, not the least due to the ambiguity of the words "intelligent" and "life," and the extent to which they could be stretched to include things that are drastically different from us. But if we restrict our inquiry to human life (eg "we human beings, with our various physical intricacies, exist in such a finely tuned universe because of all those that (might) exist, this is the only kind compatible with our specific physical makeup"), this seems to put the AP on much surer footing. After all, isn't the striking fact that the constants of nature need to be so fine tuned in order to support our existence the premise that gave rise to this discussion in the first place?

It's also dangerous because we're prone to fall into the "we must be special" assumption that so dogged Copernicus back in the day.

I think invoking the AP here could be taken to imply that our universe is special, to the extent that it has the unusually precise features needed to support life as we know it. But this wouldn't imply that us humans are anything special, per se.

Hypnagogue, please restore my faith in humanity and give credit where it is due - within this thread the first reference to the Anthropic (Cosmological) Principle was made not by SpaceTiger, but was in post #6.

My apologies, he who indeed did introduce the Anthropic (Cosmological) Principle to this thread!

I think that was perhaps the easiest go anyone has ever had at restoring another's faith in humanity.

 

[moving finger]

It's also dangerous because we're prone to fall into the "we must be special" assumption that so dogged Copernicus back in the day.

I disagree. I think the anthropic principle does just the opposite! It suggests that we are not special, that there is no "fine-tuning", we only see our universe the way it is simply because of our persepctive.

An alternative to the anthropic principle is to suggest that the universe is indeed somehow fine-tuned so that intelligent life can evolve - THIS would be the "we must be special" point of view.

I believe the anthropic principle is an excellent explanation of why our universe is the way it is.

MF

 

[SpaceTiger]

I apologize if I inadvertently put words in your mouth.

Oh, that's quite alright, it's probably just a semantic point to some extent.

Still, when it comes to using the AP in the context of explaining why it is that we find ourselves in a region of spacetime with finely tuned constants, I don't really see a knock-down problem. Perhaps asserting the AP here might not be useful for spurring scientific progress, but it certainly seems useful as an explanitory tool in the context of this scientific discussion.

I think many scientists view it as a "last resort", in the sense that it might explain the universe if we can find no further physical models to explain our "uniqueness". If we were to ever reach the point of last resort, however, scientific progress would have effectively ended. I don't know if that will ever happen.

To give an example of where it could be dangerous, consider it as an explanation for the flatness problems (that is, that the overall curvature of the universe appears to be so close to flat). One might be able to make an anthropic argument that says that such a condition is required in order for life to arise, but it doesn't really help things. If we were to settle on such a conclusion, we might be distracted from theories like inflation, which actually do have testable consequences (eventually, hopefully). Anthropic arguments really can't be verified by experiment, as I assume Smolin was arguing, so they make really dangerous "consensus" theories.

However, there may come a point at which the anthropic principle has predictive power. That is, we might able to guess certain laws of physics by recognizing their necessity for our existence. Supposedly, this is what Fred Hoyle did when he predicted the excited state of carbon-12. We should again be careful, though, because it's hard to show that something is necessary for our existence and a lot of such predictions could be made that really aren't worth the effort to follow up.

There is the problem of how we can assert for sure that differing kinds of universes could not support intelligent life. This sort of thing would be difficult to show, I imagine, not the least due to the ambiguity of the words "intelligent" and "life," and the extent to which they could be stretched to include things that are drastically different from us. But if we restrict our inquiry to human life (eg "we human beings, with our various physical intricacies, exist in such a finely tuned universe because of all those that (might) exist, this is the only kind compatible with our specific physical makeup"), this seems to put the AP on much surer footing.

But is that really the right thing to consider? For purposes like Hoyle's, it certainly makes sense, but if we're going to consider theories like an "evolution" of universes, it would seem the more appropriate condition is that we be aware enough to ask these questions. This doesn't require human life, per se.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I disagree. I think the anthropic principle does just the opposite! It suggests that we are not special, that there is no "fine-tuning", we only see our universe the way it is simply because of our persepctive.

I mean "we must be special" in that there are no physical explanations for why something should be generically true. In other words, it distracts us from testable models, as with the inflation example I gave above.

An alternative to the anthropic principle is to suggest that the universe is indeed somehow fine-tuned so that intelligent life can evolve - THIS would be the "we must be special" point of view.

In the philosophical sense of "special", I agree with you. I was considering the practical aspects: that is, a universe that evolves until we can exist is still a universe that is specially designed for us and can't be analyzed as "generic" beyond a certain point. Thus, its parameters would be "special", in a certain sense.

I believe the anthropic principle is an excellent explanation of why our universe is the way it is.

I suspect that it will explain some things in the long run, but I've not yet decided on which physical laws should be derived from anthropic arguments. I probably never will, as it would be bad science.

 

[moving finger]

We should again be careful, though, because it's hard to show that something is necessary for our existence and a lot of such predictions could be made that really aren't worth the effort to follow up.

Yes, I agree we must always try to put forward testable hypotheses, but your argument about "not worth the effort to follow up" works both ways, SpaceTiger. If the truth is that our universe is the way it is because of the anthropic principle, then science would waste a heck of a lot of time and money chasing the "Holy Grail" of the ToE (which many hope will explain just why the physical constants are what they are), when that particular Holy Grail would be a will-o-the-wisp...

On balance, therefore, I believe the anthropic principle is just as valid an explanation as any other, right now.

MF

 

[SpaceTiger]

If the truth is that our universe is the way it is because of the anthropic principle, then science would waste a heck of a lot of time and money chasing the "Holy Grail" of the ToE

But since it isn't testable, it would no longer be science, it would be philosophy. Even if it does turn out to be a waste of time, it's our job to continue looking for testable theories of the universe. If nothing turns up after a long time, perhaps we will give up, but I think the anthropic principle should only be kept in the back of our minds and never considered as a leading theory as long as science is being done.

 

[moving finger]

I suspect that it will explain some things in the long run, but I've not yet decided on which physical laws should be derived from anthropic arguments. I probably never will, as it would be bad science.

yes, I know many others feel the same way.

I agree that we should always be looking for testable hypotheses. But there may come a time when this is simply not possible any more. As Planck said :
"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And it is because in the last analysis we ourselves are part of the mystery we are trying to solve"

Surely the only correct science is the science that seeks after truth? By limiting the scope of science to short-term "testable hypotheses only" we may deliberately avoid finding the final truth - and THAT to me would then be the ultimate bad science.

It reminds me of the joke about the policeman who came across the drunk, stumbling about at night under a streetlight.
The policeman asked the drunk "Good evening Sir, and what are you doing?"
The drunk, swaying badly, said "ohhh, shorry, oshifer, I'm looking for my keys"
Said the policeman "Did you lose them here?"
"ohhhh no oshifer. I lost them over there in the dark" (pointing back down the dark road) "but the light is much better here..."



MF

 

[SpaceTiger]

Surely the only correct science is the science that seeks after truth? By limiting the scope of science to short-term "testable hypotheses only" we may deliberately avoid finding the final truth - and THAT to me would then be the ultimate bad science.

I consider science to be a search for truth, but not a search for all truth. Rather, it's our job to theorize and search for truths that can be objectively verified. That's not to say that we should deny the possibility of untestable truths (this would imply that scientists shouldn't be religious), but rather that we should not be looking for them as part of the scientific process. When it reaches the point at which science is no longer progressing, then I would say we may have reached the limits of the usefulness of science. I would not, however, say that it is then science's job to settle on the untestable truth, as you seem to be suggesting.

 

[moving finger]

I consider science to be a search for truth, but not a search for all truth. Rather, it's our job to theorize and search for truths that can be objectively verified. That's not to say that we should deny the possibility of untestable truths (this would imply that scientists shouldn't be religious), but rather that we should not be looking for them as part of the scientific process. When it reaches the point at which science is no longer progressing, then I would say we may have reached the limits of the usefulness of science. I would not, however, say that it is then science's job to settle on the untestable truth, as you seem to be suggesting.

I agree hypotheses need to be tested wherever possible. This is the only way to make advances in science.

But it may be the case that during part of its development, a particular emerging hypothesis makes no testable predictions. Should we then consign that hypothesis to the rubbish bin, or should we continue to work with it, in the hope that it might one day yield testable predictions?

I'm in favour of taking the long-term view, and not rejecting any hypothesis in the short-term simply on the basis that it has not yet been possible to test it.

Taking the short-term view and rejecting hypotheses simply because they do not make any predictions that can be tested in the current era is the equivalent of the drunk looking under the streetlight to find his keys, simply because there is more light there.

MF

 

[hypnagogue]

But is that really the right thing to consider? For purposes like Hoyle's, it certainly makes sense, but if we're going to consider theories like an "evolution" of universes, it would seem the more appropriate condition is that we be aware enough to ask these questions. This doesn't require human life, per se.

Certainly agreed that human life is not required for a system to achieve awareness of some kind.

Back to the question of fine tuning and the AP, the question that raises perplexity for us is "Why is our universe so finely tuned to support life as we know it," not "Why is our universe so finely tuned to support the existence of sentient beings?" If we were aiming for the latter, it would not even be clear that we'd have a problem, as it's not clear that sentient beings require our specific constants of nature-- as I think we both agree.

But it is pretty clear that life as we know it requires the constants to sit within a very narrow range of values, so the first question does seem to raise a problem. I think it's fair to answer it on its own terms with a form of the AP, in the context of the evolutionary universe idea, by saying something like this: "Life as we know it can only exist given these fine tuned parameters, so of course out of all the different universes, we find ourselves in this kind. Although it is highly unlikely that we would pick out our kind of universe with its finely tuned constants out of the set of all existent universes uniformly at random, we are guaranteed to pick out our kind of universe if we restrict our selection space to only those universes that support our kind of life." Basically, the feature of the initial question that is perplexing (constants that are finely tuned with respect to the existence of life as we know it) gives us license to use that same feature in the AP explanation.

 

[sd01g]

Certainly agreed that human life is not required for a system to achieve awareness of some kind.

.

I would like to discuss (speculate) on how a nonhuman system could achieve awareness of some kind. This would be a 'higher power but not in the traditional mode of a religious God. It would use scientific concepts such as gravitons, quantum computers, and DNA molecules, but would be outside the empirical verification of science at current ability levels.

If anyone is interested, should we continue in this thread or start a new one? If no one is interested, I will certainly understand.

 

[hypnagogue]

I would like to discuss (speculate) on how a nonhuman system could achieve awareness of some kind. This would be a 'higher power but not in the traditional mode of a religious God. It would use scientific concepts such as gravitons, quantum computers, and DNA molecules, but would be outside the empirical verification of science at current ability levels.

If anyone is interested, should we continue in this thread or start a new one? If no one is interested, I will certainly understand.

That is most certainly a topic for a separate thread. But if you do choose to start such a thread, I suggest you more thoroughly review any number of the following and what they have to say about awareness: AI, cognitive psychology, neuroscience, philosophy of mind, etc. There is certainly no sense in which a nonhuman, (self-)aware system would be a 'higher power' of any sort (higher than what, and why? what is 'power'?), and there is certainly no clear reason to suppose that anything like gravitons, quantum computers, or DNA would be required to support the existence of such things.

Please don't answer these comments here, but do think about them and try to scrutinize your proposal more closely if you wish to post a topic on this.

 

[sd01g]

I was hoping you had a sense of adventure. There is some much that is not known and so much that is highly speculative, such as millions of alternative universe, and so much nonsense, such as transcending time and space, that I thought you might consider something that I think is totally new and that at least would be internally consistent and attempt to an answer questions that have no reasonably answers at the present. I'll try at a latter time and place. Thanks

 

[Telos]

Moving finger, I just meant that in the span of "ever," we might find better ways to describe the relationship between life and the universe aside from whether it is finely "tuned" or not.

And just because we can't conceive of those ways does not mean they are impossible (fallacy of argument from lack of imagination). But, then, what makes me think that we will find those better ways? There seems to be a rising trend in the efficiency of description, so why not think it will continue to evolve to heights beyond our current comprehension?

Wondering about "fine tuning" is something that will someday sound very quaint.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I'm in favour of taking the long-term view, and not rejecting any hypothesis in the short-term simply on the basis that it has not yet been possible to test it.

Allow me to again refer you to the analogy with religion. The hypothesis is not rejected, it is simply not explored as part of the scientific process. Why? Because there's nothing to explore! If I were a Christian (or something similar), I might believe that the Big Bang was set off by God. I'm allowed this belief and it might be true, but can you see why it has no place in a scientific paper?

If a theory only isn't testable yet, then it's an entirely different ballgame. I'd say that's where string theory sits right now. Certain things that are generally invoked in anthropic arguments, however, will never have testable consequences, including the existence of other universes beyond our own.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Back to the question of fine tuning and the AP, the question that raises perplexity for us is "Why is our universe so finely tuned to support life as we know it," not "Why is our universe so finely tuned to support the existence of sentient beings?"

Like I said, it depends on the specific theory you're pursuing. Let's look at one for which the second question is the important one. Imagine the following two scenarios.

1) One universe is created. Within this universe, sentient life is either existent or not. Also, human life is either existent or not.

2) Many universes are created. Eventually, one is created such that sentient life exists. Also, one is eventually created such that human life exists.

Now let's say that your first assertion, that the universe is finely tuned to human life, is correct. Given only the existence of human life, does this practically rule out scenario #1 in the absence of intelligent design? I don't think so. To see why, let's say that any universe we can imagine will give rise to some form of sentient life. It's then a given that this one "imaginable" universe that actually exists will have some form of life that can ask itself about the anthropic principle. Would the fact that it's finely tuned to human life then have any deeper implications? Absolutely not. It's basically equivalent to filling a bag with balls, numbered 1 to 100, drawing one, and then asking what's so special about this one ball. There's nothing special about it. It's just one of the possible outcomes!

However, for looking only at that one ball, the anthropic principle may have some use. If we understand the laws of physics well enough that we can explore their possible outcomes, we might be able to deduce which physical laws are ruled out by their inability to create human life. This is not so different, though, from asking "Is the theory compatible with previous observations?" You just have to include our existence as one of those observations.

 

[RAD4921]

The purpose of life or lack of it

There really is no middle ground here. The universe is either an accident or it isn’t. The fact that I am conscious says a lot to myself about the origins of the universe. If on the other hand the universe were an “accident” then I would rather falsely believe otherwise. If the universe has no purpose than my life has no purpose and I might as well blow out my brains. It is like a blade of grass knowing it was going to get mowed down every week. What the hell is the use of existing?

 

[marcus]

...I think many scientists view it as a "last resort", in the sense that it might explain the universe if we can find no further physical models to explain our "uniqueness". If we were to ever reach the point of last resort, however, scientific progress would have effectively ended. I don't know if that will ever happen.

... we might be distracted from theories like inflation, which actually do have testable consequences (eventually, hopefully).

... Anthropic arguments really can't be verified by experiment, as I assume Smolin was arguing, so they make really dangerous "consensus" theories.

However, there may come a point at which the anthropic principle has predictive power. That is, we might able to guess certain laws of physics...

Smolin's argument concerning the AP is summarized in his paper
"Scientific Alternatives to the Anthropic Principle"
http://arxiv.org/hep-th/0407213

this was posted last year and is, I believe, to be published by Cambridge University Press as part of a book of essays by different people on issues like this (biofriendly fine-tuning, multiverse assumptions, how does one explain why things are this way?, and so on)

You might find Smolin's paper interesting. He presents an alternative to the AP which he argues is, unlike the AP, able to make testable predictions about outcomes of future observation/experiment. That is, it has the merit that it could be falsified empirically by a future measurement----the model bets its life on the testable quantitative predictions which it makes.

Smolin's alternative to AP offers a possible explanation for why some of the fundamental constants in standard model physics and cosmology fall in the measured ranges---which coincidentally enable our type of life---but without invoking our existence or that of life in general.