Is Fine-Tuning Really a Fallacy in Physics?

[Varon]

Based on understanding in and beyond the Standard Model. How big a range can you change the constants values and other parameters before life becomes impossible? What is the mainstream views about fine funing? Is the view divided among physicists?

 

[PAllen]

I don't think there is consensus on this. Fine tuning arguments make plausible, model dependent assumptions, but both the validity of current models and the assumptions are not ironclad. Further, since the first work on this which showed narrow change windows under the given assumptions, when one parameter was changed at a time, new work has found that if pairs (or more) parameters are changed in tandem, much broader life supporting windows exist. So my current view is no stronger than the following:

In the framework of theories similar to the standard model of particle physics and the standard model of cosmology, the parameters appear moderately fine tuned for life (but less than seemed necessary 5 years ago).

 

[Varon]

I'm reading the book The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed for Us by retired particle physicist Victor Stenger. If anyone has read it. Let me know what you think of it? Also anyone who know how reliable is Victor. Let us know. Thanks.

 

[qsa]

Based on understanding in and beyond the Standard Model. How big a range can you change the constants values and other parameters before life becomes impossible? What is the mainstream views about fine funing? Is the view divided among physicists?

It is not like somebody out there is dialing numbers, only present day theories have free prameters, the correct theory should not. the only option is dimension but most likely all dimentions other than 3 is unstable or no intelligent life can arise. 3 d is already confusing enough.

 

[bcrowell]

I would tend to agree that fine-tuning for life is bogus. It's not a testable hypothesis. Our universe probably isn't optimized for life in terms of small perturbations, and big perturbations are impossible to discuss because science isn't capable of guessing what kinds of life could exist under every possible set of laws of physics.

As an example of something of this sort that *is* testable, see Smolin's cosmological natural selection (CNS): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin#Fecund_universes CNS was actually falsified recently -- which is a good thing, because it shows that Smolin was doing real science.

 

[Varon]

I would tend to agree that fine-tuning for life is bogus. It's not a testable hypothesis. Our universe probably isn't optimized for life in terms of small perturbations, and big perturbations are impossible to discuss because science isn't capable of guessing what kinds of life could exist under every possible set of laws of physics.

But what's perplexing is the big bang was just an explosion. There shouldn't even be structured object like Apple Ipods. It's like you throw a grenade, then years later, Mozarts evolve out of the fragements of the grenade. So it's like the potentiality of Mozart is already designed in the grenade and the explosion triggers the process.

But multiverse can do away with fine tuning. So those who don't believe in fine tuning believe in multiverse and how infinity of combination can always produce something?

As an example of something of this sort that *is* testable, see Smolin's cosmological natural selection (CNS): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin#Fecund_universes CNS was actually falsified recently -- which is a good thing, because it shows that Smolin was doing real science.

 

[PAllen]

But what's perplexing is the big bang was just an explosion. There shouldn't even be structured object like Apple Ipods. It's like you throw a grenade, then years later, Mozarts evolve out of the fragements of the grenade. So it's like the potentiality of Mozart is already designed in the grenade and the explosion triggers the process.

But multiverse can do away with fine tuning. So those who don't believe in fine tuning believe in multiverse and how infinity of combination can always produce something?

No, read some reputable book on the big bang. It wasn't an explosion in any ordinary sense of the word. It started from an extraordinarily low entropy state (not high entropy like an explosion).

I would say those who believe strongly in fine tuning are more likely to believe a multi-verse sceanario is likely. The less you believe in fine tuning, the *less* you think a multi-verse is necessary.

 

[Varon]

No, read some reputable book on the big bang. It wasn't an explosion in any ordinary sense of the word. It started from an extraordinarily low entropy state (not high entropy like an explosion).

It's just for emphasis. Of course I know that the Big Bang expanded space and time and not an explosion with existing space. But the initial high ordered states are the mystery. How could it have given emergence to the development of the Apple Ipod. Doesnt make sense unless before the Big Bang, it was already forseen that an Ipod would result.

I would say those who believe strongly in fine tuning are more likely to believe a multi-verse sceanario is likely. The less you believe in fine tuning, the *less* you think a multi-verse is necessary.

 

[bcrowell]

But what's perplexing is the big bang was just an explosion. There shouldn't even be structured object like Apple Ipods. It's like you throw a grenade, then years later, Mozarts evolve out of the fragements of the grenade. So it's like the potentiality of Mozart is already designed in the grenade and the explosion triggers the process.

But multiverse can do away with fine tuning. So those who don't believe in fine tuning believe in multiverse and how infinity of combination can always produce something?

The fine-tuning mystery of the early universe's low entropy is IMO much more interesting than the bogus fine-tuning mystery of the claim that the laws of physics (coupling constants, etc.) are supposedly fine-tuned for life. But in any case they seem to me to be two entirely separate issues. A good discussion of the entropy stuff is in Roger Penrose's Cycles of Time: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307265900/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[PAllen]

It's just for emphasis. Of course I know that the Big Bang expanded space and time and not an explosion with existing space. But the initial high ordered states are the mystery. How could it have given emergence to the development of the Apple Ipod. Doesnt make sense unless before the Big Bang, it was already forseen that an Ipod would result.

This is getting awfully close to arguments that evolution violates the second law. That discussion certainly doesn't belong in 'beyond the standard model'. Since it has been answered many times and the source of it is usually Divine Creation believers, many are sick of answering it. Search for debunking creations science and you should find many clear explanations on the web. I am *not* going to get into it here.

[EDIT: I should make clear I'm responding to the 'mystery of the origin of the ipod', not the mystery of the initial low entropy state. The latter is an important physical problem, lot's of current work being done.]

 

[Varon]

This is getting awfully close to arguments that evolution violates the second law. That discussion certainly doesn't belong in 'beyond the standard model'. Since it has been answered many times and the source of it is usually Divine Creation believers, many are sick of answering it. Search for debunking creations science and you should find many clear explanations on the web. I am *not* going to get into it here.

[EDIT: I should make clear I'm responding to the 'mystery of the origin of the ipod', not the mystery of the initial low entropy state. The latter is an important physical problem, lot's of current work being done.]

Actually. Victor Stenger already explained clearly how Fine Tuning is a Fallacy in his book The Fallacy of Fine Tuning. I'm just confirming some of his anti fine-tuning arguments if it is true.

 

[suprised]

Actually there is an enjoyable book on this topic, that I recommend to anyone interested:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465036732/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Varon]

Actually there is an enjoyable book on this topic, that I recommend to anyone interested:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465036732/?tag=pfamazon01-20

This is one of the books that Victor Stenger tried to debunk in his "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning".

 

[haushofer]

I know of some situations in physics where finetuning was around and turned out to be an indication of the fact that something was overlooked:

* Ptolemeus' geocentric model
* Einsteins invoking of the cosmological constant to obtain a static universe
* The flatness problem in cosomology and finetuning of of the matter/energy density at t=0

Nowadays we have of course the finetuning in the standard model. Does anybody know of a nice list of some more finetunings which appeared in physics, and turned out to be false? I'd like to see some more examples :)

 

[Varon]

I know of some situations in physics where finetuning was around and turned out to be an indication of the fact that something was overlooked:

* Ptolemeus' geocentric model
* Einsteins invoking of the cosmological constant to obtain a static universe
* The flatness problem in cosomology and finetuning of of the matter/energy density at t=0

Nowadays we have of course the finetuning in the standard model. Does anybody know of a nice list of some more finetunings which appeared in physics, and turned out to be false? I'd like to see some more examples :)

Have you seen this book "The Fallacy of Fine Tuning" by Victor Stenger? It has many mathematical arguments and debunking of all fine tuning aspects making up a nice list of all possible arguments. It only costs $10 at Kindle and worth it.

 

[haushofer]

I will certainly take a look; it's an interesting topic! :)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

There was a thread on this recently that went pretty much round and round in circles

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=497441

In my opinion fine tuning arguments are fallacious because they are based on the unproven assumptions that

A) The conditions of the universe could have been different

B) The conditions of the universe were set specifically to give rise to the processes we see. Depending on the argument these processes could be narrowed to human existence

Basing an explanation on unproven assumptions makes it quite flawed to my mind. The often stated defence of fine tuning arguments is "if condition X was Y unit different..." (where Y is a small number) "...all the things we see wouldn't be here". This defence is fallacious because it also makes the assumption that fine-tuning is correct in the first place.

The only fine-tuning I see is the fine-tuning inherent in the evolution of life; life is tuned to the part of the universe in which it lives, not the other way round.