Fine-Tuning Problem in Cosmology

[Fudbucker]

Some who have left behind their belief in god still seem to have a need for god.

A fine-tuned universe doesn't necessarily lead to god. I prefer the simulation model- while the fine-tuning problem shows up here, in our simulated universe, in the real non-simulated physical universe that our simulation resides in, there's a whole new set of physics, without any of this fine-tuning mess.

 

[Nonpareil]

As someone who followed the original discussion with a mixture of exasperation and amusement, I will say only this:

No one disagrees that finding out why the universal constants have the values they do is a bad idea, or that changing the values might render the universe inimitable to life as we know it. The entire issue you had there - and which I suspect will repeat itself in this thread, though I haven't read all the posts to be sure - is a matter of phrasing and tone.

"Fine-tuning" is generally accepted to refer to the creationist argument that the seemingly narrow values which might result in something we recognize as life indicate the presence of a fine-tuner. This is not necessarily the case when discussing alternatives such as the multiverse theory, or even the simple possibility that the values couldn't have been anything else - we don't know anything about the mechanics that formed the universe, after all (or, at least, very little) - but on this forum, "fine-tuning" is generally read to mean "THIS IS AN ARGUMENT FOR CREATIONISM".

Couple this with a generally confrontational, dismissive, and mocking attitude on both sides, and you get the original train-wreck of a thread.

So. Finding out why the universal constants exist within such a narrow range? Great. Leaping from there to the idea that the universe was actively fine-tuned? Not so much.

 

[Fudbucker]

As someone who followed the original discussion with a mixture of exasperation and amusement, I will say only this:

No one disagrees that finding out why the universal constants have the values they do is a bad idea, or that changing the values might render the universe inimitable to life as we know it. The entire issue you had there - and which I suspect will repeat itself in this thread, though I haven't read all the posts to be sure - is a matter of phrasing and tone.

"Fine-tuning" is generally accepted to refer to the creationist argument that the seemingly narrow values which might result in something we recognize as life indicate the presence of a fine-tuner. This is not necessarily the case when discussing alternatives such as the multiverse theory, or even the simple possibility that the values couldn't have been anything else - we don't know anything about the mechanics that formed the universe, after all (or, at least, very little) - but on this forum, "fine-tuning" is generally read to mean "THIS IS AN ARGUMENT FOR CREATIONISM".

Couple this with a generally confrontational, dismissive, and mocking attitude on both sides, and you get the original train-wreck of a thread.

So. Finding out why the universal constants exist within such a narrow range? Great. Leaping from there to the idea that the universe was actively fine-tuned? Not so much.

The bolded is wrong. It is a cosmological problem recognized by people like Hawking and Linde and it shows up over and over again in scholarly articles by renowned experts. It may be seen that way here, but that is not how it is viewed in actual cosmology, as I have shown, over and over again.

 

[Fudbucker]

As someone who followed the original discussion with a mixture of exasperation and amusement, I will say only this:

No one disagrees that finding out why the universal constants have the values they do is a bad idea, or that changing the values might render the universe inimitable to life as we know it. The entire issue you had there - and which I suspect will repeat itself in this thread, though I haven't read all the posts to be sure - is a matter of phrasing and tone.

"Fine-tuning" is generally accepted to refer to the creationist argument that the seemingly narrow values which might result in something we recognize as life indicate the presence of a fine-tuner. This is not necessarily the case when discussing alternatives such as the multiverse theory, or even the simple possibility that the values couldn't have been anything else - we don't know anything about the mechanics that formed the universe, after all (or, at least, very little) - but on this forum, "fine-tuning" is generally read to mean "THIS IS AN ARGUMENT FOR CREATIONISM".

Couple this with a generally confrontational, dismissive, and mocking attitude on both sides, and you get the original train-wreck of a thread.

So. Finding out why the universal constants exist within such a narrow range? Great. Leaping from there to the idea that the universe was actively fine-tuned? Not so much.

Nobody on the science side is leaping to anything. The LHC is suggesting the universe may be unnatural. There's still a natural explanation for prima facia fine-tuning: a sufficiently large and diverse multiverse, which is why inflation theory is so popular these day.

But to deny there's a problem at all is ridiculous, as quote after quote from top experts in the field have shown.

 

[MRC_Hans]

If there is an infinite selection of possible values and combination of values then the probability of one being perfect for life and the universe as we know it is 1.

To quote Pythagoras, "number is everything".

Even if there is only one selection, draw, if you will, then no matter what the original probability, once the vinning ticket has been drawn, the probability is 1.

Since we are here to discuss this, the probability that we drew the vinning ticket is 1.

That we might have drawn it against astronomical odds (but we don't know this), is interesting, fascinating, etc. But it is not a problem.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

There's still a natural explanation for prima facia fine-tuning: a sufficiently large and diverse multiverse, which is why inflation theory is so popular these day.

But to deny there's a problem at all is ridiculous, as quote after quote from top experts in the field have shown.

There are other explanations than the multiverse.

Scinence may use the word problem, but it is not a problem for science.

Hans

 

[tsig]

A fine-tuned universe doesn't necessarily lead to god. I prefer the simulation model- while the fine-tuning problem shows up here, in our simulated universe, in the real non-simulated physical universe that our simulation resides in, there's a whole new set of physics, without any of this fine-tuning mess.

Who's doing the simulation?

 

[Belz...]

A fine-tuned universe doesn't necessarily lead to god. I prefer the simulation model- while the fine-tuning problem shows up here, in our simulated universe, in the real non-simulated physical universe that our simulation resides in, there's a whole new set of physics, without any of this fine-tuning mess.

There is no evidence that the universe is fine-tuned, so why bother entertaining that possibility for anything more than personal entertainment ?

 

[Nonpareil]

The bolded is wrong.

Please re-read my post. I was referring to this forum.

 

[Soapy Sam]

The universe is probably fairly finely tuned for everything in it.
If chemistry was different, we might have more trachyte and less basalt.
Does this mean the universe is fine tuned for basalt?

 

[Fudbucker]

As someone who followed the original discussion with a mixture of exasperation and amusement, I will say only this:

No one disagrees that finding out why the universal constants have the values they do is a bad idea, or that changing the values might render the universe inimitable to life as we know it. The entire issue you had there - and which I suspect will repeat itself in this thread, though I haven't read all the posts to be sure - is a matter of phrasing and tone.

"Fine-tuning" is generally accepted to refer to the creationist argument that the seemingly narrow values which might result in something we recognize as life indicate the presence of a fine-tuner. This is not necessarily the case when discussing alternatives such as the multiverse theory, or even the simple possibility that the values couldn't have been anything else - we don't know anything about the mechanics that formed the universe, after all (or, at least, very little) - but on this forum, "fine-tuning" is generally read to mean "THIS IS AN ARGUMENT FOR CREATIONISM".

Couple this with a generally confrontational, dismissive, and mocking attitude on both sides, and you get the original train-wreck of a thread.

So. Finding out why the universal constants exist within such a narrow range? Great. Leaping from there to the idea that the universe was actively fine-tuned? Not so much.

That's why I was careful with the poll question to specifically refer to cosmology.

The vast majority of people who answered the poll are wrong: fine-tuning is not the equivalent of a puddle wondering about the hole it's in. It's a problem in cosmology that needs to be solved. Physicist after physicist attests to this.

The problem has gotten especially pressing, since the LHC came online, and more and more evidence is arising that the universe is unnatural. If it's not supersymmetry or string theory, it's either the multiverse, or something very strange.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's the latest bandwagon in the Pop-Sci press you mean?

 

[Dr. Keith]

A fine-tuned universe doesn't necessarily lead to god. I prefer the simulation model- while the fine-tuning problem shows up here, in our simulated universe, in the real non-simulated physical universe that our simulation resides in, there's a whole new set of physics, without any of this fine-tuning mess.

Who's doing the simulation?

The turtles.

 

[tsig]

That's why I was careful with the poll question to specifically refer to cosmology.

The vast majority of people who answered the poll are wrong: fine-tuning is not the equivalent of a puddle wondering about the hole it's in. It's a problem in cosmology that needs to be solved. Physicist after physicist attests to this.

The problem has gotten especially pressing, since the LHC came online, and more and more evidence is arising that the universe is unnatural. If it's not supersymmetry or string theory, it's either the multiverse, or something very strange.

What standard can you measure the universe against?

 

[Son of Inigo]

The problem has gotten especially pressing, since the LHC came online, and more and more evidence is arising that the universe is unnatural. If it's not supersymmetry or string theory, it's either the multiverse, or something very strange.

Please forgive a layperson for asking this, but in what way is the universe not natural? I take unnatural to mean somebody or something constructed it. Is that what you are implying?

And even if (very big if) it was unnatural in the sense I ask above, then wouldn't it still be natural for us? As we cannot conceive of any other way for the universe to be and still support human life, isn't it still our 'natural' home?

I guess my point is this, regardless of how it came to be, this universe is the natural place for us to be because we are here. Unless it is discovered that human life arose somewhere outside of this universe, and we were just planted in this one, like ants in an ant farm, then this is our natural universe.

Please correct me if my logic is wrong.

 

[Correa Neto]

The turtles.

Correction:

ALIEN turtles.

The fine-tuned universe is not exclusive to creationists; its actually almost universal among theists and deists. And some UFOlogists too.

By the way, how could we actually be able to know The Simulators' (c) universe is not as fine tuned as ours?

How do we know if ours is not The Simulators' (c) universe?

And even if our universe is a simulation, how the hell do we know the whole point of the simulation was to create us? How can we know if we are not just an unexpected if not unpleasant (or mostly harmless) side efect on iteration No.42?

So... Meh to the alleged fine-tuning of constants as evidence the universe universe was created by some god or alien to house mankind, the alleged apex of creation.

 

[tsig]

Correction:

ALIEN turtles.

The fine-tuned universe is not exclusive to creationists; its actually almost universal among theists and deists. And some UFOlogists too.

By the way, how could we actually be able to know The Simulators' (c) universe is not as fine tuned as ours?

How do we know if ours is not The Simulators' (c) universe?

And even if our universe is a simulation, how the hell do we know the whole point of the simulation was to create us? How can we know if we are not just an unexpected if not unpleasant (or mostly harmless) side efect on iteration No.42?

So... Meh to the alleged fine-tuning of constants as evidence the universe universe was created by some god or alien to house mankind, the alleged apex of creation.

Why minds in vats, why not just semi-isolated programs in the mainframe.

Of course any entity capable of doing minds in vats is operationally a god.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Correction:

ALIEN turtles.

Just so long as it's turtles all the way down.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Of course any entity capable of doing minds in vats is operationally a god.

Steve Martin pulled it off and I always thought he was a bit of a jerk.

 

[Pianoro]

Please forgive a layperson for asking this, but in what way is the universe not natural? I take unnatural to mean somebody or something constructed it. Is that what you are implying?

I agree that this point requires clarification.

The problem has gotten especially pressing, since the LHC came online, and more and more evidence is arising that the universe is unnatural. If it's not supersymmetry or string theory, it's either the multiverse, or something very strange.

Fudbucker, can you clarify how you are using the word "unnatural" here? Are you using it as a synonym for "designed"?