Fine-Tuning Problem in Cosmology

[BenBurch]

I recently read and am still pondering Max Tegmark's recent book on this topic. Anybody else here who has read it?

 

[Libra]

. . .

99% could say I'm wrong. It doesn't make me wrong, it just means the people who are voting are ignorant.

. . .

[SARCASM]

Yep, Exactly what Robert Mugabe has been saying for years now.

[/SARCASM]

 

[Fudbucker]

[SARCASM]

Yep, Exactly what Robert Mugabe has been saying for years now.

[/SARCASM]

Can Mugabe cite a bunch of physicists who agree with him?

 

[Fudbucker]

Fudbucker, your explanatory skills are considerable. But you are wasting your time here.

Have you ever mud wrestled a huge hog?

It does not matter how skillful a wrestler you are. A huge, slick hog cannot be effectively wrestled. To make matters worse, in attempting to wrestle the hog you risk having ignorant observers think you are a poor wrestler and the hog is a good wrestler, when in fact it is just a big, fat, slick hog.

Appreciate the post. This is a skeptic's forum. It shouldn't be this hard (and normally isn't).

 

[tsig]

Fine tuning looks a lot like the privileged planet hypotheses.

It is just ID on a larger level than bacteria tails.

Actually the odds of a universe supporting life are one since we are in one of those.


Who did your fine tuning?

The fine tuning fallacy is to assume there must be a reason and that that reason is some sort of fine tuner.

This assumes that life was the desired outcome of the universe.

IOW: This universe was made for you and me.

Who's doing the simulation?

OK, I'm watching. Here is your big chance to demonstrate how to use words and logic productively.

Fudbucker has made some good points. Points which numerous logical, respected people have been acknowledging for decades. Here is your chance to show that you are capable of grasping and acknowledging these obviously valid points.

Since you want to defend him there are some of the points that need to be addressed.

 

[Fudbucker]

(1) Fine tuning looks a lot like the privileged planet hypotheses.

(2) It is just ID on a larger level than bacteria tails.

(3) Actually the odds of a universe supporting life are one since we are in one of those.


Who did your fine tuning?

(4) The fine tuning fallacy is to assume there must be a reason and that that reason is some sort of fine tuner.

(5) This assumes that life was the desired outcome of the universe.

IOW: This universe was made for you and me.

(6) Who's doing the simulation?

OK, I'm watching. Here is your big chance to demonstrate how to use words and logic productively.

Fudbucker has made some good points. Points which numerous logical, respected people have been acknowledging for decades. Here is your chance to show that you are capable of grasping and acknowledging these obviously valid points.

Since you want to defend him there are some of the points that need to be addressed.

1. No it doesn't

2. It's not about specific life forms, but about the conditions for any life to exist.

3. The odds of an event are different than the odds of a particular explanation of the event.

4. Surprising results always have to be explained. The explanation could be coincidence, or something else. Rarely (if ever) does science simply ignore surprising results. Example: the Comsological Constant's actual value was extremely surprising in that it was orders of magnitude different than the predicted value. That has to be explained. When you don't try to explain phenomena, then you're in the realm of theism "nothing to see here, god works in mysterious ways".

5. "Life" is a loaded term. I prefer "complexity", and complexity is a necessary condition for life anyway. If the odds of a complex universe naturally arising are a hundred trillion to one, and a complex universe forms on the first go (the initial big bang, since we don't appear to be in a cyclical universe of repeated big bangs and big crunches), of course that would need to be explained. Maybe complexity is built into the laws of nature (i.e., a natural universe). Maybe there's a bunch of other universes that aren't complex (multiverse). You don't really see anyone anymore saying, "Eh, chalk it up to coincidence". There are many theories put forward and defended to explain it. Coincidence isn't one of them... except here.

6. The theory that we live in a simulation could solve the fine-tuning problem because it's possible the universe that's running the simulation doesn't have a fine-tuning problem- they programmed it into the simulation for some reason. Maybe as a hint that we do indeed live in a simulation.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No, you can conclude just by pressing the button once. A Pi result is strong evidence of a non-random process. Suppose you rolled a trillion-sided die and got 314159265359. That one toss is enough for you to conclude it either wasn't a fair toss or a fair roll or a fair die. (i.e., something non-random was at work).

It's still not a good analogy because pi is something that has previous significance to you, whereas before life arose life-compatible laws of physics had no meaning to anything.

However you can't conclude that because something is non-random that it is designed. Pi is non-random, but I don't think that proves that it was "designed".

It's not so much that life arose(ETA I mean, it is more about the conditions necessary for life to even have a chance, like complexity), it's that a universe with complexity is very very unlikely,

You are asserting what you are meant to be proving.

What we are doing right now is discussing whether or not it makes any epistemological sense to make claims like "a universe with complexity is unlikely". Just asserting that it is over and over again won't get you anywhere.

Right, that's what they mean whey talk about a natural vs. unnatural universe. The evidence for unnaturalness is starting to pile up.

You're doing it again.

That's true, there may be some theory that will explain everything. The problem is, the LHC knocked down a couple of those theories and inflation got some confirmation from BICEP2.

This is still just The God of the Gaps.

To go back to another analogy: if we keep finding life that looks like us, we would assume it's some principle of evolution. As the years go by, and we can't figure out why life would always evolve to look like us, eventually other theories would be proposed. You can always assume there's a mind-blowing natural explanation that would explain it all, but after decades of dead-ends, you would naturally start entertaining other explanations.

Have you read Hume? A rational person would only start entertaining supernatural explanations if those explanations were less unlikely than any conceivable natural explanation.

The characteristic epistemological error of the woo-woo is to hit a minor molehill of ignorance, and inflate it into such an infinitely large mountain that supernatural phenomena seem less improbable to them than simple things like ignorance, error or fraud.

That the values of the physical constants appear finely balanced for life to be possible has been surprising us for decades, since the 60's. Dark Energy is the latest such observation for apparent fine-tuning.

You're doing it again.

A) in an unnatural universe the constants are variable, and there's more and more evidence that this is an unnatural universe

...and again.

Most of this post is just you asserting the same thing over and over again, without once properly addressing the critiques we have made of how you claim to know that the universe is "unlikely". The fact is, you just don't know that, and anyone who thinks they do is in my humble opinion simply confused.

 

[MRC_Hans]

1. It is not true that we have "no idea how unlikely it is". See inflation theory, the leading cosmological theory for the past 35 years, which now has observational support from BICEPS, the LHC results, and other large-scale observations.

Ah, sure. We have plenty of ideas. But we don't know, do we?

2. The typical denials of the utility of probability due to lack of precise probabilistic values tend to be weak for the following reasons:

You can calculate probability on anything, but if the range gets too big, it becomes academic.

If we knew that exact probability, then we would necessarily know precisely how a universe exists and precisely what form(s) it can take. If we knew that, then obviously we would not need probability. We would simply refer to our near-complete model of the universe.

However, that's not what we are discussing here. Here, we are discussing the implications of our universe existing against astronomic odds. Thus, the validity of our estimation of the odds is relevant.

Probability is a tool to be used to reach tentative conclusions from incomplete information, and is most useful precisely when we do not have complete information.

I agree. But when we then try to make further conclusions based on uncertain probabilities, we are on shaky ground. Possibly interesting ground, but shaky.

Hans

 

[Mojo]

We've had a bit of a heated discussion in the R&P section about whether fine-tuning is a problem in cosmology.

It depends on which definition of "problem" you are using. When cosmologists talk about the "fine tuning problem" they are using it in the sense of "a question to which we don't know answer". Creationists (and IIRC the O/P in the R&P thread) conflate this with is the more everyday definition of the word "problem", for example the the Concise OED's first definition as "an unwelcome or harmful matter needing to be dealt with or overcome".

 

[Libra]

. . .

4. Surprising results always have to be explained. The explanation could be coincidence, or something else. Rarely (if ever) does science simply ignore surprising results. Example: the Comsological Constant's actual value was extremely surprising in that it was orders of magnitude different than the predicted value. That has to be explained. When you don't try to explain phenomena, then you're in the realm of theism "nothing to see here, god works in mysterious ways".

. . .

Yes, but not really applicable here.

We are not looking at results needing an explanation as such. There are actually no results to discuss. So we just don't know yet, until we can isolate, predict and measure the parameter(s) in question. Shouldn't that be our focus rather ?

6. The theory that we live in a simulation could solve the fine-tuning problem because it's possible the universe that's running the simulation doesn't have a fine-tuning problem- they programmed it into the simulation for some reason. Maybe as a hint that we do indeed live in a simulation.

You can not be serious with this. Who is this they ?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

FWIW, my _guess_ is that our "constants" are guided by some Lagrangeesque principle - universes permitting life, where planets and chemicals and stars can form, are "more stable", and by virtue of that the values resulting in these universes corresponds to some manner of least action. The universes with minor variations in constants, where basic necessities for chemistry can't occur, would be something like an inertial system moving in a curved line - no matter how precise the sequence of coordinates need to be in order to move in a straight line, it does because of the principle of least action.

 

[Toontown]

Ah, sure. We have plenty of ideas. But we don't know, do we?

Not knowing a valid, explanatory idea is correct is not a reason to stubbornly oppose it with weak objections.

However, that's not what we are discussing here. Here, we are discussing the implications of our universe existing against astronomic odds. Thus, the validity of our estimation of the odds is relevant.

That doesn't mean we should remain blind to the implications of what we do know and in denial about them until someone explains the complete workings of the universe to us.

I agree. But when we then try to make further conclusions based on uncertain probabilities, we are on shaky ground. Possibly interesting ground, but shaky.Hans

You're already on shaky ground. Ludicrously shaky ground, considering there is more solid ground to be had a step away. The one-off popgun of a universe which is the alternative to the inflationary multiverse cannot begin to account for your existence. How is the shaky ground you're on preferable to another piece of less shaky ground which has the potential to account for your existence?

Why shouldn't an inflationary multiverse with variable parameters be the default assumption?

 

[Dancing David]

It's irrelevant how much they can vary. I'll give you an example:

Really?
Then you don't understand your own argument.

I ask you again, how many possible values between .00000000000000000000001 and .00000000000000000000002.

Unless you want to admin that the difference of .00000000000000000000001 just isn't fine.

I am asking you again within the range specified, how many values could exist?

You come across a machine that simply has a button and a readout on it. When you press the button, the numbers 314159265359 show up. It doesn't matter how much the numbers can vary, you're still going to assume the result was due to a non-random process.

Let's say you press the button ten more times and you discover the only "variance" is the last digit (31415926535 always shows up, but sometimes the "9" at the end is a "4", an "8", a "0", etc.). The extreme lack of variance will make you even more convinced there's something non-random going on: not only does Pi show up on the initial press of the button, but the machine always generates numbers that are extremely close to the value of Pi. You would not believe that it's merely coincidence.

Now let's back-track and say you press the button ten times after the initial Pi result and get a bunch of totally random-seeming numbers that aren't even close to Pi. In that case, the variance is huge, and the fact that the numbers vary so much makes you start to doubt there's something non-random going on.

So let's apply this to the universe. We've measured a bunch of physical constants and have found that even small changes would result in a universe where the conditions for life wouldn't exist. If the values of the physical constants can only vary a tiny amount, then we're looking at a situation where the constants seem to be "set" for a universe where life would be possible: if you run the big-bang over and over again, and you keep ending up with universes where the physical constant values are right in the "Goldilocks zone", that would be an amazing result. It would be even more amazing if you can't figure out a naturalistic explanation- that just by chance alone, you keep getting "goldilocks" universes.

Consider: if we start surveying different worlds, and every world that we discover with life on it has humanoids that look a lot like us (i.e., very little variance), would you really just chalk it up to a coincidence? That would be absurd. You would suppose there's some evolutionary principle at work. If you couldn't discover the evolutionary reason why all these advanced life forms keep looking like us, you would be extremely surprised.

Now, if the values of the physical constants can vary to a huge degree, the coincidence hypothesis is actually stronger, because then you can explain the values of the constants by invoking a multiverse or a cyclical universe.

TLDR: the smaller the variance of the values of the physical constants, the bigger the fine-tuning problem gets, and the more the need for a naturalistic explanation grows.

Your last statement is demonstrated wrong,

Answer the question:
how many possible values between .00000000000000000000001 and .00000000000000000000002

Is it different than the potential values between 1 and 2?
Is it different than the potential values between .1 and .2?

Or are you ignoring the way math works?

 

[Dancing David]

Right, a non-random process. You wouldn't assume you just happened to get a Pi result from a RNG in the machine, which is entirely possible. It just wouldn't be a good explanation.



I don't know what you mean here. A machine with a button and a readout could be designed to output nearly anything. If all you see is the number Pi it's still possible it's nothing but a random bunch of numbers. But your confidence in that explanation will be very low.

And where did you demonstrate that the values of the constants in the FTA are random?

Or is that a fallacy of construction?

 

[Dancing David]

1. It is not true that we have "no idea how unlikely it is". See inflation theory, the leading cosmological theory for the past 35 years, which now has observational support from BICEPS, the LHC results, and other large-scale observations.

And how do measurements of the existing constants and their results constraint the speculative generation of said constants?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Why shouldn't an inflationary multiverse with variable parameters be the default assumption?

How many variable basic constants do you know of?

However, I haven't said it couldn't be. I just said there were other possibilites. I also said that no matter what, our presense in a suitable universe, no matter how rare such may be, is no mystery. Where else should we be?



Hans

 

[Toontown]

And how do measurements of the existing constants and their results constraint the speculative generation of said constants?

You know there is no simple answer to that. However:

It all fits inflation and nothing else, as these laureates will explain.

http://www.kavliprize.org/events-and-features/2014-kavli-prize-astrophysics-discussion-laureates

The LHC was built as a means to understand the high energy physics necessary to fully flesh out inflation theory and make it fully predictive.

But I'll go ahead and make my prediction now, leaving naysayers to perch on that crumbly ledge that's about to break off. I predict that inflation with variable constants is real and will eventually be as accepted as relativity. Like Tegmark today, I would have bet everything I have on it 20 years ago.

 

[Toontown]

How many variable basic constants do you know of?

Is that your argument against inflation? You can't see it happening? Do you also think the universe is exactly as large as the part we can see?

It's too late to look for variable constants in this neck of the inflationary multiverse. Inflation stopped here 13.4 billion years ago, and these local constants were established then.

How many black holes were known of when their existence was correctly predicted?

However, I haven't said it couldn't be. I just said there were other possibilites.

I don't care. I wouldn't bet on any of them. However, like Tegmark, I will bet on inflation.

I also said that no matter what, our presense in a suitable universe, no matter how rare such may be, is no mystery. Where else should we be?

Hans

Why we are in such a universe is not the question and never was. This has been explained several times in this thread alone. Frankly, if you understood the question, you wouldn't keep bringing this up. It is irrelevant and a waste of time.

The question is, what explains the existence of the particular kind of universe required for our specific existence?

The vey likely answer has been staring all of you in the face for the past 35 years.

 

[Dr. Keith]

But I'll go ahead and make my prediction now, leaving naysayers to perch on that crumbly ledge that's about to break off. I predict that inflation with variable constants is real and will eventually be as accepted as relativity. Like Tegmark today, I would have bet everything I have on it 20 years ago.

How much would you bet on this universe being a simulation?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Is that your argument against inflation? You can't see it happening? Do you also think the universe is exactly as large as the part we can see?

I'm not arguing against inflation.

Why we are in such a universe is not the question and never was.

Well, it was the topic of this thread.

The question is, what explains the existence of the particular kind of universe required for our specific existence?

That is a good question. The basic answer is, of course: Because it is possible.

... But I realize that much of the debate has moved away from the initial topic.


Hans