Fine-Tuning Problem in Cosmology

[Fudbucker]

Indeed. To suggest that the universe was finely tuned requires that there was a fine tuner. Some sort of being or force that intentionally set the universe to allow humans to exist. That we are an intended outcome of an event or being capable of altering the state of the universe itself.

That is an unacceptable level of arrogance and narcissism. That isn't science.

That's good because no one is suggesting that. What cosmologists are trying to explain is why the universe appears to be fine-tuned, which, of course, is different than claiming the universe IS fine-tuned. There are many different theories that would explain prima facie fine-tuning that don't invoke a fine-tuner: a multiverse, a cyclical universe, some GUT that allows us to derive the values of the constants.

Inflationary theory resulting in a multiverse of universes with random physical constant values is the leading theory.

 

[Pixel42]

Stephen Hawking is an authority in cosmology, and he's an authority on cosmological fine-tuning. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

No-one is denying that Hawking is an authority on cosmology. No-one is disagreeing with his observation that a small change in many universal constants would make life as we know it impossible. The point under discussion is the meaning and significance of that observation.

 

[MRC_Hans]

No-one is denying that Hawking is an authority on cosmology. No-one is disagreeing with his observation that a small change in many universal constants would make life as we know it impossible. The point under discussion is the meaning and significance of that observation.

Which is the point of all this. The option "Yes, cosmology needs to explain why the values of the physical constants appear to be finely balanced (fine-tuned) to allow for life to exist." is false. It does not need to.

However, cosmology is needed to explain ... etc.

- But that is someting entirely different.

Hans

 

[Aridas]

It's not weak and is done all the time when the subject under discussion is esoteric.

While I'll agree that it's done frequently, it's still weak when done. Weak is better than nothing, though, which can be all that's needed.

It's a standard (non-fallacious) move when dealing with climate denialists to cite the huge number of experts that disagree with them.

Pointing out what the scientific consensus is tends to be a bit more reliable than pointing out couple specific scientists.

Whenever a fingerprint expert or forensics expert or DNA expert is called to testify, it's an appeal to authority.

If the expert explains the reasoning they're using, not necessarily. Appealing to authority is arguing that something is the case because an authority said so.

Since fine tuning/design is faith rather than science his expertise means nothing. Just another scientist trying to leverage his science credentials to further his faith agenda.

That's easier than answering anything I've posted. I guess that's winning then.

Ignoring the actual subject under discussion in favor of one that's been repeatedly clarified as not being under discussion isn't all that productive. Frankly, ending the conversation with those who refuse to deal with the topic isn't unreasonable.

 

[turingtest]

Which is the point of all this. The option "Yes, cosmology needs to explain why the values of the physical constants appear to be finely balanced (fine-tuned) to allow for life to exist." is false. It does not need to.

However, cosmology is needed to explain ... etc.

- But that is someting entirely different.

Hans

Well, there are two different statements here:

1) The physical constants are such that life was a result, and

2) The physical constants were "fine-tuned" for life.

The first is a non-normative statement that requires no "why"; the second, in making life the object of the perceived fine-tuning, is a normative statement. No one would deny that life is a result of the universe as it is- that's kind of a null hypothesis; the question is whether that result is also an aim. Speculation about multiverses, I think, is irrelevant, since, whether it's only one possible universe that had that result (life), or only one which did of many possible that wouldn't, "result" still doesn't change to "aim," and "why" is still a needless question. Multiverses is sort of a recursive "turtles all the way down" resolution which doesn't resolve anything- it doesn't make the ultimate process, whatever it is, a normative one with an aim to "fine tune for life."

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well, there are two different statements here:

1) The physical constants are such that life was a result, and

2) The physical constants were "fine-tuned" for life.

The first is a non-normative statement that requires no "why"; the second, in making life the object of the perceived fine-tuning, is a normative statement. No one would deny that life is a result of the universe as it is- that's kind of a null hypothesis; the question is whether that result is also an aim. Speculation about multiverses, I think, is irrelevant, since, whether it's only one possible universe that had that result (life), or only one which did of many possible that wouldn't, "result" still doesn't change to "aim," and "why" is still a needless question. Multiverses is sort of a recursive "turtles all the way down" resolution which doesn't resolve anything- it doesn't make the ultimate process, whatever it is, a normative one with an aim to "fine tune for life."

I agree. Therefore, the answer to the poll, and the subject of this thread is (if you, as apparantly most here subscribe to #1): No, the 'fine-tuning problem' is akin to the puddle analogy. I.e. it is not something cosmology needs to explain. However, it wille be very interesting if cosmology can explain it.

It is only a 'problem' as in 'interesting and probably difficult challenge'.

Hans

 

[tsig]

I agree. Therefore, the answer to the poll, and the subject of this thread is (if you, as apparantly most here subscribe to #1): No, the 'fine-tuning problem' is akin to the puddle analogy. I.e. it is not something cosmology needs to explain. However, it wille be very interesting if cosmology can explain it.

It is only a 'problem' as in 'interesting and probably difficult challenge'.

Hans

Do you think the fact that the moon exactly the right size to cover the sun in a solar eclipse is an 'interesting and probably difficult challenge'.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Do you think the fact that the moon exactly the right size to cover the sun in a solar eclipse is an 'interesting and probably difficult challenge'.

No, I think it is an interesting coincidence.

Hans

 

[tsig]

No, I think it is an interesting coincidence.

Hans

Like fine tuning.

 

[Dancing David]

LOL, are you serious? This whole thread is me giving arguments, analogies, examples, and citing experts who agree with me.

Some of the people here don't even understand how basic probability works.

If you have not surveyed all cosmologists then all you have done is cherry pick the ones whose view you like.



I will ask you the main question:

-what evidence do you have that the constants of the universe could have varied ?
-what level of variation is supported by the evidence ?

These are the prepositions of the FTA and to me that seems to be an issue.

Then there are others...

 

[Dancing David]

You realize that's not a fallacy in discussions like this, right? Or are you claiming that Tegmark, Linde and Hawking aren't authorities on cosmological fine-tuning? You're not really claiming that...are you?

It is exactly a fallacy in discussions like this, you are not engaging in discussion but rather just saying "They say so"

And do I get back to the basic questions that I just posted, where are they addressed?

 

[Dancing David]

One post solves this whole debate:

"There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Either Paul Davies* is right, or he has no idea what he's talking about.

*Davies' talent as a communicator of science has been recognized in Australia by an Advance Australia Award and two Eureka Prizes, and in the UK by the 2001 Kelvin Medal and Prize by the Institute of Physics, and the 2002 Faraday Prize by The Royal Society. Davies received the Templeton Prize in 1995. Davies was made a member of the Order of Australia in the 2007 Queen's birthday honours list. The asteroid 6870 Pauldavies is named after him.

I wonder who's more credible, Paul Davies or Tsig?

Hmmm......

Still an appeal to authority,, and still you not exploring any ideas.

Answer the two questions I posted two posts ago.

I see you and still ask you to read Stenger, did you?

 

[Dancing David]

You trying to waste my time again, or just annoy me? The work has already been done. Nor have you or anyone else offered me any pay for re-doing it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10378745#post10378745

And how does that demonstrate a multiverse exists?

You post merely asserts that a universe of a certain size means that there is a multiverse and then cites an article that says the universe is larger then the size that you claim would create a multiverse.

The problem is that you did not demonstrate how a multiverse follows from the size of the universe.

So I ask you again, where is the evidence of a multiverse?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Like fine tuning.

Possibly, yes. Still, an interesting challenge to find out. Unlike the moon, where we know beyond reasonable doubt that its apparant size is a coincidence ^*), the structure of the universe is far more complex.

Hans

*) Some argue that there would be no life on Earth if the moon was a different size, but:

1) It is still likely a coincidence, and we are here because it happened here.

2) The arguments are not that strong.

 

[Dancing David]

Toontown,
Given that the observable universe may well be of the size to meet Tegmark's Type I multiverse, there is no reason at all to think that the physical constants are not the same across our universe.

The assumption of different constants withing the same universe (that has boundaries beyond the hubble length) is still solely speculative and lacks any evidence.

Guth states quite clearly that it is a notion to entertain and has done so consistently. he still acknowledges that at this time it is speculative, he does not, nor does Linde state that this is a given in any way. It is implied, and has been implied all along by inflationary theory.

Guth says 'it seems more likely' is a neutral statement, one he has made since the early days of his theory, he discusses the implication of the recursive space time of inflation from the start of his theory.

But as with most cosmologists and quantum physics people he draws a clear line between what is likely and possible and what is demonstrated.

If you heard or read his statements on the BICEP measurements, they too were very neutral and at no point did he says that they were confirmation of inflationary theory.

 

[Fudbucker]

You realize that's not a fallacy in discussions like this, right? Or are you claiming that Tegmark, Linde and Hawking aren't authorities on cosmological fine-tuning? You're not really claiming that...are you?

It is exactly a fallacy in discussions like this, you are not engaging in discussion but rather just saying "They say so"

And do I get back to the basic questions that I just posted, where are they addressed?

I answered your objection in post 107.


And you have 36,000 posts and you don't know what an appeal to authority is? How is that possible on a skeptic's forum?

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Appeal_to_authority.html

Anyone who's read this thread knows that A) I've made page after page of my own arguments and analogies and B) supported them with appeals to experts in the relevant fields.

 

[Fudbucker]

Possibly, yes. Still, an interesting challenge to find out. Unlike the moon, where we know beyond reasonable doubt that its apparant size is a coincidence ^*), the structure of the universe is far more complex.

Hans

*) Some argue that there would be no life on Earth if the moon was a different size, but:

1) It is still likely a coincidence, and we are here because it happened here.

2) The arguments are not that strong.

I agree with Hans. The fact that Earth resides in a "goldilocks zone" is explained by the countless number of other planets that don't- we happen to be one of the planets where everything fell into place just right. This is why the multiverse explanation explains fine-tuning- given enough universes, a few of them will have the right values, just by chance.

But let's roll back the clock a bit to before exoplanets were discovered. Let's pretend that every solar system ever observed had nothing but gas giants. Thousands and thousands of solar systems with no rocky planets.

That would pose quite a problem, correct? After just a small survey we would naturally wonder why we're the only solar system with rocky planets. Naturalistic explanations would be put forward- perhaps it's this part of the galaxy, or solar systems in the spiral arms of galaxies don't have rocky planets...or something else (coincidence would be tossed out after the first dozen or so non-rocky-planet solar systems were discovered).

We would examine more solar systems. The problem would grow worse. If we eventually observe most of the galaxy and find no rocky planets, the problem would be enormous.

That's the position we're in right now. We need something other than coincidence to explain why the universe is the way it is. Just as in the example above, we would need something besides coincidence to explain why no other rocky planets exist.

The best explanation at the moment happens to be a multiverse of universes, for two reasons A) the BICEP2 findings were strong confirmation of inflationary theory, which results in just the kind of multiverse needed to explain fine-tuning and B) the quest for a naturalistic explanation for the value of the constants has gone nowhere for the past 80 years. There's growing consensus that the values of the constants seem to be random.

Barring some startling evidence from the LHC in the next few years, inflation theory will be the overwhelming consensus position (and Linde will get his Nobel prize). Only a few die-hards will still be working on other explanations, like String Theory.

 

[Dancing David]

I answered your objection in post 107.


And you have 36,000 posts and you don't know what an appeal to authority is? How is that possible on a skeptic's forum?

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Appeal_to_authority.html

Anyone who's read this thread knows that A) I've made page after page of my own arguments and analogies and B) supported them with appeals to experts in the relevant fields.

And that is still an appeal to authority, until you provide evidence that the constants can vary.

 

[Dancing David]

If you have not surveyed all cosmologists then all you have done is cherry pick the ones whose view you like.



I will ask you the main question:

-what evidence do you have that the constants of the universe could have varied ?
-what level of variation is supported by the evidence ?

These are the prepositions of the FTA and to me that seems to be an issue.

Then there are others...

Fudbucker here are the questions again.

 

[tsig]

I agree with Hans. The fact that Earth resides in a "goldilocks zone" is explained by the countless number of other planets that don't- we happen to be one of the planets where everything fell into place just right. This is why the multiverse explanation explains fine-tuning- given enough universes, a few of them will have the right values, just by chance.

But let's roll back the clock a bit to before exoplanets were discovered. Let's pretend that every solar system ever observed had nothing but gas giants. Thousands and thousands of solar systems with no rocky planets.

That would pose quite a problem, correct? After just a small survey we would naturally wonder why we're the only solar system with rocky planets. Naturalistic explanations would be put forward- perhaps it's this part of the galaxy, or solar systems in the spiral arms of galaxies don't have rocky planets...or something else (coincidence would be tossed out after the first dozen or so non-rocky-planet solar systems were discovered).

We would examine more solar systems. The problem would grow worse. If we eventually observe most of the galaxy and find no rocky planets, the problem would be enormous.

That's the position we're in right now. We need something other than coincidence to explain why the universe is the way it is. Just as in the example above, we would need something besides coincidence to explain why no other rocky planets exist.

The best explanation at the moment happens to be a multiverse of universes, for two reasons A) the BICEP2 findings were strong confirmation of inflationary theory, which results in just the kind of multiverse needed to explain fine-tuning and B) the quest for a naturalistic explanation for the value of the constants has gone nowhere for the past 80 years. There's growing consensus that the values of the constants seem to be random.

Barring some startling evidence from the LHC in the next few years, inflation theory will be the overwhelming consensus position (and Linde will get his Nobel prize). Only a few die-hards will still be working on other explanations, like String Theory.

Hilited the hole in your reasoning.