The fine tuning argument

[Ichneumonwasp]

I agree that it does not prove the existance of a fine-tuner. I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that it does. But the parameter values DO require fine-tuning by the model builders to end up with a universe like ours. Why do you object to the implication that fine-tuning is required when it is true?

You can only argue that fine-tuning is required if you already intend for this universe to pop out. The problem is in the perspective. When you begin with the end in mind, the only way that anyone can get to one particular end is by placing an enormous number of constraints on the system -- so that it looks designed.

The problem is that beginning with a particular end in mind always colors the approach.

Take away the end and you see something like this -- the constants are what they are and we end up with this sort of universe. Things could have been very different.

When it comes to us trying to understand if there is something deeper to the process of "why these constants?", then no one has any objection as far as I can tell.

But let's get real. That is not why this argument continues to surface.

 

[geni]

But this does not preclude the existence of life. Just life as we know it.

Yes it does. Life is a structure that can use energy for the perpose of it's own reporduction.

Without energy gradents this is of course imposible.

Structures are needed to facilitate energy flow and reproduction. In the no stars universe such structures are imposible. The structures need to be around long enough for reproduction to take place (so very hot universes may be a problem).

And, in any case, this assumes that only one law was changed. Maybe there isn't any gravity at all. Maybe the speed of light isn't constant. Maybe the laws of cause and effect are nonexistent. None of this explicitly states that there cannot be life. Just that life would be different from the life in our universe.

Dealing with one law change at a time makes it easy to deal with the outcome. The more changes you make the stranger the result is likely to be and the less likely life is. Changeing the speed of light has all sorts of problematical effects.

 

[Nonpareil]

Yes it does. Life is a structure that can use energy for the perpose of it's own reporduction.

Without energy gradents this is of course imposible.

Structures are needed to facilitate energy flow and reproduction. In the no stars universe such structures are imposible. The structures need to be around long enough for reproduction to take place (so very hot universes may be a problem).

Dealing with one law change at a time makes it easy to deal with the outcome. The more changes you make the stranger the result is likely to be and the less likely life is. Changeing the speed of light has all sorts of problematical effects.

:/
Y'know, I'm pretty sure you're right. But the fact is that neither of us can prove either side of the argument. We can't know what the other universes would be like, or whether they would support life, or if that life would even be recognized as "life" in our universe.
But it's cool to think about!

 

[Robin]

I'm not following you here. They don't seem necessary to me. If they were not true, why would that affect the improbability argument?

If you roll a die once, what is the probability that it will land a 6?

If you roll a die 20 times, what is the probability that at least one of them will be a six?

If you roll 20 dice, what is the probability that at least one of them will be a six?

 

[Beth]

You can only argue that fine-tuning is required if you already intend for this universe to pop out.

Right

The problem is in the perspective. When you begin with the end in mind, the only way that anyone can get to one particular end is by placing an enormous number of constraints on the system -- so that it looks designed.

No argument there.

The problem is that beginning with a particular end in mind always colors the approach.

Wanting to end up with a model that produces a universe that looks like ours certainly fits that bill.

Take away the end and you see something like this -- the constants are what they are and we end up with this sort of universe. Things could have been very different.

Maybe. Maybe not. We really don't know at this point. There are certainly a lot of very different universes that pop out of our models without those constraints.

When it comes to us trying to understand if there is something deeper to the process of "why these constants?", then no one has any objection as far as I can tell.

Sure seems like I get a lot of objections to insisting that the question is currently unanswered.

But let's get real. That is not why this argument continues to surface.

Maybe. But that's not why I argue it.

 

[Gate2501]

If you roll a die once, what is the probability that it will land a 6?

If you roll a die 20 times, what is the probability that at least one of them will be a six?

If you roll 20 dice, what is the probability that at least one of them will be a six?

If you rolled a dice 14 billion years ago and it landed on a 6, what are the odds today that it landed on a 6 14 billion years ago.

 

[rocketdodger]

The argument is usually formulated as a probabilistic argument where the evidence (the precise life-permitting values of the physical constants) is more likely given the existence of God than by random chance.

And that is why it utterly fails to hold water -- there is zero evidence that random chance has anything to do with anything.

 

[Beth]

If you roll a die once, what is the probability that it will land a 6?

If you roll a die 20 times, what is the probability that at least one of them will be a six?

0.9739

If you roll 20 dice, what is the probability that at least one of them will be a six?

0.9739 It doesn't matter whether you roll one die 20 times or 20 dice once, if the dice are all fair and honest, the probabilities are identical.

But I'm still not following you. How do are you relating those probability statements relate to the idea that:

X is unique in all existence or X is capabable of producing only one universe

or X is capable of producing a universe in a vast number of different ways and might have produced any of these at random

I don't see why any of these statements are necessary or implicit in the fine-tuning argument. Why does X need to be unique? What can X be capable of producing only one universe? And while I don't object to the assumption that there are a vast number of different ways that X might produce a universe, I don't see why we need assume that X might have produced any of them at random.

 

[Beth]

Actually I said the Universe was contingent upon X, rather than "precursor" or "cause" since these things seem to imply time. If time began at the big bang then there could be no "precursor" unless the cause also had some kind of time.

Saying it is "contingent" does not have the same implication of there being a "before" the big bang.

Okay. So what do you mean by "contingent" then?

I thought you were meaning that the universe required X in order to come into being. If that's not what you mean, how is X involved in the fine-tuning argument? If that is what you meant, how does being contingent differ from being a precursor or a cause?

 

[Singularitarian]

0.9739

0.9739 It doesn't matter whether you roll one die 20 times or 20 dice once, if the dice are all fair and honest, the probabilities are identical.

But I'm still not following you. How do are you relating those probability statements relate to the idea that:

X is unique in all existence or X is capabable of producing only one universe

or X is capable of producing a universe in a vast number of different ways and might have produced any of these at random

I don't see why any of these statements are necessary or implicit in the fine-tuning argument. Why does X need to be unique? What can X be capable of producing only one universe? And while I don't object to the assumption that there are a vast number of different ways that X might produce a universe, I don't see why we need assume that X might have produced any of them at random.

I can't understand what is exactly being said either, and what X implies.

With this said, i suppose its a condition of the universe? If it is, then its much more complicated than just saying X. There are many variables to consider, such as why the universe has exactly three+one dimensions capable for sustaining complex systems... any less dimensions, and would never have survived, including all forms of life. Indeed, why did the inflationary phase of the universe occur exactly when it did? What about the variables which conducted the superiority of ordinary particles over antiparticles, what are the chances there? Hoyle himself even calculated the odds of a single enzyme to be around [latex]10^{40,000}[/latex] to one, and even Smolin calculated the odds of life to [latex]10^{250}[/latex] to 1(approx.).What about the fundamenta particles? Unless the types of particles are indeed few in number (we know around 450 particles of the standard model) then why did the universe choose the baryons it did, and the quantity in which they arrived?

There are manyu variables to consider.

 

[Olowkow]

Hoyle himself even calculated the odds of a single enzyme to be around

to one, and even Smolin calculated the odds of life to

to 1(approx.)

That's enough to make one believe in god-didit.
What are the odds of all the pool balls on the table winding up in their final positions upon break, to an accuracy of a Planck length?

 

[Beth]

There's simply a contradiction here: on the one hand you're saying "this universe could have had any parameters at all (--in other words, there were millions of lottery tickets). But on the other hand you're saying "and whatever form the universe takes we must regard it as miraculous 'fine tuning' that it took that form rather than some other form."

If I say that there are millions of possible combination of numbers to select from for your lottery ticket, does that imply that a lottery ticket was created and sold for every possible combination of numbers? That there are more possible outcomes than are actually realized is not a contradiction. It's a basic fact of nature as I understand it.

I mean, either it's random or it isn't. If it's random, then we have no right to be surprised by any particular outcome.

Just because something is random doesn't imply that all outcomes are equally likely. If you throw two dice, you're far more likely to get a 7 than a 12. If you throw 20 dice and they all come up 6, would you believe it was due to random chance or would you consider other explanations?

If it's not random, then there's no basis for the "fine tuning" argument at all.

If you assume it's not random, that the designer hypothesis is one way to explain the non-randomness of the outcome.

 

[Singularitarian]

That's enough to make one believe in god-didit.
What are the odds of all the pool balls on the table winding up in their final positions upon break, to an accuracy of a Planck length?

Do you mean a planck seperation between two balls... would never happen, couldn't happen. And if it could, then it would be a matter of geometry, odds i couldn't possibly calculate.

 

[Singularitarian]

I can however, for the sake of arguement gives the odds that the entire vacuum could have arisen due to quantum mechanics.

Qouting Gate2501; ''The conditional(we exist) probability of us observing a universe which allows us to exist, is 1.''

Is not true at all from quantum mechanics. For there to arise a singular region in spacetime in some distant past is actually governed by the wave function, meaning that the conditions of this universe where ''chosen'' from an infinite amount of possible start-up conditions. Because every possibility of the universe existed in a superpositioned state (meaning all possible states of vacuums), then the chances of one of these states appearing is a massive 1 out of an [latex]\infty[/latex] (the infinity symbol.)

 

[Robin]

If you roll a die once, what is the probability that it will land a 6?

If you roll a die 20 times, what is the probability that at least one of them will be a six?

0.9739

If you roll 20 dice, what is the probability that at least one of them will be a six?

0.9739 It doesn't matter whether you roll one die 20 times or 20 dice once, if the dice are all fair and honest, the probabilities are identical.

Err... is there a reason you did not answer the first question????

Is that probability identical too?

 

[Gate2501]

I can however, for the sake of arguement gives the odds that the entire vacuum could have arisen due to quantum mechanics.

Qouting Gate2501; ''The conditional(we exist) probability of us observing a universe which allows us to exist, is 1.''

Is not true at all from quantum mechanics. For there to arise a singular region in spacetime in some distant past is actually governed by the wave function, meaning that the conditions of this universe where ''chosen'' from an infinite amount of possible start-up conditions. Because every possibility of the universe existed in a superpositioned state (meaning all possible states of vacuums), then the chances of one of these states appearing is a massive 1 out of an [latex]\infty[/latex] (the infinity symbol.)

So are you saying that the conditional(we exist) probability of us observing a universe which allows us to exist is not 1?

On what grounds? I am scared to argue with you, because it looks like you have employed the word salad style further compounded by quantum mechanical jutsus.

Very powerful techniques indeed.

 

[Robin]

Okay. So what do you mean by "contingent" then?

I thought you were meaning that the universe required X in order to come into being. If that's not what you mean, how is X involved in the fine-tuning argument? If that is what you meant, how does being contingent differ from being a precursor or a cause?

I don't think you read my first explanation, so I am not sure how saying it again would help.

If you say the universe came into being, then this implies, doesn't it, that before the universe began there was no universe?

So tell me - was there time before time began? If not, then was there a "before" the universe began?

 

[rocketdodger]

Even if you think the odds of God existing are 1 in a thousand, you'll get confirmation, because the existence of life is "crushingly improbable".

No.

And we have been over this before. Multiple times.

Each time, you get trounced. Do you come back hoping people have forgotten you? Do you forget? Are you actively dishonest, or merely prone to fail to remember things?

You have zero evidence that the existence of life is "crushingly improbable."

You have never cited any.

You never will cite any.

So why do you keep at this game?

 

[Yoink]

If I say that there are millions of possible combination of numbers to select from for your lottery ticket, does that imply that a lottery ticket was created and sold for every possible combination of numbers? That there are more possible outcomes than are actually realized is not a contradiction. It's a basic fact of nature as I understand it.

You're missing my point. The "contradiction" is that on the one hand you are saying "any of these outcomes is possible" and then whatever outcome actually happens you're saying "OMG, it's a miracle! Out of all the possible outcomes, it was this one!!!!"

Either you think they are all possible, or you don't. If they're all possible, why the surprise that one of the many possible outcomes occurred? Where, in other words, is the evidence of "fine tuning"?

Just because something is random doesn't imply that all outcomes are equally likely. If you throw two dice, you're far more likely to get a 7 than a 12. If you throw 20 dice and they all come up 6, would you believe it was due to random chance or would you consider other explanations? If you assume it's not random, that the designer hypothesis is one way to explain the non-randomness of the outcome.

Where did I say anything about "equally likely"? Who here has any evidence about how "likely" this universe is? If the "fine tuning" argument is to mean anything AT ALL, however, it requires that the physical parameters of this universe not be intrinsically necessary. If they are intrinsically necessary then there's no "fine tuning"": there simply is "the way things have to be." So, it's the "fine tuning" argument that requires the assumption that things could just as easily have been otherwise in order for there to be surprise and amazement that they happened to turn out this way.

So, ex hypothesi, the fine tuning argument says "our universe turned out in one of many, many, many possible ways." Great; but presumably it had to turn out in some way, right? So why should I be excited about the fact that it is this way.

Here's what you're not seeing about the 20-dice analogy. Every single possible throw of 20 dice is equally improbable. If I throw 20 dice and get
1,3,6,4,2,6,1,6,5,4,3,2,5,2,3,4,6,1,1,1--that's just as unlikely as 6,6,6, etc. The error that the "fine tuning" people make is that they start from the assumption that there's something particularly "interesting" about an outcome in which we happen to end up evolving and then ask "what are the odds"??? That's like starting from the requirement that the dice come up 20x6. But what reason do we have for thinking there's anything so "interesting" about an outcome in which we end up to ask about that outcome?

Again, if every single possible universe is "wildly improbable," then what makes the one we've got different from any other one? Where's the evidence of "fine tuning."

 

[Singularitarian]

So are you saying that the conditional(we exist) probability of us observing a universe which allows us to exist is not 1?

On what grounds? I am scared to argue with you, because it looks like you have employed the word salad style further compounded by quantum mechanical jutsus.

Very powerful techniques indeed.

In the beginning, there was nothing. In fact, this beginning is not described by the time vector of the current universe. This beginning is timelessness, a void, with nothing, absolute nada. Then, suddenly, spawned a creation of matter and gas.

For the matter and gas, space and time to unfold, the wave function of quantum mechanics dictates that the universe had to choose the initial conditions from an infinite amount of choices [1]. In effect, the wave function had smeared all the possible universes which could arise in the universe, and fundamentally dictating any of the events which so occured afterwards. This means our very chances of standing here on earth, as thought lit upon a magicians darkened stage, and we ponder mindlessly about the foundations in which we can inexorably observe.

Interestingly, the wave function did not provide a finite amount of solutions from a Copenhagen Point of View. The universe had to choose from an infinite amount of possible universes, so the chances of any universe being observable would actually infer 1 in an infinite amount.

[1] - F. A Wolf. Parallel Universes; The Search for Other Worlds.