Defending the Christian Worldview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Defending the Christian Worldview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Defending the Christian Worldview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design » Astronomy & Cosmology and God » Fine tuning of the Universe

Fine tuning of the Universe

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

1Fine tuning of the Universe Empty Fine tuning of the Universe Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:16 am

Otangelo


Admin

Fine-tuning of the universe

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1277-fine-tuning-of-the-universe

LIST OF FINE-TUNING PARAMETERS
Is fine-tuning real?
Objections to the fine-tune argument
How much is the universe finely tuned for life?
Answering to objections to the fine-tuning argument

Neil A. Manson: The Fine-Tuning Argument  21 January 2009

Modern physics also revealed that specific kinds of particles compose the universe and specific kinds of forces govern these particles, and that the natures of these particles and forces determine large-scale processes such as cosmic expansion and star formation.

Mp (mass of the proton) 938.28 MeV
Mn (mass of the neutron) 939.57 MeV
c (the speed of light) 2.99792458 × 108m1s−1
G (the Newtonian gravitational constant) 6.6742 × 10–11 m3kg−1s−2

Looking at the very precise numerical values of parameters such as these, some physicists asked what the universe would have been like if the values had been slightly different. More specifically, for many an individual parameter, they asked what the universe would be like if that parameter were varied while the remaining parameters were held fixed. The answer, to the surprise of many, was that the universe would not have been the sort of place in which life could emerge – not just the very form of life we observe here on Earth, but any conceivable form of life. In many cases, the cosmic parameters were like the just-right settings on an old-style radio dial: if the knob were turned just a bit, the clear signal would turn to static. As a result, some physicists started describing the values of the parameters as ‘fine-tuned’ for life. 

Claim: If the range is infinite, then any finite range of values might be considered to have zero probability of being selected.
Reply: An intelligent designer can however chose amongst an infinite set of possibilities, the one that will provide a functional, meaningful result.

https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2008.00188.x

Cosmology has unearthed extraordinarily low tolerance for the fundamental physical constants.The Universe is wired in such a way that life in it is possible. That includes the fine-tuning of the Laws of physics, the physical constants, the initial conditions of the universe, the Big Bang, the cosmological constant, the subatomic particles, atoms, the force of gravity, Carbon nucleosynthesis, the basis of all life on earth, the Milky Way Galaxy, the Solar System, the sun, the earth, the moon, water, the electromagnetic spectrum, biochemistry. What could have caused the Universe to wind up this way?

Fine-tuning of the Laws of physics to get a life-permitting universe
Fine-tuning of the physical constants
Fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe
Fine-tuning of the Big Bang
Fine-tuning of the  cosmological constant
Fine-tuning of the subatomic particles
Fine-tuning of atoms
Fine-tuning of the force of gravity
Fine-tuning of Carbon nucleosynthesis, the basis of all life on earth
Fine-tuning of the Milky Way Galaxy
Fine-tuning of the Solar System
Fine-tuning of the sun
Fine-tuning of the earth
Fine-tuning of the moon
Fine-tuning of water
Fine-tuning of the electromagnetic spectrum
Fine-tuning in biochemistry

The odds to have life from non-life by natural means:

The Big Bang
1. Gravitational constant G: 1/10^60
2. Omega Ω, the density of dark matter: 1/10^62 or less
3. Hubble constant H0: 1 part in 10^60
4. Lambda: the cosmological constant: 10^122
5. Primordial Fluctuations Q:  1/100,000
6. Matter-antimatter symmetry: 1 in 10,000,000,000
7. The low-entropy state of the universe: 1 in 10^10^123

Fine-tuning of the  fundamental forces of the universe to permit life
1. Gravity: 1 part in 10^21
2. Strong force: 1 part in 10^12
3. Weak force: 1 chance out of 1000
4. Electromagnetic force: 1 chance out of 1000

Masses of atoms:  the fine-tuning of the masses of up and down quarks: 1 part in 10^21 .

Carbon synthesis: 1 part in 100

Life supporting planet, like the earth
One life-support planet:  Less than 1 chance in 10^390

A minimal life form, like Pelagibacter Ubique
Probability for the occurrence of a functional proteome, with 1350 proteins, average 300 Amino Acids size, by unguided means: 10^722000
Probability for occurrence of connecting all 1350 proteins in the right, functional order is about 4^3600
Probability for occurrence to have both, a minimal proteome, and interactome: about 10^725600

Luke A. Barnes The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life  June 11, 2012
The parameters of the standard model remain some of the best understood and most impressive cases of fine-tuning.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647.pdf

Jason Waller Cosmological Fine-Tuning Arguments 2020, page 120
Some examples of fine-tuning include: 
• the masses of the fundamental particles 
• the relative strengths of the fundamental forces 
• the quantity of matter in the universe 
• the density of matter in the early universe 
• Planck’s constant dividing the quantum from the classical worlds 
• the existence of exactly three spatial dimensions 
• the law-like nature of the universe 
• the psychophysical laws (and perhaps emergent properties)

Fine-tuning arguments in short sentences
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t3169-fine-tuning-arguments-in-short-sentences

Fine-tuning of the universe
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1277-fine-tuning-of-the-universe

Laws of Physics, fine-tuned for a life-permitting universe
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1336-laws-of-physics-fine-tuned-for-a-life-permitting-universe

Fine-tuning of the physical constants
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t3134-fine-tuning-of-the-physical-constants#8607

Fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1964-fine-tuning-of-the-initial-conditions-of-the-universe

Fine-tuning of the Big Bang
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1866-fine-tuning-of-the-big-bang

Fine-tuning of the  cosmological constant
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1885-fine-tuning-of-the-cosmological-constant

Fine-tuning of the  fundamental forces of the universe
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1339-fine-tuning-of-the-fundamental-forces-of-the-universe

Quark fine-tuning
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2538-quark-fine-tuning

Fine-tuning of atoms
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2763-fine-tuning-of-atoms

The Force of Gravity
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1366-the-force-of-gravity-evidence-of-fine-tuning

Fine-tuning of Carbon nucleosynthesis, the basis of all life on earth
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1502-carbon-the-basis-of-all-life-on-earth

Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1935-matter-antimatter-asymmetry

Fine Tuning of our Galaxy
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1417-fine-tuning-of-our-galaxy

Fine Tuning of the Solar System
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1416-fine-tuning-of-the-solar-system

The sun - just right for life 
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2550-the-sun-just-right-for-life

FineTuning of the earth
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1415-finetuning-of-the-earth

Water is fine-tuned for life
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1532-water-is-fine-tuned-for-life

The moon, essential for life on earth
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2548-the-moon-essential-for-life-on-earth

The electromagnetic spectrum, fine-tuned for life
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2033-the-electomagnetic-spectrum-fine-tuned-for-life

Is the universe hostile to life ?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1896-is-the-universe-hostile-to-life

Biochemical fine-tuning - essential for life
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2591-biochemical-fine-tuning-essential-for-life

RTB Design Compendium (2009) 5
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/rtb-design-compendium-2009

Hugh Ross: Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 2008
140 features of the cosmos as a whole (including the laws of physics) that must fall within certain narrow ranges to allow for the possibility of physical life’s existence. 1
https://d4bge0zxg5qba.cloudfront.net/files/compendium/compendium_part1.pdf

Hugh Ross  Fine-Tuning for Intelligent Physical Life 2008
402 quantifiable characteristics of a planetary system and its galaxy that must fall within narrow ranges to allow for the possibility of advanced life’s existence. This list includes comment on how a slight increase or decrease in the value of each characteristic would impact that possibility. That includes parameters of a planet, its planetary companions, its moon, its star, and its galaxy must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for physical life of any kind to exist.2
https://d4bge0zxg5qba.cloudfront.net/files/compendium/compendium_part2.pdf

922 characteristics of a galaxy and of a planetary system physical life depends on and offers conservative estimates of the probability that any galaxy or planetary system would manifest such characteristics. This list is divided into three parts, based on differing requirements for various life forms and their duration.   3  and 4

Hugh Ross Probability Estimates for the Features Required by Various Life Forms 2008
Less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one life-support planet would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles. 
https://d4bge0zxg5qba.cloudfront.net/files/compendium/compendium_Part3_ver2.pdf

Hugh Ross Probability Estimates on Different Size Scales For the Features Required by Advanced Life 2008
Less than 1 chance in 10^390 exists that even one planet containing the necessary kinds of life would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles. 
https://d4bge0zxg5qba.cloudfront.net/files/compendium/compendium_Part4_ver2.pdf

Dr. Walter L. Bradley: Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe 20 August 2010
Needs Statement for a Suitable Universe
An abbreviated list of requirements for a universe suitable to support life of any imaginable type must include the following items:
Order to provide the stable environment that is conducive to the development of life, but with just enough chaotic behavior to provide a driving force for change.
Sufficient chemical stability and elemental diversity to build the complex molecules necessary for essential life functions: processing energy, storing information, and replicating. A universe of just hydrogen and helium will not "work."
Predictability in chemical reactions, allowing compounds to form from the various elements.
A "universal connector," an element that is essential for the molecules of life. It must have the chemical property that permits it to react readily with almost all other elements, forming bonds that are stable, but not too stable, so disassembly is also possible. Carbon is the only element in our periodic chart that satisfies this requirement.
A "universal solvent" in which the chemistry of life can unfold. Since chemical reactions are too slow in the solid state, and complex life would not likely be sustained as a gas, there is a need for a liquid element or compound that readily dissolves both the reactants and the reaction products essential to living systems: namely, a liquid with the properties of water.
A stable source of energy to sustain living systems in which there must be photons from the sun with sufficient energy to drive organic, chemical reactions, but not so energetic as to destroy organic molecules (as in the case of highly energetic ultraviolet radiation).
A means of transporting the energy from the source (like our sun) to the place where chemical reactions occur in the solvent (like water on Earth) must be available. In the process, there must be minimal losses in transmission if the energy is to be utilized efficiently.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110805203154/http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html#ref21

Multi Fine-tuning
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2810-multi-tuning

John Gribbin and Martin Rees:  Cosmic coincidences : dark matter, mankind, and anthropic cosmology 1989
In most analyses of the fine-tuning of the force strengths and constants of nature, only one parameter is adjusted at a time (to make the problems more tractable). This would correspond to changing one dial at a time on our Universe-Creating Machine while leaving the other dials unchanged. Even taken individually, each of these examples of fine-tuning is impressive. But in the real universe, the values of all the constants and force strengths must be satisfied simultaneously to have a universe hospitable to life. If we modify the value of one of the fundamental constants, something invariably goes wrong, leading to a universe that is inhospitable to life as we know it. When we adjust a second constant in an attempt to fix the problem(s), the result, generally, is to create three new problems for everyone that we “solve.” The conditions in our universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves, and perhaps even for any form of organic chemistry.  Changes in the relative strengths of gravity and electromagnetism affect not only cosmological processes but also galaxies, stars, and planets. The strong and weak nuclear forces determine the composition of the universe and, thus, the properties of galaxies, stars, and planets. As a result, we ultimately can’t divorce the chemistry of life from planetary geophysics or stellar astrophysics. Although we have only scratched the surface, it should be clear that there are many examples of “cosmic-scale” fine-tuning in chemistry, particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology. Most published discussions of such fine-tuning are limited to the requirements for life, but cosmic finetuning extends well beyond mere habitability.
https://3lib.net/book/3714301/2c66a1

Barnes: A Fortunate Universe Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos 2016 page 274
Life requires a number of different constants to be related to each other in unusual and precise ways. There never was a time when fine-tuning investigations varied just one parameter. The original anthropic principle paper by Brandon Carter in 1974 identified a peculiar relationship between the mass of the proton, the mass of the electron, the strength of gravity, and the strength of electromagnetism. Physicists William Press and Alan Lightman showed in 1983 that the same coincidence must hold for stars to emit photons with the right energy to power chemical reactions. This is quite a coincidence, given the number of cosmic dials one must tune for the energy of a photon of light emerging from a star to be roughly equal to the energy of chemical bonds.
https://3lib.net/book/3335826/1b6fa8

Codata lists about 360 different fine-tune constants, which have to be just right in order to have a life-permitting universe. 
Fundamental Physical Constants --- Complete Listing 2018 CODATA adjustment
https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/Table/allascii.txt?fbclid=IwAR1wllIggtvjUltZUyrNeLQO0c67keXqybFrDjwKZ5NFtuIW_bwm6YBf1RU

Luke A. Barnes: Fine-Tuning in the Context of Bayesian Theory Testing 13 Jul 2017
The parameters of the standard model of particle physics are “unnaturally” small (in various technical senses), which has driven much of the search for physics beyond the standard model. Of particular interest is the fine-tuning of the universe for life, which suggests that our universe’s ability to create physical life forms is improbable and in need of explanation. Small changes to the fundamental constants of nature and the initial conditions of the cosmos would have dramatic effects on the universe. In particular, the complexity and stability required by any known or thus-far conceived form of life can be rather easily erased. For example, the masses of the fundamental constituents of ordinary matter — up quarks, down quarks and electrons — must be constrained to lie in a very small section of parameter space for nuclei, atoms, molecules, and chemistry to be possible at all. Fine-tuning demonstrates that a life-permitting universe is extraordinarily improbable. A universe drawn blindly from a big barrel of possible universes is unlikely to have the right forces, particles, and cosmic initial conditions for life to develop, It is an interesting fact, that this search for other ways that the universe could have been has overwhelmingly found lifelessness. This lifelessness is surprising in the way that any fine-tuned parameter in physics is surprising: it is improbable.

Jason Waller: Cosmological Fine-Tuning Arguments 2020 3
it has been argued that finetuning is evidence for:
• the existence of God
• the existence of many other universes (a multiverse)
• the truth of string theory (M-theory)
• the claim that everything that is possible is actual
• the claim that there are (currently unknown) “life-oriented” laws of physics
• the claim that the laws of nature are logically necessary
• the claim that the world we experience is not real and we exist in some kind of simulated computer program (e.g., “Matrix”)
• the claim that the science is wrong (employing Hume’s famous “Miracle Test”).

Had God a Choice?
If any of several fundamental physical constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to lead to the formation of nuclear, atomic, or cosmic structures which allow for chemical elements, stellar burning, and finally, life.
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2124812833

Hawking: “Brief History of Time”1988:
“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”

Paul Davies: Cited by Strauss in "The Creator Revealed", p28
"It is hard to resist the impression of something - some influence capable of transcending spacetime and the confinements of relativistic causality - possessing an overview of the entire cosmos at the instant of its creation, and manipulating all the causally disconnected parts to go bang with almost exactly the same vigour at the same time, and yet not so exactly coordinated as to preclude the small scale, slight irregularities that eventually formed the galaxies, and us."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/Davies.html#c12

S.Meyer: The return of the God hypothesis, page 160
Fine-tuning in physics refers to the discovery that many properties of the universe fall within extremely narrow and improbable ranges that turn out to be absolutely necessary for complex forms of life, or even complex chemistry, and thus any conceivable form of life, to exist.  Indeed, since the 1950s, physicists have discovered that life in the universe depends upon a highly improbable set of forces and features as well as an extremely improbable balance among many of them. The precise strengths of the fundamental forces of physics, the arrangement of matter and energy at the beginning of the universe, and many other specific features of the cosmos appear delicately balanced to allow for the possibility of life. If any one of these properties were altered ever so slightly, complex chemistry and life simply would not exist. The fine-tuning of these properties has puzzled physicists not only because of their extreme improbability, but also because there doesn’t seem to be any necessary physical or logical reason why they have to be as they are. Philosophers of science call such fine-tuning features “contingent” properties, since they could conceivably have been different without violating either the fundamental laws of physics or any necessary principle of logic or mathematics. We apparently live in a kind of “Goldilocks universe,” where the fundamental forces of physics have just the right strengths, the contingent properties of the universe have just the right characteristics, and the initial distribution of matter and energy at the beginning exhibited just the right configuration to make life possible. These facts taken together are so puzzling that physicists have given them a name—the fine-tuning problem.

Philip Goff Did the universe design itself? 24 November 2018
Many philosophers and scientists believe that we need an explanation as to why the laws of physics and the initial conditions of the universe are fine-tuned for life. The standard two options are: theism and the multiverse hypothesis.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11153-018-9692-z

Luke A. Barnes: Fine-Tuning in the Context of Bayesian Theory Testing 13 Jul 2017
The parameters of the standard model of particle physics are “unnaturally” small (in various technical senses), which has driven much of the search for physics beyond the standard model. Of particular interest is the fine-tuning of the universe for life, which suggests that our universe’s ability to create physical life forms is improbable and in need of explanation. Small changes to the fundamental constants of nature and the initial conditions of the cosmos would have dramatic effects on the universe. In particular, the complexity and stability required by any known or thus-far conceived form of life can be rather easily erased. For example, the masses of the fundamental constituents of ordinary matter — up quarks, down quarks and electrons — must be constrained to lie in a very small section of parameter space for nuclei, atoms, molecules, and chemistry to be possible at all. Fine-tuning demonstrates that a life-permitting universe is extraordinarily improbable. A universe drawn blindly from a big barrel of possible universes is unlikely to have the right forces, particles, and cosmic initial conditions for life to develop, It is an interesting fact, that this search for other ways that the universe could have been has overwhelmingly found lifelessness. This lifelessness is surprising in the way that any fine-tuned parameter in physics is surprising: it is improbable.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.03965.pdf

Leonard Susskind The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design 2006, page 100
By varying the Higgs field, we can add diversity to the world; the laws of nuclear and atomic physics will also vary. A physicist from one region would not entirely recognize the Laws of Physics in another. But the variety inherent in the variations of the Higgs field is very modest. What if the number of variable fields were many hundreds instead of just one? This would imply a multidimensional Landscape, so diverse that almost anything could be found. Then we might begin to wonder what is not possible instead of what is. As we will see this is not idle speculation.
https://3lib.net/book/2472017/1d5be1

The number of possible fine-tune parameters and constants is infinite
1. The values, constants, and parameters for a life-permitting universe must exist within a finite range for the existence of biological life to be possible. 
2. These constants and fine-tune parameters could have taken any of an infinite number of different values. 
3. The probability of it occurring by chance approaches close to 0, but is in practical terms, factually zero. 
4. The best explanation is an intelligent agent that had a goal in mind, that is to create contingent beings, designed our life-permitting universe.

1. The existence of a life-permitting universe is very improbable on naturalism and very likely on theism.
2. A universe formed by naturalistic unguided means would have its parameters set randomly, and with high probability, there would be no universe at all. ( The fine-tune parameters for the right expansion-rate of the universe would most likely not be met ) In short, a  randomly chosen universe is extraordinarily unlikely to have the right conditions for life.
3. A life-permitting universe is likely on theism, since a powerful, extraordinarily intelligent designer has the ability of foresight, and knowledge of what parameters, laws of physics, and finely-tuned conditions would permit a life-permitting universe.
4. Under bayesian terms, design is more likely rather than non-design. Therefore, the design inference is the best explanation for a finely tuned universe.

1. The Laws of physics and constants, the initial conditions of the universe, the expansion rate of the Big bang, atoms and the subatomic particles, the fundamental forces of the universe, stars, galaxies, the Solar System, the earth, the moon, the atmosphere, water, and even biochemistry on a molecular level, and the bonding forces of molecules like Watson-Crick base-pairing are finely tuned in an unimaginably narrow range to permit life. In 2008, Hugh Ross mentioned 140 features of the cosmos as a whole (including the laws of physics), and over 1300 quantifiable characteristics of a planetary system and its galaxy that must fall within extremely narrow ranges to allow for the possibility of advanced life’s existence. Since then, that number has doubled.
2. Penrose estimated that the odds of the initial low entropy state of our universe occurring by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10 10^123. Ross calculated that less than 1 chance in 10^1032 power exists that even one life-support planet would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles. There is an estimation of 10^80 power of atoms in the universe.
3. Of course, if there is a physical necessity, that does not permit a non-life-permitting universe, in other words, if the state of affairs is, that the universe could not other than have exactly these parameters to permit life, then any statistical probability calculations are meaningless. If the state of affairs however can change, then this fact demands a very good explanation.
4. There are infinite possible ways that the values fundamental constants of the standard models could have been chosen. In fact, Paul Davies states: “There is not a shred of evidence that the Universe is logically necessary. Indeed, as a theoretical physicist I find it rather easy to imagine alternative universes that are logically consistent, and therefore equal contenders of reality”
5. The laws of physics, constants, and the fine-tune parameters can change. Not all laws of nature can become scientific laws because many will not create a scientist. The probability of randomly selecting the correct values for these parameters is so infinitesimally small that it is unreasonable to think that sheer luck alone can be the explanation for cosmological fine-tuning, but likely on theism, since a powerful, extraordinarily intelligent designer has the ability of foresight, and knowledge of what parameters, laws of physics, and finely-tuned conditions would permit a life-permitting universe. The existence of our universe, and us, is very improbable on naturalism and very likely on theism.
6. Therefore the fact that they are set up to instantiate a life-permitting universe is best explained by a lawgiver and fine tuner. Which is God.

1. If you throw a universe together at random, you get a dead universe.
2. So in fact, the universe was not thrown together at random.
3. Of course, we can appeal to physics that we don't even know, and posit a multiverse, but that would just be a multiverse of the gaps argument.
4. The best explanation is that an intelligent designer created a life-permitting universe for his own purposes.  

1. There are four fundamental forces that describe every interaction in nature. The strong nuclear force, that holds the nucleus of the atoms together, is precisely 137 times as strong as the electromagnetic force. It is 10 million times stronger than the weak nuclear force, and 10^38 power stronger than the gravitational force. The precise relationship of these forces makes it possible for our universe to be filled with atoms, chemistry, molecules, and life. 
2. If naturalism were true, we should expect a dead and lifeless universe. It would be typical, and not exceptional, and there would be no mechanism to secure these forces to be stable, and permit that life-permitting universe. 
3. The parameters are however unexpectedly exceptional, with highly non-generic features, extremely unlikely, and life-permitting. That would have to be expected if intelligent design were true. 
4. Therefore, our universe is better explained by an intelligent designer, rather than natural forces. 

1. Varying the free parameters of the standard models of particle physics and cosmology, and the universe would be typical and unexceptional. It would be lifeless. Naturalism overwhelmingly expects a dead universe.
2. The parameters are however unexpectedly exceptional, and extremely unlikely, and life-permitting. That would have to be expected if intelligent design were true.
3. Therefore, our universe is better explained by intelligent design, rather than naturalism.  

1. The existence of a life-permitting universe is very improbable on naturalism, and not comparably improbable on creationism/intelligent design.
2. A universe formed by naturalistic unguided means would have its parameters set randomly  – not in the sense of being stochastic, but in the sense of setting parameters that would produce non-life permitting universes or no universe at all. ( If the initial conditions and fine-tune parameters for the right expansion rate of the universe were not met ) In short, a  randomly chosen universe is extraordinarily unlikely to have the right conditions for life.
3.  A life-permitting universe is likely on creationism/intelligent design, since a powerful, extraordinarily intelligent designer has the ability of foresight, and knowledge of what parameters, laws of physics, and finely-tuned conditions would permit a life-permitting universe.
4. Under bayesian terms, design is more likely rather than non-design. Therefore, the design inference is the best explanation for a finely tuned universe.

1. The more statistically improbable something is, the less it makes sense to believe that it just happened by blind chance.
2. In order to have a universe, able to host various forms of life on earth, 1364 (!!) different features and fine-tune parameters must be just right.
3. Statistically, it is practically impossible, that the universe was finely tuned to permit life by chance.  
4. 4. Therefore, an intelligent Designer is by far the best explanation of the origin of our life-permitting universe.  

1.  The characteristics, forces and phenomena of the universe are fine-tuned to such a degree that human life is possible.  That is to say that if any characteristics were any more than slightly (and in some cases even slightly) changed, human life would be impossible.
2.  The characteristics, forces, and phenomena didn’t HAVE TO be this way.  There is no law governing why these characteristics, forces, and phenomena turned out the way they are.  They could have been different.

1. The universe permits life, which depends upon finely tuned or highly improbable conditions, parameters, or configurations of matter.  If we have just one constant that can admit an infinite range of values and must exist within a finite range for the universe to be life-permitting, then the probability of this occurring by chance approaches arbitrarily close to 0. This fact is an extremely strong one in itself. Adding additional requirements does not actually alter the final probability, because one cannot go lower. Imagine the situation this way: if we think of each independent constant as a different dial on a “universe creating machine,” then we can imagine that the values for all of the other constants have been set and only one constant remains. Imagine that the last dial has an infinite range of options but only a finite number of “life-permitting” values. In this case, the probability of it occurring by chance approaches arbitrarily close to 0 or is as improbable as anything can be without being logically impossible. Adding additional conditions does not actually lower the probability any further.
2. It has improbable conditions, parameters, and configurations of matter through the fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics and the initial conditions of the universe and these finely tuned parameters permit life. 
3. The best explanation is an intelligent agent that designed the universe.

1. If our universe is random, then it is very unlikely that it permits life.
2. Our universe permits life.
3. Therefore, the existence of our universe is very likely due to something other than chance.

1.The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

1. The initial conditions of the universe, subatomic particles, the Big Bang, the fundamental forces of the universe, the Solar System, the earth and the moon, are finely tuned to permit life. Over 150 fine-tuning parameters are known.
2. Finetuning is either due to chance, necessity, or design.
3. Finetuning is extremely unlikely due to chance or necessity. Therefore, it is most probably due to a powerful creator which did set up the universe in the most precise exact fashion to permit life on earth.

1. The existence of the fine-tuning is not improbable under theism.
2. The existence of the fine-tuning is very improbable under the atheistic hypothesis.
3. it follows that the fine-tuning data provides strong evidence to favor the design hypothesis over the atheistic single-universe hypothesis.

The argument of the fine-tuning of the Universe Constants of the Big Bang, the Universe, the fundamental forces, the solar system, and the earth
1. Parameter                                                Ratio             
Ratio of Electrons: Protons                         1:10^37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force: Gravity        1:10^40
Expansion Rate of Universe                        1:10^55
Mass Density of Universe1                         1:10^59
Cosmological Constant                               1:10^120
2. These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter or be unsuitable for any form of life.
3. One part in 10^37 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10^37. (Dr. Hugh Ross)
4. “If we modify the value of one of the fundamental constants, something invariably goes wrong, leading to a universe that is inhospitable to life as we know it. When we adjust the second constant in an attempt to fix the problem(s), the result, generally, is to create three new problems for everyone that we “solve.” The conditions in our universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves, and perhaps even for any form of organic complexity." Gribbin and Rees, “Cosmic Coincidences”, p. 146
5. The 90 (registered) constants prove an intelligent designer. Without such finely tuned constants, the universe would not exist.
6. This Supreme Designer of these constants and of the universe must be God, the most intelligent person.
7. God exists.

The argument of mathematical precision
1. Einstein once wondered: "How is it possible that mathematics, a product of human thought that is independent of experience, fits so excellently the objects of physical reality?" And similarly his book 'The Mysterious Universe,' the English physicist Sir James Jeans describes the flawless order in the cosmos: "A scientific study of the universe has suggested a conclusion, which may be summed up ... in the statement that the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician."
Laws reflect mathematical symmetries found in Nature. For example,

a. Pauli’s exclusion principle describes the identity of electrons.
b. Noether's theorem connects some conservation laws to certain symmetries.
c. Lorentz transformations correspond to the rotational symmetry of space-time.
2. Every planet in the universe, large and small, is the critically important part of a larger order. Not one of their positions in space or any of their movements is random eg to keep everything circling at particular distances.
3. The distance between the Earth and our moon ensures many important balances and is extremely vital for the continuation of life on Earth, eg the tides flowing, the growth of the flora.
If the moon were much closer [to the Earth], it would crash into our planet, if much farther away, it would move off into space. If it were much closer, the tides that the moon causes on the earth would become dangerously larger. Ocean waves would sweep across low-lying sections of the continents.
4. There are 93 constants in the fine-tuning of the Universe, Martin Rees discusses six dimensionless constants.[1]
5. N, the ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism, is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. According to Rees, if it were smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.[1]
5b. Epsilon, the strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei, is 0.07. If it were 0.06, the only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. If it were 0.08, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang.[1]
5c. Omega, also known as the Density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.[1]
5d. Lambda is the cosmological constant. It describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is constant. Lambda is around 0.7. This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If it were extremely large, stars would not be able to form. [1]
5e. Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 1/100,000. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees. [1]
5f. D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is three. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were two or four. [1]
6. a. Thus, scientific discoveries of innumerable patterns and many inter-related complexities of the universe cannot be explained as an appearance after mere accidents just as your computer hasn’t appeared by accident. Mathematical and rational symmetries are wonderful designs indicate a designer.
That wonderful designer that designed symmetries in the whole universe can be only God.
6. b. The universe can’t have come into existence without an all-powerful, super-knowledgeable great person the dictionary meaning of the term God.
7. God exists.


Problems with the cosmic inflation hypothesis at the beginning of the universe
1. The Big Bang was the first and most precisely fine-tuned event in all of the history of the universe. It had it to be adjusted to permit the right expansion rate, a balance between attraction and repulsion, between contraction and expansion, or it would have expanded too fast, and produced an unlimited expansion, and a void, lifeless universe, or it would have recollapsed back to a singularity, a Big Crunch. But also many different parameters had to be set just right in the first instants, right after the first nanosecond or two, in order to form stable atoms, or it would also be void of stars, planets, chemicals, and life. 
2.  The Lambda-CDM model, composed of six parameters, is a parameterization of the Big Bang. The standard model of particle physics contains 26 fundamental constants. A variety of physical phenomena, atomic, gravitational, and cosmological, must combine in the right way in order to produce a life-permitting universe.
3. Inflation is supposed to provide a dynamical explanation for the seemingly very fine-tuned initial conditions of the standard model of cosmology. It faces however ist own problems. There would have to be an inflation field with negative pressure,  dominating the total energy density of the universe, dictating its dynamic, and so, starting inflation. It would have to last for the right period of time.  And once inflation takes over, there must be some special reason for it to stop; otherwise, the universe would maintain its exponential expansion and no complex structure would form. It would also have to be ensured that the post-inflation field would not possess a large, negative potential energy, which would cause the universe to recollapse altogether. Inflation would also have to guarantee a homogeneous, but not perfectly homogeneous universe. Inhomogeneities had to be there for gravitational instability to form cosmic structures like stars, galaxies, and planets. Inflation would require an astonishing sequence of correlations and coincidences, to suddenly and coherently convert all its matter into a scalar field with just enough kinetic energy to roll to the top of its potential and remain perfectly balanced there for long enough to cause a substantial era of “deflation”.  It would be far more likely, that the inflation field would drop its energy rather than be converted into baryons and ordinary matter, dump its energy into radiation.  The odds to have a successful, finely adjusted inflaton field are maximally one in a thousand at its peak and drop rapidly. There is no physical model of inflation, and the necessary coupling between inflation and ordinary matter/radiation is just an unsupported hypothesis. 
4. Designed setup is the best explanation for the life-permitting conditions at the beginning of the universe. 

The Big Bang was the most precisely planned event in all of history
1. The odds to have a low-entropy state at the beginning of our universe was: 1 in 10^10123. To put that in perspective: There are roughly 8.51^25 power of atoms in one cubic meter. If we take that the distance from Earth to the edge of the observable universe is about 46.5 billion light-years in any direction, this size corresponds to a  volume of about  3.566×10^80 m3. That means there would be roughly 10^102nd power of  atoms if we filled the entire volume of the observable universe with atoms without leaving any space. An atom is 99,9999999999999%  of empty space. If we were to fill its entire space with protons, there would be 2,5^13 power of protons filling it. So there would be roughly 10^115 power of protons in the entire universe. The odds to find one red proton in one hundred universes, the size of ours, filled with protons, is about the same as to get a universe with a low entropy state at the beginning, like ours. If we had to find our universe amongst an ensemble of almost infinite parallel universes, it would take 17000  billion years to find one which would be eventually ours. 
2. Furthermore, at least 7 other parameters had to be finely adjusted, to name: the right gravitational constant, the density of dark matter, the Hubble constant, the primordial fluctuations, matter-antimatter symmetry, and 3 dimensions of space, plus time. 
3. These physical factors are themselves independent of each other, and each must also be fine-tuned to the extreme. Together, the odds to have the right expansion rate is in the order above 10^400. That is picking one red atom amongst 4 entire universes the size of ours filled with atoms. 
4. These odds are unimaginably improbable on naturalism and very likely on theism.

1. If the initial expansion rate of the universe had differed values, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. The Universe is characterized by a delicate balance of its inventory, a balance between attraction and repulsion, between expansion and contraction.
2. Several parameters had to be just right. To name: The Gravitational constant, the density of dark matter, the Hubble constant, the cosmological constant, the primordial Fluctuations,  Matter-antimatter symmetry, the low-entropy state of the universe had to be just right or our universe would either not exist, or be lifeless.
3. Fine-tuning is well explained by intelligent design, but an unwarranted ad-hoc explanation if someone posits a multiverse that originated randomly. Therefore, the action of a powerful intelligent design is the best explanation.

The fundamental forces of the universe are finely adjusted to permit life
1. If the strong nuclear force, the force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom, had been stronger or weaker by as little as 5%, life would be impossible.
If gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 1040, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible.
If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and thus life would not be possible.
If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, life would be impossible, for a variety of different reasons.
2. Imaginatively, one could think of each instance of fine-tuning as a radio dial: unless all the dials are set exactly right, life would be impossible. Or, one could think of the initial conditions of the universe and the fundamental parameters of physics as a dart board that fills the whole galaxy, and the conditions necessary for life to exist as a small one-foot wide target: unless the dart hits the target, life would be impossible. The fact that the dials are perfectly set, or the dart has hit the target, strongly suggests that someone set the dials or aimed the dart, for it seems enormously improbable that such a coincidence could have happened by chance.
3. The fine-tuning argument is probably the most powerful current argument for the existence of God.

1. If you throw the electric charges and quarks together at random, you get no atoms and a dead universe.
2. So in fact, the electric charges and quarks were was not thrown together at random, but selected carefully to permit stable atoms, and a life-permitting universe. 
3. Of course, we can appeal to physics that we don't even know, and posit a multiverse, and that random shuffling of these fundamental constants did permit that one emerged permitting a functional outcome, but that would just be a multiverse of the gaps argument.
4. The best explanation is that an intelligent designer created the right constants, fundamental forces, charges, colors etc. that produced stable atoms, and a life-permitting universe for his own purposes.  

1. There are a large number of dials that have to be tuned and adjusted to within an extremely narrow range for life to be possible in our universe.
2. Under naturalism, we would/should expect these dials to be set randomly, which would lead to a lifeless universe, or no universe at all, since the low entropy state, and expansion rate of the Big bang must also be set right.
3. It is extremely unlikely that this would happen by happenstance, but these apparent enormous coincidences substantiate the claim that the universe has most likely been created by an intelligent powerful creator with intent, foresight, and purpose.

Fine tuning of the Universe Slide_10

Cosmic fine-tuning:  the "anthropic coincidences"
A BIG challenge to naturalism: There is a vanishingly low probability that so many fundamental properties of the universe could be precisely as required for life to exist.
https://www.unm.edu/~hdelaney/finetuning.html

Fine tuning of the Universe Finetuning

Fine tuning of the Universe Galaxy

Fine tuning of the Universe Sun

Fine tuning of the Universe Solarsystem

Fine tuning of the Universe Tilt

Fine tuning of the Universe Light



Last edited by Otangelo on Sat Jun 18, 2022 10:47 am; edited 186 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

2Fine tuning of the Universe Empty Is the fine-tuning real? Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:34 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Is the fine-tuning real?

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1277-fine-tuning-of-the-universe#1779

Fine-tuning starting with the initial conditions of the universe, to biochemical fine-tuning, is real and it is conceded by the top-rank physicists.  This case has been made convincingly by many experts. There are a great many scientists, of varying religious persuasions, who accept that the universe is fine-tuned for life, e.g. Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Dawkins, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Hawking, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, Wilczek. They differ, of course, on what conclusion we should draw from this fact. 

For more than 400 years, physicists treated the universe like a machine, taking it apart to see how it ticks. The surprise is it turns out to have remarkably few parts: just leptons and quarks and four fundamental forces to glue them together. But those few parts are exquisitely machined. If we tinker with their settings, even slightly, the universe as we know it would cease to exist. Science now faces the question of why the universe appears to have been “fine-tuned” to allow the appearance of complex life
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/a-universe-made-for-me-physics-fine-tuning-and-life/

Luke A. Barnes The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life  June 11, 2012
The parameters of the standard model remain some of the best understood and most impressive cases of fine-tuning.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647.pdf

Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow: The Grand Design (2012), (161–162)
The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being. . . . Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easy to explain, and raises the natural question of why it is that way.

Paul Davies, How bio-friendly is the universe?
“There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned’ for life. This claim is made on the basis that existence of vital substances such as carbon, and the properties of objects such as stable long-lived stars, depend rather sensitively on the values of certain physical parameters, and on the cosmological initial conditions. ”  1

Martin Rees is an atheist and a qualified astronomer. He wrote a book called “Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe”, (Basic Books: 2001). In it, he discusses 6 numbers that need to be fine-tuned in order to have a life-permitting universe. These six numbers constitute a ‘recipe’ for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator? There are some atheists who deny the fine-tuning, but these atheists are in firm opposition to the progress of science. The more science has progressed, the more constants, ratios and quantities we have discovered that need to be fine-tuned.

Robert Lanza: Biocentrism, , MD, page 84
The fact that the cosmos seems exactly balanced and designed for life is just an inescapable scientific observation

John Polkinghorne:   Mathematical Physicist, one-time Dean of Queen’s College at Cambridge
No competent scientist denies that if the laws of nature were just a little bit different in our universe, carbon-based life would never have been possible. Surely such a remarkable fact calls for an explanation. If one declines the insight of the universe as a creation endowed with potency, the rather desperate expedient of invoking an immense array of unobservable worlds [i.e., the “many worlds/multiverse/’unlimited horizons'” proposals] seems the only other recourse.”
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647v2.pdf

Leonard Susskind: Physicist (Susskind 2006: 343).
our universe “appears to be fantastically well designed for our own existence. . . . The apparent coincidences cry out for an explanation”

Luke A. Barnes: The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life 7 Jun 2012
We conclude that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life. Of all the ways that the laws of nature, constants of physics and initial conditions of the universe could have been, only a very small subset permits the existence of intelligent life.

The universe appears fine-tuned for life and that this question deserves further analysis, quite in disagreement with Stenger. Here is a partial list of eminent researchers who have written on this topic: John Barrow [Barrow1986], Bernard Carr [Carr1979], Sean Carroll [Carroll2010], Brandon Carter [Carter1974], Paul Davies [Davies2007], David Deutsch [Williams2006Deutsch1997], George Ellis [Ellis2011Ellis2014], Brian Greene [Greene2011], Alan Guth [Guth2007Guth1997], Edward Harrison [Harrison2011], Stephen Hawking [Hawking2010], Andre Linde [Linde2017], Don Page [Page2011], Roger Penrose [Penrose2004Penrose1989], John Polkinghorne [Polkinghorne2007], Martin Rees [Carr1979Rees2000], Joseph Silk [Ellis2014], Lee Smolin [Smolin2007Smolin2015], Leonard Susskind [Susskind2005], Max Tegmark [Tegmark2006Tegmark2014], Frank Tipler [Barrow1986], Alexander Vilenkin [Vilenkin2006], Steven Weinberg [Weinberg1989Weinberg1994], John Wheeler [Wheeler1996] and Frank Wilczek [Wilczek2013]. In addition to the above references, many of the above authors, plus twelve others, comment on this topic in detail in the collection [Carr2009]. Some recent semi-popular overviews of this topic include [Wolchover2013] and [Cossins2018]. Needless to say, the list of authors in the previous paragraph includes many of the brightest and most knowledgeable figures in modern physics and cosmology. Luke Barnes, in commenting on a similar list that includes most of the above names, pointed out that even though these researchers practice a number of different technical specialties, come from a wide range of philosophical and religious backgrounds (mostly non-religious), and often differ vociferously in their interpretation of fine-tuning, they are unanimous in agreeing that the universe is indeed anomalously fine-tuned, and that this feature of the universe begs an explanation [Barnes2013].

Martin Rees: Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe  
Evidence of chance, physical necessity, or design? One can marvel, almost indefinitely, at the balance between the nuclear forces and the astoundingly feeble but ultimately inexorable power of gravity, giving us N, a huge number involving 36 zeroes, and nod gratefully each time one is told that were gravity not almost exactly 1036 times weaker then we wouldn't be here. One can gasp at the implications of the density parameter Ω (omega), which one second after the big bang could not have varied from unity by more than one part in a million billion or the universe would not still be expanding, 13.7bn years on. But who'd have thought that we also needed D for dimension to equal three, because without that value the show would never have got on the road? We go up the stairs, down the hall or across the living room so often that we tend to imagine that those are the only imaginable dimensions, but there could have been just two, for instance, or perhaps four. Had there been four dimensions, gravitational and other forces would have varied inversely as the cube of the distance rather than the square, and the inverse cube law would be an unforgiving one. Any orbiting planet that slowed for whatever reason in its orbit would swiftly plunge into the heart of its parent star; any planet that increased its speed ever so slightly would spiral madly into the cold and the dark. Under the inverse square law, however, a planet that speeds up ever so slightly – or slows down – simply shifts to a very slightly different orbit. That is, we owe the stability of the solar system to the fact that spacetime has, on the macro scale, only three physical dimensions. All six values featured in this book permit something significant to happen and to go on happening. Take for instance Q, the one part in 100,000 ratios between the rest mass energy of matter and the force of gravity. Were this ratio a lot smaller, gas would never condense into galaxies. Were it only a bit smaller, star formation would be slow and the raw material for future planets would not survive to form planetary systems. Were it much bigger, stars would collapse swiftly into black holes and the surviving gas would blister the universe with gamma rays. The measure of nuclear efficiency, ε for epsilon, has a value of 0.007. If it had a value of 0.006 there would be no other elements: hydrogen could not fuse into helium and the stars could not have cooked up carbon, iron, complex chemistry and, ultimately, us. Had it been a smidgen higher, at 0.008, protons would have fused in the big bang, leaving no hydrogen to fuel future stars or deliver the Evian water. Einstein's supposed "biggest blunder", the cosmological constant λ for lambda, is a number not only smaller than first expected; it is a number so small that the puzzle is that it is not zero. But this weakest and most mysterious of forces – think of a value with 120 zeroes after the decimal point – seems to dictate the whole future of the universe. It seems just strong enough to push the most distant galaxies away from us at an unexpected rate. Were it much stronger, there might be no galaxies to accelerate anywhere.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jun/08/just-six-numbers-martin-rees-review

Ed Croteau there are only 4 forces in the universe, and the first amazing revelation is we can previously define them mathematically. The next amazing thing is we can define their variation statistically.Physics is more imprecise than mathematics, because math defines the behavior, while physics MEASURES the behavior. But in the case of the universe, the behavior is almost statistically without variation. This NEVER happens in unguided processes...whenever you find an order with the precision you never find randomness...there is always a cause for this behavior, and it's always an intelligence.

Adam Frank, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Rochester, is the author of About Time: Cosmology and Culture at the Twilight of the Big Bang
As cosmologists poked around Big Bang theory on ever-finer levels of detail, it soon became clear that getting this universe, the one we happily inhabit, seemed to be more and more unlikely. In his article, Scharf gives us the famous example carbon-12 and its special resonances. If this minor detail of nuclear physics were just a wee bit different, our existence would never be possible. It’s as if nuclear physics were fine-tuned to allow life. But this issue of fine-tuning goes way beyond carbon nuclei; it infects many aspects of cosmological physics.
Change almost anything associated with the fundamental laws of physics by one part in a zillion and you end up with a sterile universe where life could never have formed. Not only that, but make tiny changes in even the initial conditions of the Big Bang and you end up with a sterile universe. Cosmologically speaking, it’s like we won every lottery every imaginable. From that vantage point, we are special—crazy special.
Fine-tuning sticks in the craw of most physicists, and rightfully so. It’s that old Copernican principle again. What set the laws and the initial conditions for the universe to be “just so,” just so we could be here? It smells too much like intelligent design. The whole point of science has been to find natural, rational reasons for why the world looks like it does. “Because a miracle happened,” just doesn’t cut it.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.01680.pdf
The existence of structure in our universe at all places stringent bounds on the cosmological constant. Compared to the range of values for which our theories are well defined — roughly ± the Planck scale — the range of values that permit gravitationally bound structures is no more than one part in 10^110
.
• A universe with structure also requires a fine-tuned value for the primordial density contrast Q. Too low, and no structure forms. Too high and galaxies are too dense to allow for long-lived planetary systems, as the time between disruption by a neighboring star is too short. This places the constraint 10−6. Q . 10−4 (Tegmark & Rees, 1998).

• The existence of long-lived stars, which produce and distribute chemical elements and are a stable source of energy that can power chemical reactions, requires an unnaturally small value for the “gravitational coupling constant” αG = m2 proton/m2 Planck; or, equivalently, that the proton mass be orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck mass. For stars to be stable at all, we require αG . 10−33 (Adams, 2008).

• The existence of any atomic species and chemical processes whatsoever places tight constraints on the relative masses of the fundamental particles and the strengths of the fundamental forces. For example, Barr & Khan (2007) show the effect of varying the masses of the up and down quark and find that strand-chemistry permitting universes are huddled in a small shard of parameter space which has area ∆mup∆mdown/m2 Planck ≈ 10−42

These small numbers — 10^110, 10^4, 10^33, 10^−42 — are, in the Bayesian fashion, an attempt to quantify our ignorance. We are not assuming the existence of a random universe-generating machine, nor describing the properties of a real or imagined statistical sample. The laws of nature as we know them contain arbitrary constants, which are not constrained by anything in theoretical physics.


That means any of these fine-tune constants are not set due to physical necessity. There can be any value, which would result in no universe. 

As usual, we can react to small probabilities in a couple of ways. Perhaps, like the probability of a deck of cards falling on the floor in a particular order, something improbable has happened. Enough said. Alternatively, like the probability that the burglar correctly guessed the 12-digit code by chance on the first attempt, it may indicate that we have made an incorrect assumption. We should look for an alternative assumption (or theory), on which the fact in question is not so improbable. Correct. As a creation , for example?

Has cosmic fine-tuning been refuted? David H Bailey, March 14th, 2018
https://mathscholar.org/2018/03/has-cosmic-fine-tuning-been-refuted/
1. Carbon resonance and the strong force. 
If the strong force were slightly stronger or slightly weaker (by just 1% in either direction), there would be no carbon or any heavier elements anywhere in the universe, and thus no carbon-based life forms to contemplate this intriguing fact.
2. The weak force and the proton-neutron balance. 
Had the weak force been somewhat weaker, the amount of hydrogen in the universe would be greatly decreased, starving stars of fuel for nuclear energy and leaving the universe a cold and lifeless place.
3. Neutrons and the proton-to-electron mass ratio. 
If neutrons were very slightly less massive, then the universe would be entirely protons (i.e., hydrogen); but if lower by 1%, then all protons would decay into neutrons, and no atoms other than hydrogen, helium, lithium and beryllium could form.
4. Anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background. 
If this anisotropy had been significantly smaller, the early universe would have been too smooth for stars and galaxies to have formed before matter dispersed; but if significantly greater, then stable, long-lived stars with planetary systems would have been extremely rare.
5. The cosmological constant paradox. 
The positive and negative contributions to the cosmological constant (or, more properly, the vacuum energy density) cancel to 120-digit accuracy, yet fail to cancel beginning at the 121-st digit.
6. Mass of the Higgs boson. 
The rest mass of the Higgs boson is very much less than that required from its interactions with other particles, requiring a huge cancellation between positive and negative terms. Similar difficulties afflict a number of other particle masses and forces — these are the “hierarchy” and “flavor” problems.
7. The flatness problem. 
Looking back to the first few minutes of the universe at the big bang, the universe must have been flat to within one part in 10^15.
8. The low-entropy state of the universe. 
The overall entropy (disorder) of the universe is, in the words of Lewis and Barnes, “freakishly lower than life requires.”

Henry Margenau Yale professor of quantum physics, 
There is a mind which is responsible for the laws of nature and the existence of nature and the whole universe. And this is consistent with everything we know.

George Greenstein
“the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency, or rather Agency, must be involved. Is it possible that, suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof for the existence of a supreme being? Was it a God who providentially stepped in and crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

The intelligent design hypothesis provides an obvious and commonsense explanation for the  fine-tuning of the universe and the origin of the information stored in the genome to kick-start life. Attempts to explain the evidence by invoking chance alone or multiple other universes  seems to be metaphysical special pleading, even desperation. The fine-tuning of the universe of such an order, in as much as the extraordinary odds to have a minimal genome and proteome to start life and logically following the design inference, should be regarded as settled. To insist otherwise is like insisting that Shakespeare was not written by Shakespeare because it might have been written by a trillion multiplied a trillion of monkeys sitting at a trillion keyboards typing for a trillion years. 

Needs Statement for a Suitable Universe for life
An abbreviated list of requirements for a universe suitable to support life of any imaginable type must include the following items:

Order to provide the stable environment that is conducive to the development of life, but with just enough chaotic behavior to provide a driving force for change.
Sufficient chemical stability and elemental diversity to build the complex molecules necessary for essential life functions: processing energy, storing information, and replicating. A universe of just hydrogen and helium will not "work."
Predictability in chemical reactions, allowing compounds to form from the various elements.
A "universal connector," an element that is essential for the molecules of life. It must have the chemical property that permits it to react readily with almost all other elements, forming bonds that are stable, but not too stable, so disassembly is also possible. Carbon is the only element in our periodic chart that satisfies this requirement.
A "universal solvent" in which the chemistry of life can unfold. Since chemical reactions are too slow in the solid state, and complex life would not likely be sustained as a gas, there is a need for a liquid element or compound that readily dissolves both the reactants and the reaction products essential to living systems: namely, a liquid with the properties of water.
A stable source of energy to sustain living systems in which there must be photons from the sun with sufficient energy to drive organic, chemical reactions, but not so energetic as to destroy organic molecules (as in the case of highly energetic ultraviolet radiation).
A means of transporting the energy from the source (like our sun) to the place where chemical reactions occur in the solvent (like water on Earth) must be available. In the process, there must be minimal losses in transmission if the energy is to be utilized efficiently.

It has been argued that finetuning is evidence for:

• the existence of God
• the existence of many other universes (a multiverse)
• the truth of string theory (M-theory)
• the claim that everything that is possible is actual
• the claim that there are (currently unknown) “life-oriented” laws of physics
• the claim that the laws of nature are logically necessary
• the claim that the world we experience is not real and we exist in some kind of simulated computer program (e.g., “Matrix”)
• the claim that the science is wrong (employing Hume’s famous “Miracle Test”).

Atheist Physicists Prove God. Anthropic Principle Fails
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4E_bT4ecgk

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS PRIVATELY ADMITS HIS FAVORITE INTELLIGENT DESIGN EVIDENCE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR0Fv3WNYQZ0voP0aqswybw8MgZDNl28WrcRJXDssxRa7oYij7y3MoZi4l8&v=81P-jhiGM4U&feature=youtu.be

Michael Egnor: The Universe Reflects a Mind February 28, 2018
https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/

Evidence For Design In The Universe From Limits for the Universe by Hugh Ross, Ph.D.
https://gpsr.ars.usda.gov/short_remotesensing/Sect20/A12b.html

On the Argument for Design from Fine-Tuning
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6123

The Evidence of Fine-tuning
http://www.discovery.org/a/91

The improbable universe?
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/07/improbable-universe.html

Evidence of the Design of the Universe through the Anthropic Principle
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/837

Anthropic Coincidences
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/anthropic-coincidences-40

How to defend the fine-tuning argument just like William Lane Craig
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/how-to-defend-the-fine-tuning-argument-just-like-william-lane-craig/

Recipe for the Universe - Just Six Numbers
http://www.firstscience.com/home/articles/big-theories/recipe-for-the-universe-just-six-numbers_1230.html

An amazing array of scientists are bewildered by the design of the universe and admit a possibility of a designer.
http://www.sciencefindsgod.com/blog/2006/01/fine-tuning-of-universe.html

A Designer Universe?
http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm

Shaken Atheism: A Look at the Fine-Tuned Universe
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=66

PROBABILITY OF GALAXY, STAR, PLANET, PARAMETER OR MOON FALLING IN REQUIRED RANGE BY CHANCE (WITHOUT DIVINE DESIGN)
http://www.origins.org/articles/ross_lifesupport.html

The updated teleological argument for God’s existence
http://www.geneveith.com/the-updated-teleological-argument-for-gods-existence/_1081/

The Fine-tuning of the Universe: Does this point to God?
http://www.godsci.com/gs/new/finetuning.html

Evidence of the Design of the Universe through the Anthropic Principle
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/837

Strong evidence for a Designer comes from the fine-tuning of the universal constants and the solar system
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/510.asp

Fine-Tuning (over 30 fine-tuned universal features are necessary for life)
http://blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/confusion-about-how-fine-tuning-implicates-intelligent-design-british-atheist-philosopher-a-c-grayling-15612/

The Fine Tuning of the Universe: Evidence for the Existence of God?
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2018/PSCF9-18Bradley.pdf

Consolidation of Fine-Tuning
https://finetune.physics.ox.ac.uk

Is [It] True? Fine-Tuning the Universe - Robin Collins at Pepperdine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj_fLi_K7jA

Atheist Physicists Prove God. Anthropic Principle Fails
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4E_bT4ecgk&t=4s&fbclid=IwAR12Y5J11T4nMvmQEdjaYPAKDCJ-j2np89IW-nxRlMvbusdFCz2JxpXAiTk

Fine-Tuning Argument for God? | Otangelo Vs Leophilius
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT6gZKqQkPw&t=1631s

Further readings :
Are Cosmic and Planetary Fine-Tuning Constant?
https://evolutionnews.org/2020/04/are-cosmic-and-planetary-fine-tuning-constant/

http://treesearch.org/god-exists#the-universe-is-fine-tuned-to-permit-life

New evidence for the extreme fine-tuning of the universe:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.2959v2.pdf

JASON K. RESCH: Is the universe fine-tuned? OCTOBER 14, 2020
https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/#A_Perfect_Balance

Luke A. Barnes: The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life 7 Jun 2012
https://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4647

Robin Collins: THE FINE-TUNING DESIGN ARGUMENT: A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God
https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil383/collins.htm

III. Ecosmos: A Procreative Organic Habitable UniVerse
http://www.naturalgenesis.net/default.taf?_function=bib&ID=28

Some introductory texts on the physics of fine-tuning, including the first papers on the subject, are listed below.

B. Carter. Large Number of Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology. In: Confrontation of cosmological theories with observational data, Proceeding of IAU Symposium, ed. M. S. Longair (D. Reidel), (1974) 291. [link]
J. D. Barrow. Anthropic Definitions. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 24 (1983) 146. [link]
P. C. W. Davies. How bio-friendly is the universe? International Journal of Astrobiology, 2 (2003) 115. [link 1 | link 2]
B. Carr & M. Rees. Fine-Tuning in Living SystemsInternational Journal of Astrobiology, 2 (2003) 79. [link]
M. Rees. Numerical Coincidences and 'Tuning' in Cosmology. In: Fred Hoyle's Universe, ed. C. Wickramasinghe et al. (Kluwer), (2003) 95.  [link]
L. A. Barnes. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent LifePublications of the Astronomical Society os Australia, 29 (2012) 529. [link 1 | link 2]

http://treesearch.org/god-exists#the-universe-is-fine-tuned-to-permit-life
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/new-evidence-anthropic-theory-fundamental-physics-constants-underlie-life-enabling-universe/
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/how-to-defend-the-fine-tuning-argument-just-like-william-lane-craig/
Fine-Tuning For Life On Earth (Updated June 2004)
Quotes of famous scientists on fine-tuning of the universe
http://kgov.com/fine-tuning-of-the-universe
http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Info_design_and_science.htm
http://www.reasons.org/articles/fine-tuning-for-life-in-the-universe
http://intelligentscience.wordpress.com/2008/09/18/the-basic-fine-tuning-argument-for-gods-existence/
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/finetuning.aspx
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/creatorfacts/
http://www.arn.org/docs/monton/god_finetuning_and_the_problem_of_old_evidence.pdf
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20150316072128/http://www.doesgodexist.org/Charts/EvidenceForDesignInTheUniverse.html
http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2009/05/08/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=66
http://www.reasons.org/scientists/anthropic-principle-precise-plan-humanity
http://www.reasons.org/design-and-anthropic-principle
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/particles/proton.html
http://www.detectingdesign.com/detectingdesign.html
http://www.ascensionearth2012.org/2014/06/cosmic-coincidences-few-amazing.html
http://kgov.com/fine-tuning-of-the-universe

1. http://sci-hub.ren/https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/how-biofriendly-is-the-universe/348B0E86A89D1A92A83BD97AFEE0A136
2. http://www.geraldschroeder.com/FineTuning.aspx
3. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-26300-7_6

WHY FINE-TUNING SEEMS DESIGNED
If all is random and our universe is the only universe, the chance existence of human awareness would seem incredible. Because the laws of physics would have to be so carefully calibrated to enable stars and planets to form and life to emerge, it would seem to require some kind of design.
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/why-fine-tuning-seems-designed

Is the Universe fine-tuned for permitting life?
https://beliefmap.org/universe/fine-tune

Michael Brooks There's a glitch at the edge of the universe that could remake physics 6 October 2018
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24031982-200-theres-a-glitch-at-the-edge-of-the-universe-that-could-remake-physics/



Last edited by Otangelo on Sun Jul 25, 2021 7:45 am; edited 23 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Answering to objections to the fine-tuning argument

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1277-fine-tuning-of-the-universe#1851

Objection: The weak anthropic principle explains our existence just fine. We happen to be in a universe with those constraints because they happen to be the only set which will produce the conditions in which creatures like us might (but not must) occur. So, no initial constraints = no-one to become aware of those initial constraints. This gets us no closer to intelligent design.
Response: Given the narrowness of the required intervals, how surprising is it that life actually came into being? The answer would seem to be, very unlikely (unless there are a large number of actual universes within which life could arise by chance). The fundamental constants of the universe held their present values before human beings existed, and they are a pre-requisite for life to begin. Other constants would produce a universe which would not permit the existence of stars, nor planets, and much less, life.  If anything, the physical structure of the universe (as represented by fundamental constants and various mathematical relations) are an efficient cause of the existence of a life permitting planet. 

John Leslie illustrates this point by means of the Firing Squad analogy
Imagine that you are facing a firing squad of sharpshooters, firing at close range. Somehow, you survive the volley. Is the volley something that requires an explanation? It is old evidence -- you already know with probability 1 that you are still alive. Nonetheless, it is, from a suitably impersonal perspective, a very surprising thing that you did survive, under the circumstances. Similarly, we already know, with probability 1, that life exists, but this is a very surprising fact, given the anthropic coincidences that were required.

The following gives a sense of the degree of fine-tuning that must go into some of these values to yield a life-friendly universe:

Atheists love to use Occam's razor. Remarkable, that arguing that there is no evidence of God because he cannot be perceived by our senses, in order to explain fine-tuning, he sticks to infinity of completely made-up, undetectable and unobservable parallel universes and claim the proposal to be entirely scientific and disregarding Occams. Me thinks. Occam's would not be amused.

Objection: Using the sharpshooter fallacy is like drawing the bullseye around the bullet hole. You are a puddle saying "look how well this hole fits me. It must have been made for me" when in reality you took your shape from your surroundings.
Response:  The fallacy is characterized by a lack of a specific hypothesis prior to the gathering of data, or the formulation of a hypothesis only after data have already been gathered and examined. Hundreds of constants require to be finely tuned, from the expansion rate of the Big Bang to the fundamental forces, the sun, and earthly conditions, a right atmosphere to exist, the sky to exist, hundreds of precisely specified proteins and metabolic networks in Cells,  so that we can exist and wonder about our place in the cosmic order. So the argument is downright misleading. It misrepresents the fact that we know that intelligence can use mathematics, logic, create codes and uses them to create, store and use instructional information to make machines, production lines and factories with specific purposes, and upon that, we can formulate hypotheses, and test them. The only alternative to a finely tuned universe is a multiverse, which is entirely unscientific. Upon decades of scientific investigation, science has been unable to produce life in the test lab. When one explanation is not providing an expected outcome, why not search somewhere else?

1. The existence of a life-permitting universe is very improbable on naturalism, and not comparably improbable on theism.
2. A universe formed by naturalistic unguided means would have its parameters set randomly  – not in the sense of being stochastic, but in the sense of setting parameters that would produce non-life permitting universes or no universe at all. ( If the initial conditions and fine-tune parameters for the right expansion-rate of the universe were not met ) In short, a  randomly chosen universe is extraordinarily unlikely to have the right conditions for life.
3.  A life-permitting universe is likely on theism, since a powerful, extraordinarily intelligent designer has the ability of foresight, and knowledge of what parameters, laws of physics, and finely-tuned conditions would permit a life-permitting universe.
4. Under bayesian terms, design is more likely rather than non-design. Therefore, the design inference is the best explanation for a finely tuned universe.

Objection: Arguments from probability are drivel. We have only one observable universe. So far the likelihood that the universe would form the way it did is 1 in 1
Response: There are dozens of these very precisely balanced constants in the universe necessary to support life. While some can be significantly changed if balanced by equivalent changes in other constants to compensate, it is quite clear that the ratio of those parameters that would work vs. those that would not work is an extremely tiny fraction of all the possible ways which these constants could have been set up - which would not have allowed for the support of complex life.

The classic argument is given in response to such anthropic arguments that one shouldn't be surprised to find these fine-tuned features in the universe because if these features weren't fine-tuned, we wouldn't exist. Therefore, the fact that we exist means that such fine tuning should only be expected by the mere fact of our own existence - not at all surprising. This is obviously a response begging the question. 

This argument is like a situation where a man is standing before a firing squad of 10000 men with rifles who take aim and fire - - but they all miss him. According to the above logic, this man should not be at all surprised to still be alive because, if they hadn't missed him, he wouldn't be alive. The nonsense of this line of reasoning is obvious. Surprise at the extreme fine-tuning of the universe, given the hypothesis of a mindless origin, is only to be expected - in the extreme.

Objection: every sequence is just as improbable as another.
Answer: It's true that any particular equal-length sequence is just as improbable as any other. But if the goal is to have a sequence, a particular string starting at 1, then 2,3,4,5,6 ............ 500, then intuitively you know there sequence has a specific order. The relevant point to be outlined here is: The sequence 1,2,3,4 ..........  500, exhibits a specification or particular pattern. What must be explained, is the origin not of any kind of sequence, but a particular, specific sequence.
Suppose you see a blueprint to make a car engine with 100 horse powers to drive a BMW 5X. Not any blueprint will produce this particular car engine with the right size and fit and power. Only a blueprint with the precise, specific, complex arrangement of orders that is understood by the common pre-established agreement between the engineer, and the manufacturer, will permit to be encoded, transmitted, decoded and transformed in an equivalent artifact that has the specific, recognizable function which meets the pre-established goal. The information for that particular car engine can be encoded in Bits. Lets suppose its the size of a CD, 600mb. What has to be calculated, are the odds to get that specific sequence of instructions, which permit to give rise to that particular car engine. Not any sequence will do.
Now you take a random universe generator. 

Objection: You cannot assign odds to something AFTER it has already happened. The chances of us being here is 100 %
Answer:  The probability of a certain event occurring depends on how many possible outcomes the event has. If an event has only one possible outcome, the probability for this outcome is always 1 (or 100 percent). If there is more than one possible outcome, however, this changes. A simple example is the coin toss. If you toss a coin, there are two possible outcomes (heads or tails). As long as the coin was not manipulated, the theoretical probabilities of both outcomes are the same–they are equally probable. The sum of all possible outcomes is always 1 (or 100 percent) because it is certain that one of the possible outcomes will happen.

The maximal number of possible simultaneous interactions in the entire history of the universe, starting 13,7 billion years ago, can be calculated by multiplying the three relevant factors together: the number of atoms (10^80) in the universe, times the number of seconds that passed since the big bang (10^16) times the number of possible simultaneous interactions of all atoms per second (10^43). This calculation fixes the total number of events that could have occurred in the observable universe since the origin of the universe at 10^139.  This provides a measure of the probabilistic resources of the entire observable universe.

If the odds for an event to occur, are less likely, than the threshold of the entire probabilistic resources of the universe, then we can confidently say, that the event is impossible to occur by chance.

140 features of the cosmos as a whole (including the laws of physics) must fall within certain narrow ranges to allow for the possibility of physical life’s existence.
402 quantifiable characteristics of a planetary system and its galaxy must fall within narrow ranges to allow for the possibility of advanced life’s existence.
Less than 1 chance in 10^390 exists that even one planet containing the necessary kinds of life would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.

The odds to have life from non-life by natural means:
Probability for occurrence of a functional proteome, which is in the case of Pelagibacter, the smallest known bacteria and life-form, with 1350 proteins, average 300 Amino Acids size, by unguided means: 10^722000
Probability for occurrence of connecting all 1350 proteins in the right, functional order is about 4^3600
Probability for occurrence to have both, a minimal proteome, and interactome: about 10^725600

Objection: Normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space. There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended.
Reply: The tiniest planet containing the tiniest living cell has more significance than the billions of super massive giant planets, stars etc. The fact to be explained is why the universe is life-permitting rather than life-prohibiting. That is to say, scientists have been surprised to discover that in order for embodied, interactive life to evolve anywhere at all in the universe, the fundamental constants and quantities of nature have to be fine-tuned to an incomprehensible precision. Were even one of these constants or quantities to be slightly altered, the universe would not permit the existence of embodied, interactive life anywhere in the cosmos. These finely-tuned conditions are necessary conditions of life in a universe governed by the present laws of nature. it would be obtuse to think that the universe is not life-permitting because regions of the universe are not life-permitting! 1

An alteration in the ratio of the expansion and contraction forces by as little as 1 part in 10^55 at the Planck time (just 10-43 seconds after the origin of the universe), would have led either to too rapid expansion of the universe with no galaxies forming or to too slow an expansion with consequent rapid collapse. 

It should be obvious by now that the fine-tuning argument holds in the relation to the universe as a whole, and is not meant to address the question of why you cannot live on the sun or breathe on the moon. Of course, sources of energy (stars) are needed to drive life and evolution, and of course, you cannot live on them. Nor can you live in the, by necessity, frighteningly large stretches of empty space between them and planets. So what is the point? Nobody would deny that the light bulb is an invention that greatly enhances modern life. But when you would try to hold your hand around a light bulb that is turned on, you would burn it to pieces. Is the light bulb then "hostile to life"? Certainly not. This modest example, however, indicates how utterly irrelevant the argument really is – one of those false arguments that appear to be brought forth and rehashed solely in order to avoid the deeper issues.

Objection: Given the massive size (and age) of the universe the odds of life occuring are almost a certainty. You are like the puddle, convinced the pothole fits so well it must have made for you.
Reply: Douglas Adams's puddle analogy falls short because in order to life being able to adapt , there have to be first a finely tuned universe, and a planet with finely tuned, life-permitting conditions.  The Big Bang was the most precisely finely tuned event in all of history and must have been logically the result of foresight and planning. Amongst many constants, just one, the cosmological constant, had to be adjusted at a precision of one to 10^123, an astronomically unimaginably huge number. There are 10^80 atoms in the universe.  Less than 1 chance in 10^390 exists that even one planet containing the necessary kinds of life would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.

But even IF a finely-tuned universe, and planet earth, were a free lunch ( a given not demanding an explanation):
The odds to have life from non-life by natural means:
Probability for occurrence of a functional proteome, which is in the case of Pelagibacter, the smallest known bacteria and life-form, with 1350 proteins, average 300 Amino Acids size, by unguided means: 10^722000
Probability for occurrence of connecting all 1350 proteins in the right, functional order is about 4^3600
Probability for occurrence to have both, a minimal proteome, and interactome: about 10^725600

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking…” He doesn’t seem to realize that, in order for a puddle to wake up and think its first thought, a vast number of interconnected and incredibly unlikely coincidences have to occur.

The Big Bang had to happen, and the Big Bang had to explode with just the right amount of force to allow matter to disperse  and allow galaxies to form. Had the Big Bang not been precisely fine-tuned, our universe might consist of nothing but tenuous hydrogen gas—or a single supermassive black hole. The laws of nature had to be laid down at the instant of the Big Bang, and had to be fine-tuned to an accuracy of one part in the trillions before the universe itself could exist, much less a contemplative puddle.

The electromagnetic force, the gravitational force, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force all had to be perfectly balanced in order for stars to form and begin cooking up the elements needed to make planets—silicon, nickel, iron, oxygen, magnesium, and so forth. Adams’ pensive puddle could not find itself sitting in “an interesting hole” unless the hole was situated on a planet orbiting a star that was part of a galaxy that was created by the incredibly fine-tuned forces and conditions of the Big Bang.

And in order for that puddle to wake up one morning and think at all, it would need to be a lot more complex than a mere puddle of water. A thinking puddle would be a very complex puddle. Even if that puddle were comprised of exotic alien nerve cells suspended in a matrix of liquid ammonia, it would certainly need something like lipid molecules and protein structures and nucleic acids in order to become sufficiently evolved as to wake up and contemplate its own existence.

Such components require the existence of carbon. And if you know anything about where carbon comes from, you know that carbon doesn’t grow on trees. It is formed in an amazingly fine-tuned process involving the precise placement of a nuclear resonance level in a beryllium atom. Any enlightened plashet would have to conclude that a superintellect had monkeyed with physics, chemistry, and the biological composition of pools and puddles.

The rest of Douglas Adams’ scenario, in which “the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and … the puddle gets smaller and smaller” is meaningless in view of the fact that dozens and dozens of events, forces, and conditions have to interact in a fine-tuned way in order for the sun to exist, the air to exist, the sky to exist, and the hole in the ground to exist, so that a puddle can wake up one morning and wonder about its place in the cosmic order.

No analogy is perfect, of course, but The Puddle Analogy is downright misleading. It misrepresents the essence of the fine-tuning argument. An analogy should simplify, but not over-simplify.

Claim: There is only one universe to compare with: ours
Response: There is no need to compare our universe to another. We do know the value of Gravity G, and so we know what would have happened if it had been weaker or stronger (in terms of the formation of stars, star systems, planets, etc). The same goes for the fine-structure constant, other fundamental values etc. If they were different, there would be no life. We know that the subset of life-permitting conditions (conditions meeting the necessary requirements) is extremely small compared to the overall set of possible conditions. So it is justified to ask: Why are they within the extremely unlikely subset that eventually yields stars, planets, and life-sustaining planets?

Luke Barnes, A Fortunate Universe  Page 239
Physicists have discovered that a small number of mathematical rules account for how our universe works.  Newton’s law of gravitation, for example, describes the force of gravity between any two masses separated by any distance. This feature of the laws of nature makes them predictive – they not only describe what we have already observed; they place their bets on what we observe next. The laws we employ are the ones that keep winning their bets. Part of the job of a theoretical physicist is to explore the possibilities contained within the laws of nature to see what they tell us about the Universe, and to see if any of these scenarios are testable. For example, Newton’s law allows for the possibility of highly elliptical orbits. If anything in the Solar System followed such an orbit, it would be invisibly distant for most of its journey, appearing periodically to sweep rapidly past the Sun. In 1705, Edmond Halley used Newton’s laws to predict that the comet that bears his name, last seen in 1682, would return in 1758. He was right, though didn’t live to see his prediction vindicated. This exploration of possible scenarios and possible universes includes the constants of nature. To measure these constants, we calculate what effect their value has on what we observe. For example, we can calculate how the path of an electron through a magnetic field is affected by its charge and mass, and using this calculation we can we work backward from our observations of electrons to infer their charge and mass. Probabilities, as they are used in science, are calculated, relative to some set of possibilities; think of the high-school definition of a dozen (or so) reactions to fine-tuning probability as ‘favourable over possible’. We’ll have a lot more to say about probability in Reaction (o); here we need only note that scientists test their ideas by noting which possibilities are rendered probable or improbable by the combination of data and theory. A theory cannot claim to have explained the data by noting that, since we’ve observed the data, its probability is one. Fine-tuning is a feature of the possible universes of theoretical physics. We want to know why our Universe is the way it is, and we can get clues by exploring how it could have been, using the laws of nature as our guide.

DICE DON'T PROVE GOD! A Response to a Fine-Tuning Argument
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGsYR0ubq_k
Objection:  Apologists wrongly equate coming into existence through natural processes with random chance when in reality these two things couldn't be much more different
Response: Physically debunked objects the claim, but does not explain why.

Objection: if i wanted to calculate the probability of getting a six on a dice i take one and divide it by the number of possibilities six but for the expansion rate of the universe i don't have 10 to the 55 different universes i can observe and see that one of them has the correct expansion rate we don't even know whether the expansion rate could have been different

Reply:   Surprise! The universe's expansion rate may vary from place to place April 09, 2020
https://www.space.com/universe-expansion-rate-may-vary.html
The expansion rate of the universe appears to vary from place to place, a new study reports. This finding, if confirmed, would force astronomers to reassess just how well they understand the cosmos. We analyzed 313 galaxy clusters using the Chandra and XMM-Newton telescopes and we combined them with 529 available clusters from previous studies. What we found was even more impressive than our 2018 results. We managed to pinpoint a region that seems to expand slower than the rest of the Universe, and one that seems to expand faster! Interestingly, our results agree with several previous studies that used other methods, with the difference that we identified this "anisotropy" in the sky with a much higher confidence and using objects covering the whole sky more uniformly.

Claim: perhaps there hasn't been just one role of the cosmic dice maybe there are other universes
Reply: That doesn't remove the fine-tune argument. It just pushes it a step further. Then the fine-tuning of these other universe would have to be explained, and so as well a fine-tune generator, which also would have to be finely adjusted to generate multiple universes.

Claim: appear finely tuned for life but appear fine-tuned is not the same thing as are fine-tuned
Reply: Is the fine-tuning real?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1277-fine-tuning-of-the-universe#1779

Fine-tuning starting with the initial conditions of the universe, to biochemical fine-tuning, is real and it is conceded by the top-rank physicists.  This case has been made convincingly by many experts. There are a great many scientists, of varying religious persuasions, who accept that the universe is fine-tuned for life, e.g. Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Dawkins, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Hawking, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, Wilczek. They differ, of course, on what conclusion we should draw from this fact. 

Claim: the universe appears fine-tuned is a scientific fact but that doesn't mean that it actually is fine-tuned we have no idea if the values of the constants could have been different and no idea whether certain values are more likely than other values
Reply: Could the laws of physics change, or are they bound to physical necessity?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t3152-could-the-laws-of-physics-change-or-are-they-bound-to-physical-necessity

Marc Lange: Could the Laws of Nature Change?* (January 2008) 6
The natural laws are traditionally characterized as ‘eternal’, ‘fixed’, and ‘immutable’. Is the laws’ unchanging character a metaphysical necessity? If so, then in any possible world, there are exactly the same laws at all times (though presumably there are different laws in different possible worlds).2 That there actually are exactly the same laws at all times is then a consequence of what it is for a truth to be a law of nature. On the other hand, if the laws’ unchanging character is not a metaphysical necessity, then even if in fact there have always been and will always be exactly the same laws, this fact is metaphysically contingent.
As the universe cooled after the Big Bang, symmetries were spontaneously broken, ‘phase transitions’ took place, and discontinuous changes occurred in the values of various physical parameters (e.g., in the strength of certain fundamental interactions, or in the masses of certain species of particle).

Claim:  There's simply no need to invoke the existence of an intelligent designer doing so is simply a god of the gaps argument
Reply:  There is no gap. Here is the argument:
1. The more statistically improbable something is, the less it makes sense to believe that it just happened by blind chance.
2. In order to have a universe, able to host various forms of life on earth, 1364 (!!) different features and fine-tune parameters must be just right.
3. Statistically, it is practically impossible, that the universe was finely tuned to permit life by chance.  
4. 4. Therefore, an intelligent Designer is by far the best explanation of the origin of our life-permitting universe.

Claim: Science cannot show that greatly different universes could not support life as well as this one.
Reply: There is basically an infinite range of possible force and coupling constant values and laws of physics-based on mathematics and life-permitting physical conditions that would operate based on these laws, but always a very limited set of laws of physics, mathematics, and physical conditions operating based on those laws, finely adjusted to permit a life-permitting universe of some form, different than ours. But no matter how different, in all those cases, we can assert that the majority of settings would result in a chaotic, non-life permitting universe. The probability of fine-tuning those life-permitting conditions of those alternative universes would be equally close to 0, and in practical terms, be factually zero.

Claim:   There's no reason to think that we won't find a natural explanation for why the constants take the values they do
Reply:  Its actually the interlocutor here which is invoking a naturalism of the gaps argument. We have no clue why or how the universe got finely-tuned, but if an answer is found, it must be a natural one.

Claim:  natural explanation is not the same thing as random chance
Reply:  There are just two alternative options to design: random chance, or physical necessity. There is no reason why the universe MUST be life permitting. Therefore, the only alternative to design, is in fact chance.

Claim:  to say that there isn't convincing evidence for any particular model of a multiverse there's a wide variety of them that are being developed actively by distinguished cosmologists
Reply: So what ? There is still no evidence whatsoever that they exist, besides of the fertile mind of those that want to find a way to remove God from the equation.

Claim: if you do look at science as a theist i think it's quite easy to find facts that on the surface look like they support the existence of a creator if you went into science without any theistic preconceptions however I don't think you'd be led to the idea of an omnipotent benevolent creator at all
Reply: "A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him" - Louis Pasteur.

Claim: an omnipotent god however would not be bound by any particular laws of physics
Reply: Many people would say that part of God’s omnipotence is that he can “do anything.” But that’s not really true. It’s more precise to say that he has the power to do all things that power is capable of doing. Maybe God cannot make a life-supporting universe without laws of physics in place, and maybe not even one without life in it. Echoing Einstein, the answer is very easy: nothing is really simple if it does not work. Occam’s Razor is certainly not intended to promote false – thus, simplistic — theories in the name of their supposed “simplicity.” We should prefer a working explanation to one that does not, without arguing about “simplicity”. Such claims are really pointless, more philosophy than science.

Claim: why not create a universe which actually looks designed for us instead of one in which we're located in a tiny dark corner of a vast mostly inhospitable cosmos
Reply:  The fact to be explained is why the universe is life-permitting rather than life-prohibiting. That is to say, scientists have been surprised to discover that in order for embodied, interactive life to evolve anywhere at all in the universe, the fundamental constants and quantities of nature have to be fine-tuned to an incomprehensible precision.

Claim: i find it very unbelievable looking out into the universe that people would think yeah that's made for us
Reply: Thats called argument from incredulity. Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity or appeal to common sense, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs

Claim:  If the fine-tuning parameters were different, then life could/would be different.
Reply:   The universe would not have been the sort of place in which life could emerge – not just the very form of life we observe here on Earth, but any conceivable form of life, if the mass of the proton, the mass of the neutron, the speed of light, or the Newtonian gravitational constant were different.  In many cases, the cosmic parameters were like the just-right settings on an old-style radio dial: if the knob were turned just a bit, the clear signal would turn to static. As a result, some physicists started describing the values of the parameters as ‘fine-tuned’ for life. To give just one of many possible examples of fine-tuning, the cosmological constant (symbolized by the Greek letter ‘Λ’) is a crucial term in Einstein’s equations for the General Theory of Relativity. When Λ is positive, it acts as a repulsive force, causing space to expand. When Λ is negative, it acts as an attractive force, causing space to contract. If Λ were not precisely what it is, either space would expand at such an enormous rate that all matter in the universe would fly apart, or the universe would collapse back in on itself immediately after the Big Bang. Either way, life could not possibly emerge anywhere in the universe. Some calculations put the odds that ½ took just the right value at well below one chance in a trillion trillion trillion trillion. Similar calculations have been made showing that the odds of the universe’s having carbon-producing stars (carbon is essential to life), or of not being millions of degrees hotter than it is, or of not being shot through with deadly radiation, are likewise astronomically small. Given this extremely improbable fine-tuning, say, proponents of FTA, we should think it much more likely that God exists than we did before we learned about fine-tuning. After all, if we believe in God, we will have an explanation of fine-tuning, whereas if we say the universe is fine-tuned by chance, we must believe something incredibly improbable happened.
http://home.olemiss.edu/~namanson/Fine%20tuning%20argument.pdf

Objection: The anthropic principle more than addresses the fine-tuning argument.
Reply: No, it doesn't. The error in reasoning is that the anthropic principle is non-informative. It simply states that because we are here, it must be possible that we can be here. In other words, we exist to ask the question of the anthropic principle. If we didn't exist then the question could not be asked. It simply states we exist to ask questions about the Universe. That is however not what we want to know. Why want to understand how the state of affairs of a life-permitting universe came to be. There are several answers:  

Theory of everything: Some Theory of Everything will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see. Once science finds out, it will be a natural explanation. Thats a classical naturalism of the gaps argument.
The multiverse: Multiple universes exist, having all possible combinations of characteristics, and we inevitably find ourselves within a universe that allows us to exist. There are multiple problems with the proposal. It is unscientific, it cannot be tested, there is no evidence for it, and does not solve the problem of a beginning. 
The self-explaining universe: A closed explanatory or causal loop: "perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist". This is Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP).
The fake universe: We live inside a virtual reality simulation.
Intelligent design: A creator designed the Universe with the purpose of supporting complexity and the emergence of intelligence. Applying Bayesian considerations, that seems to be the most rational inference. 

Objection:  Sean Carroll: this is the best argument that the theists have given that it is still a terrible argument it is not at all convincing I will give you five quick reasons why he is immed is not offer a solution to the purported fine-tuning problem first I am by no means convinced that there is a fine-tuning problem and again dr. Craig offered no evidence for it it is certainly true that if you change the parameters of nature our local conditions that we observe around us would change by a lot I grant that quickly I do not grant that therefore life could not exist I will start granting that once someone tells me the conditions under which life can exist what is the definition of life for example secondly God doesn't need to fine-tune anything I would think that no matter what the atoms were doing God could still create life God doesn't care what the mass of the electron is he can do what he wants the third point is that the fine tunings that you think are there might go away once you understand the universe better they might only be a parent number four there's an obvious and easy naturalistic explanation in the form of the cosmological multiverse fifth and most importantly theism fails as an explanation even if you think the universe is finely tuned and you don't think that naturalism can solve it fee ism certainly does not solve it if you thought it did if you played the game honestly what you would say is here is the universe that I expect to exist under theism I will compare it to the data and see if it fits what kind of universe would we expect and I claim that over and over again the universe we expect matches the predictions of naturalism not theism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79n8EADHh1s&fbclid=IwAR3jZho5nEipZVygRBeiQL9inKYL9J1GnSQJi-TCr2YmOEnNJ8q8LhrLujc

Reply:  Life depends upon the existence of various different kinds of forces—which are described with different kinds of laws— acting in concert.
1. a long-range attractive force (such as gravity) that can cause galaxies, stars, and planetary systems to congeal from chemical elements in order to provide stable platforms for life;
2. a force such as the electromagnetic force to make possible chemical reactions and energy transmission through a vacuum;
3. a force such as the strong nuclear force operating at short distances to bind the nuclei of atoms together and overcome repulsive electrostatic forces;
4. the quantization of energy to make possible the formation of stable atoms and thus life;
5. the operation of a principle in the physical world such as the Pauli exclusion principle that (a) enables complex material structures to form and yet (b) limits the atomic weight of elements (by limiting the number of neutrons in the lowest nuclear shell). Thus, the forces at work in the universe itself (and the mathematical laws of physics describing them) display a fine-tuning that requires explanation. Yet, clearly, no physical explanation of this structure is possible, because it is precisely physics (and its most fundamental laws) that manifests this structure and requires explanation. Indeed, clearly physics does not explain itself.



Last edited by Otangelo on Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:04 am; edited 29 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

4Fine tuning of the Universe Empty Quotes about fine-tuning Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:21 am

Otangelo


Admin

Quotes about fine-tuning

John Boslough:  Stephen Hawking's Universe, p. 121).
"The odds against a universe like ours coming out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications" 

Fred Hoyle: British astrophysicist
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Hawking: A Brief History of Time, p.125.
The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life… It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at their beauty.

George Ellis:  British astrophysicist
“Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”

Paul Davies: British astrophysicist
There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.

Alan Sandage: winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy
I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.

John O'Keefe: NASA astronomer
“We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”

George Greenstein: astronomer
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?

Arthur Eddington astrophysicist 
“The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”

Arno Penzias Nobel prize in physics
“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”

Roger Penrose mathematician and author
“I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”

Tony Rothman physicist
“When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”

Vera Kistiakowsky MIT physicist
“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”

Stephen Hawking British astrophysicist
“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? … Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?”

Alexander Polyakov: Soviet mathematician
“We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”

Ed Harrison cosmologist
“Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God—the design argument of Paley—updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.”

Edward Milne British cosmologist
“As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].”

Barry Parker cosmologist
“Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.”

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel cosmologists
“This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.”

Arthur L. Schawlow Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics
“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.”

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer computational quantum chemist
“The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.”

Wernher von Braun Pioneer rocket engineer
“I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”

Dr. Paul Davies:  noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University
 “The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly. You see,” Davies adds, “even if you dismiss the man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life — almost contrived — you might say a ‘put-up job’.”

Dr. David D. Deutsch: Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University
If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.

Steve Meyer, the return to the God hypothesis, page 323
Appealing to some as yet undiscovered law to explain the fine-tuning of the physical constants seem implausible for another related reason. Natural laws by definition describe phenomena that conform to regular or repetitive patterns. Yet the idiosyncratic values of the different physical constants and initial conditions constitute a highly irregular and nonrepetitive ensemble. It seems unlikely, therefore, that any more fundamental laws could explain why all the fundamental constants have exactly the values they do—why, for example, the permittivity constant in Coulomb’s law should have the value 8.85 x 10−12 Coulombs2 per Newton-meter, and the electron mass should have exactly the value of 9.11 x 10−31 kilograms, and the electron charge to mass ratio is exactly 1.76 x 1011 Coulombs per kilogram, and the fine-structure constant should have the value .00729, and the Higgs field vacuum expectation has the value of 246 GeV. 17 These constants specify a a highly irregular array of values that describe either ratios between completely different types of quantities or completely different quantities (e.g., mass, charge, and energy) or quantities without units at all. As a group, they do not exhibit the kind of regular pattern that is at all likely to be subsumed under a single physical law. 

Hugh Ross: Why the universe is the way it is, page 74
In 2006, 140 Cosmic features were catalogized that must be fine-tuned for any physical life to exist. 676 galactic and terrestrial features must be fine-tuned to support permanent simple life.
The following shows the number of fine-tuned characteristics required for the support life: Universe: 140, Galaxy clusters 99, Galaxy 200, Planetary system 137, Stars 140, Moon 27, Planet’s surface 137, Life on earth: 159. In total, the odds to have a life-permitting planet are 10^390. The universe has 10^80 atoms.

Paul Davies: The Anthropic Principle,” May 18, 1987, Episode 17, Season 23, Horizon series, BBC.
“The really amazing thing is not that life on earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly.”
The Big Bang was the most precisely planned event in all of history. Without fine-tuning, there would be no universe. The likelihood to have the right expansion rate at the Big bang is one to 10^123 ( Cosmological constant ) 

We Live in a Very Fortunate Universe
In order to visualize how finely tuned the universe is for life, imagine a dartboard of the size of West Virginia (approximately 630 trillion cm2) Now imagine that you throw a dart at random towards this gigantic dartboard. You have to hit the bull’s-eye (an area of about 1 cm2), or you’re dead. The odds are astronomical. It’s true that hitting any particular square centimeter is equally probable, but it is extremely more probable that you would hit one of the hundreds of trillions of squared centimeters that are life-prohibiting over the one squared centimeter that is life-permitting. In fact, if you hit the life-permitting bull’s-eye, most rational people would charge you with peeking—designing the outcome.
https://www.str.org/w/we-live-in-a-very-fortunate-universe

Lee Smolin, The life of the Cosmos, page 53:
If we are to genuinely understand our universe, these relations, between the structures on large scales and the elementary particles, must be understood as being something other than coincidence. We must understand how it came to be that the parameters that govern the elementary particles and their interactions are tuned and balanced in such a way that a universe of such variety and complexity arises. Of course, it is always possible that this is just a coincidence. Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229. To illustrate how truly ridiculous this number is, we might note that the part of the universe we can see from earth contains about 10^22 stars which together contain about 10^80 protons and neutrons. These numbers are gigantic, but they are infinitesimal compared to 10^229. In my opinion, a probability this tiny is not something we can let go unexplained. Luck will certainly not do here; we need some rational explanation of how something this unlikely turned out to be the case.

Exemplification
Several famous physicists, including, Stephen Hawking worked out that the relationship between all the fundamentals of our universe is so finely tuned that even if we slightly changed the 55 th decimal point then our universe could not exist. Put another way, several leading scientists have calculated that the statistical probability against this fine-tuning being by chance is in the order of 1 in 10^55.

This probability is hard to imagine but an illustration may help. Imagine covering the whole of the USA with small coins, edge to edge. Now imagine piling other coins on each of these millions of coins. Now imagine continuing to pile coins on each coin until reaching the moon about 400,000 km away! If you were told that within this vast mountain of coins there was one coin different to all the others. The statistical chance of finding that one coin is about 1 in 10^55 . In other words, the evidence that our universe is designed is overwhelming!

Steven Weinberg The Cosmological Constant Problems  February 2000
There are now two cosmological constant problems. The old cosmological constant problem is to understand in a natural way why the vacuum energy density ρV is not very much larger. We can reliably calculate some contributions to ρV , like the energy density in fluctuations in the gravitational field at graviton energies nearly up to the Planck scale, which is larger than is observationally allowed by some 120 orders of magnitude. Such terms in ρV can be cancelled by other contributions that we can’t calculate, but the cancellation then has to be accurate to 120 decimal places.

Imagine a hypothetical universe-generating machine that would display a number of different dials, knobs, or adjustable sliders, each representing one of the many cosmological fine-tuning parameters. Imagine that each of those dials was fixed to a specific setting out of a vast number of other possible settings. Even slight changes to the dial settings—by one-click this way or that— would result in catastrophic consequences that prevented the universe from sustaining life. What would you make of that? Although that the fine-tuning evidence does not prove the existence of God, a theistic designer appears to be a much better and more satisfying explanation of the fine-tuning than any materialistic hypothesis, as the multiverse. 
https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0005265.pdf

Fine tuning of the Universe Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQMDWuyEjG_m8BKpKyR-686m9bneiLOcAFTYH1zhE4zPctMq7t-6M5ahRAcvzZ4WTLVo5U&usqp=CAU

The following gives a sense of the degree of fine-tuning that must go into some of these values to yield a life-friendly universe:

The expansion rate of the universe: 1 part in 10^55
Initial entropy:  1 part in 10^ (10^123)
Gravitational constant: 1 part in 10^34
Electromagnetic force versus force of gravity: 1 part in 10^37
Cosmological constant: 1 part in 10^123
The mass density of the universe:  1 part in 10^59
The chance to get a universe with stars is 10^229
The chance to get the force of gravity just right for life to exist is 1 out of 10^21
The chance to get the strong nuclear force  just right for life to exist is 1 out of 10^21
The electromagnetic force constant exhibits moderate fine-tuning of 1 part in 25
The strong nuclear force constant is fine-tuned to 1 part in 200
The ratio of the weak nuclear force constant to the strong nuclear force constant had to have been set with a precision of 1 part in 10,000

Estimate of number of grains of sand on earth: 7.5 x 10^18 grains of sand
How Many Stars Are In The Universe? 10^24
How Many Atoms Are There in the Universe? 10^82 atoms in the known, observable universe.

Geoff Brumfiel Outrageous fortune 04 January 2006
A growing number of cosmologists and string theorists suspect the form of our Universe is little more than a coincidence.  If the number controlling the growth of the Universe since the Big Bang is just slightly too high, the Universe expands so rapidly that protons and neutrons never come close enough to bond into atoms. If it is just ever-so-slightly too small, it never expands enough, and everything remains too hot for even a single nucleus to form. Similar problems afflict the observed masses of elementary particles and the strengths of fundamental forces. In other words, if you believe the equations of the world's leading cosmologists, the probability that the Universe would turn out this way by chance are infinitesimal — one in a very large number. “It's like you're throwing darts, and the bullseye is just one part in 10^120 of the dartboard,” says Leonard Susskind, a string theorist based at Stanford University in California. “It's just stupid.”

My comment: Why is it just stupid? Because atheist cosmologists don't have a good explanation that fits their prejudgements and wishes, that a natural explanation is found?

One in a zillion
Physicists have historically approached this predicament with the attitude that it's not just dumb luck. In their view, there must be something underlying and yet-to-be-discovered setting the value of these variables. “The idea is that we have got to work harder because some principle is missing,” says David Gross, a Nobel-prizewinning theorist and director of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, California.

My comment: If God is ignored and excluded a prior, then something is missing, yes. There is no alternative to an intelligent creator. Chance is a no-no explanation. It explains nothing, since it is an incapable mechanism to fine-tune anything.

But things have changed in the past few years, says astronomer Bernard Carr of Queen Mary, University of London, UK. String theorists and cosmologists are increasingly turning to dumb luck as an explanation. If their ideas stand up, it would mean the constants of nature are meaningless. “In the past, many people were almost violently opposed to that idea because it wasn't seen as proper science,” Carr says. “But there's been a change of attitude.”

Much of that change stems from work showing that our Universe may not be unique. Since the early 1980s, some cosmologists have argued that multiple universes could have formed during a period of cosmic inflation that preceded the Big Bang. More recently, string theorists have calculated that there could be 10^500 universes, which is more than the number of atoms in our observable Universe. Under these circumstances, it becomes more reasonable to assume that several would turn out like ours. It's like getting zillions and zillions of darts to throw at the dart board, Susskind says. “Surely, a large number of them are going to wind up in the target zone.” And of course, we exist in our particular Universe because we couldn't exist anywhere else.

My comment: It must be really frustrating, when cosmologists cannot come up with a better explanation.

To explain the perfectly adjusted cosmological constant one would need at least 1060 universes.
https://www.nature.com/articles/439010a

Unless ALL of these conditions and many more not included in this list are met, we would have a universe that would preclude the possibility of conscious, complex life forms. 
https://web.archive.org/web/20110805203154/http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html

1. Strong nuclear force constant
2. Weak nuclear force constant
3. Gravitational force constant
4. Electromagnetic force constant
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
6. Ratio of proton to electron mass
7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
8. Ratio of proton to electron charge
9. Expansion rate of the universe
10. Mass density of the universe
11. Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
12. Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
13. Ratio of space energy density to mass density
14. Entropy level of the universe
15. Velocity of light
16. Age of the universe
17. Uniformity of radiation
18. Homogeneity of the universe
19. Average distance between galaxies
20. Average distance between galaxy clusters
21. Average distance between stars
22. Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
23. density of giant galaxies during early cosmic history
24. Electromagnetic fine structure constant
25. Gravitational fine-structure constant
26. Decay rate of protons
27. Ground state energy level for helium-4
Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 2
28. Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
29. Decay rate for beryllium-8
30. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
31. Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
32. Polarity of the water molecule
33. Epoch for peak in the number of hypernova eruptions
34. Numbers and different kinds of hypernova eruptions
35. Epoch for peak in the number of type I supernova eruptions
36. Numbers and different kinds of type I supernova eruptions
37. Epoch for peak in the number of type II supernova eruptions
38. Numbers and different kinds of type II supernova eruptions
39. Epoch for white dwarf binaries
40. Density of white dwarf binaries
41. Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
42. Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
43. Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
44. Mass values for the active neutrinos
45. Number of different species of active neutrinos
46. Number of active neutrinos in the universe
47. Mass value for the sterile neutrino
48. Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
49. Decay rates of exotic mass particles
50. Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
51. Size of the relativistic dilation factor
52. Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
53. Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
54. Positive nature of cosmic pressures
55. Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
56. Density of quasars during early cosmic history
57. Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
58. Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
59. Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
60. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form
61. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) cease to form
62. Number density of metal-free pop III stars
63. Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
64. Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
65. Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 3
66. Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
67. Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
68. Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
69. Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
70. Flatness of universe’s geometry
70. Flatness of universe’s geometry
71. Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
72. Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
73. Constancy of dark energy factors
74. Epoch for star formation peak
75. Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
76. Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
77. Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
78. Level of charge-parity violation
79. Number of galaxies in the observable universe
80. Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
81. Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe
82. Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
83. Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe
84. Water’s temperature of maximum density
85. Water’s heat of fusion
86. Water’s heat of vaporization
87. Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe
88. Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
89. Location of clumpuscules in the universe
90. Dioxygen’s kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
91. Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
92. Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the middle-aged universe
93. Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
94. Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate mass stars
95. Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field
96. Capacity of liquid water to form large-cluster anions
97. Ratio of baryons in galaxies to baryons between galaxies
98. Ratio of baryons in galaxy clusters to baryons in between galaxy clusters
99. Rate at which the triple-alpha process (combining of three helium nuclei to make one carbon
nucleus) runs inside the nuclear furnaces of stars
100. Quantity of molecular hydrogen formed by the supernova eruptions of population III stars
101. Epoch for the formation of the first population II (second generation) stars
102. Percentage of the universe’s baryons that are processed by the first stars (population III stars)
Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 4
103. Ratio of ultra-dwarf galaxies to larger galaxies
104. Constancy of the fine structure constants
105. Constancy of the velocity of light
106. Constancy of the magnetic permeability of free space
107. Constancy of the electron-to-proton mass ratio
108. Constancy of the gravitational constant
109. Smoothness of the quantum foam of cosmic space
110. Constancy of dark energy over cosmic history
111. Mean temperature of exotic matter
112. Minimum stable mass of exotic matter clumps
113. Degree of Lorentz symmetry or integrity of Lorentz invariantce or level of symmetry of spacetime
114. Nature of cosmic defects
115. Number density of cosmic defects
116. Average size of the largest cosmic structures in the universe
117. Quantity of three-hydrogen molecules formed by the hypernova eruptions of population III stars
118. Maximum size of an indigenous moon orbiting a planet
119. Rate of growth in the average size of galaxies during the first five billion years of cosmic history
120. Density of dwarf dark matter halos in the present-day universe
121. Metallicity enrichment of intergalactic space 
122. Average star formation rate throughout cosmic history for dwarf galaxies
123. Epoch of rapid decline in the cosmic star formation rate
124. Quantity of heavy elements infused into the intergalactic medium by dwarf galaxies during the first
two billion years of cosmic history
125. Quantity of heavy elements infused into the intergalactic medium by galactic superwinds during the
first three billion years of cosmic history
126. Average size of cosmic voids
127. Number of cosmic voids per unit of cosmic space
128. Percentage of the universe’s baryons that reside in the warm-hot intergalactic medium
129. Halo occupation distribution (number of galaxies per unit of dark matter halo virial mass)
130. Timing of the peak supernova eruption rate for population III stars (the universe’s first stars)
131. Ratio of the number density of dark matter subhalos to the number density dark matter halos in the
present era universe
132. Quantity of diffuse, large-grained intergalactic dust
133. Radiometric decay rate for nickel-78
134. Ratio of baryonic matter to exotic matter in dwarf galaxies
135. Ratio of baryons in the intergalactic medium relative to baryons in the circumgalactic media
136. Level of short-range interactions between protons and exotic dark matter particles
137. Intergalactic photon density (or optical depth of the universe)
138. High spin to low spin transition pressure for Fe++
139. Average quantity of gas infused into the universe’s first star clusters
140. degree of suppression of dwarf galaxy formation by cosmic reionization

Detecting design
Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe

1. http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=quotes
2. http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/fine-tuning-the-multiverse-theory.htm



Last edited by Otangelo on Wed Jul 28, 2021 3:47 pm; edited 7 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

How much is the universe finely tuned to host life?

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1277-fine-tuning-of-the-universe#1891

1. The more statistically improbable something is, the less it makes sense to believe that it just happened by blind chance.
2. In order to have a universe, able to host various forms of life on earth, 1364 (!!) different features and fine-tune parameters must be just right.
3. Statistically, it is practically impossible, that the universe was finely tuned to permit life by chance.  
4. 4. Therefore, an intelligent Designer is by far the best explanation of the origin of our life-permitting universe.    

RTB Design Compendium (2009) 5

Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe
140 features of the cosmos as a whole (including the laws of physics) that must fall within certain narrow ranges to allow for the possibility of physical life’s existence. 1

Fine-Tuning for Intelligent Physical Life
402 quantifiable characteristics of a planetary system and its galaxy that must fall within narrow ranges to allow for the possibility of advanced life’s existence. This list includes comment on how a slight increase or decrease in the value of each characteristic would impact that possibility. 2

Probability Estimates for Features Required by Various Life Forms
922 characteristics of a galaxy and of a planetary system physical life depends on and offers conservative estimates of the probability that any galaxy or planetary system would manifest such characteristics. This list is divided into three parts, based on differing requirements for various life forms and their duration. 3  and 4

Lets make an illustration here:
Mega Millions is up to $970 million—there’s one way to up the odds of winning, according to a Harvard statistics professor  1
Players may pick six numbers from two separate pools of numbers - five different numbers from 1 to 70 (the white balls) and one number from 1 to 25 (the gold Mega Ball) You win the jackpot by matching all six winning numbers in a drawing. The odds to win the Jackpot 1 in 302,575,350, or approx. 1 to 3^8.

To facilitate our calculation, and make an illustration, let's suppose the odds would the 1 in 100,000,000, or 1 to 10^7
If that person would win twice in a row, the odds would be 1 to 10^14
3 times in a row, 1 to 10^31
The odds to win the lottery 4 times in a row, buying each time just one ticket, is 1 to 10^63 power.

That's about the odds for ONE fine-tune parameter of the universe. The odds to have the right expansion rate of the big bang is close, 1 to 10^55 power.

The odds to hit 70 rolls of dice of the number six in a row the first time is also about the same odds: 10^55

Initial entropy:  1 part in 10^ (10^123)
Gravitational constant: 1 part in 10^34
Electromagnetic force versus force of gravity: 1 part in 10^37
Cosmological constant: 1 part in 10^123
The mass density of the universe:  1 part in 10^59
The chance to get a universe with stars is 10^229
The chance to get the force of gravity just right for life to exist is 1 out of 10^21
The chance to get the strong nuclear force  just right for life to exist is 1 out of 10^21


Here I am mentioning just 8 fine-tune parameters. But literally, thousands must be finely tuned. By cosmic evolution, or design ?

1. https://d4bge0zxg5qba.cloudfront.net/files/compendium/compendium_part1.pdf
2. https://d4bge0zxg5qba.cloudfront.net/files/compendium/compendium_part2.pdf
3. https://d4bge0zxg5qba.cloudfront.net/files/compendium/compendium_Part3_ver2.pdf
4. https://d4bge0zxg5qba.cloudfront.net/files/compendium/compendium_Part4_ver2.pdf
5. https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/rtb-design-compendium-2009
6. https://www.megamillions.com/How-to-Play.aspx

Fine tuning of the Universe Davies10



Last edited by Otangelo on Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:21 am; edited 6 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

6Fine tuning of the Universe Empty Re: Fine tuning of the Universe Sat Nov 30, 2013 7:15 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Ian Morison:A Journey through the Universepage 362
Had Ω not been in the range 0.999999999999999 to 1.000000000000001 one second after its origin the Universe could not be as it is now. This is incredibly fine tuning, and there is nothing in the standard Big Bang theory to explain why this should be so. This is called the ‘flatness’ problem.
https://3lib.net/book/2384366/fd7c64

Martin Rees:
These six numbers constitute a ‘recipe’ for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator? 1

To a physicist, the universe looks as if it were made for the creation of life. British Astronomer Royal Martin Rees clearly illuminated this situation in his 1999 book Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe.

In this book, Rees points out that there are many values — the intensity of dark energy, gravity, electromagnetic forces, atomic binding energies, to name just a few — that would, if different by even an extremely small amount, result in a universe that is inhospitable to life as we know it. (In some cases, the universe would have collapsed only moments after creation, resulting in a universe inhospitable for any form of life.) 2

Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six dimensionless constants:

N = ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism;
Epsilon (ε) = strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei;
Omega (ω) = relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe;
Lambda (λ) = cosmological constant;
Q = ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass;
D = number of spatial dimensions in spacetime. 6

Unevenness in the expanding energy
As the primordial universe grew, there needed to be a very slight unevenness in the expanding energy. If the energy had been entirely evenly distributed then there would be no coalescence of matter into galaxies; instead there would have been a homogenous and featureless universe. As a matter of fact the universe is fairly smooth, with very similar conditions and distributions of galaxies in every direction. Some of this smoothness is thought to be due to a short burst of what cosmologists call inflation, very close to the beginning. Inflation is when, after a split second, the universe is said to have suddenly jumped in size by an enormous factor of about 1025 (ten trillion trillion), after which it resumed its normal expansion rate. This inflation is thought to have stretched the initial irregularities away rather like an inflating balloon loses its wrinkles. However, there was still enough irregularity to allow for clumping into galaxies. The amplitude of these non-uniformities is described by a simple number, Q, which is the energy difference between the peaks and troughs in the density, expressed as a fraction of the total energy of the initial universe. Computer models show that Q had to be very close to 0.00001 in order for any galaxies to form. If it was minutely higher then no structures would have formed. If it was minutely lower then all matter would have collapsed into huge black holes. In other words Q had to be just right.

Matter vs. Anti-matter
At the beginning of the universe there was matter and anti-matter. If the amounts of each had been exactly the same then they would have cancelled each other out, leaving just energy in the form of photons. The Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov showed that matter and anti-matter are not precise mirror images of each other. There is a very slight asymmetry which favours matter over anti-matter. This difference is absolutely crucial and is only about one part in a billion. We, and all the rest of matter in the universe, only exist because of this one in a billion difference. As Martin Rees, former Astronomer Royal, writes in his book ‘Our Cosmic Habitat’, referring to this fact, “we owe our existence to a difference in the ninth decimal place.” 2

Expansion Energy vs. Gravity
It was crucial for the expansion of the universe at the very first second of the big bang that the expansion energy (or impetus) was finely balanced with the gravitational force, which was pulling it all back together. If the expansion energy had been too big then galaxies and stars would never have been able to pull themselves together with gravity. If the expansion energy had been too small then there would have been a premature ‘big crunch’ as the universe imploded into itself. It has been mathematically calculated that, back at one second, the universe’s kinetic (expansion) energy and gravitational energies must have differed by less than one in 1015(one part in a million billion). If it was any different, in either direction, then there would be no galaxies, no stars, and no earth.

Ratio of nuclear forces
Physicists tell us that if the ratio of the nuclear strong force to the electromagnetic force had differed by 1 part in 1016, no stars would have formed.

Ratio of electromagnetic and gravitational forces
Also, the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational force constant must be precisely balanced. If you increase it by only 1 part in 1040 then only small stars will form. Decrease it by the same amount and only large stars will form. To have life there must be both large stars (to produce the elements) and small stars to burn long enough to sustain a planet with life.

To understand something of the kind of accuracy to achieve a 1 in 1040 chance of a certain state occurring it is helpful to illustrate this in various ways. Paul Davies writes that it is the kind of accuracy a marksman would need to hit a coin at the far side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away.3 Astrophysicist Hugh Ross gives another illustration:4 cover America with coins in a column reaching to the moon (236,000 miles away), then do the same for a billion other continents of the same size. Paint one coin red and put it somewhere in one of the billion piles. Blindfold someone and ask them to pick it out. The odds are about 1 in 1040 that they will.

The odds of getting a low entropy start
Eclipsing even this, eminent mathematician Roger Penrose writes about the way in which the universe had to start with low entropy to have galaxies, stars and life. To have this state, and the resultant second law of thermodynamics, the ‘Creator’ had to aim for what is called a certain volume of ‘phase space’ This aim would have to have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power 10123. This is a number so large that the zeros far exceed the number of particles in the universe.5 While we may not all understand what ‘phase space’ is, we can grasp the enormity of what he is saying here. The universe, to have a second law of thermodynamics and thus the possibility of sentient beings like ourselves, required extraordinarily special conditions at the big bang; special because the conditions, out of the endlessly other possible ones, simply had to be as they were.

Resonance energy of carbon
We can go on giving even more examples of how the universe, our solar system and our planet seem honed to the most precise states possible so that conditions exist for life to occur, and the last one I will mention is about carbon. We, and the rest of life, are made of carbon-based chemistry. The carbon that is in you and me was manufactured in some star prior to the formation of the solar system. We are literally made of star dust. Each carbon nucleus (six protons and six neutrons) is made from three nuclei of helium within stars. Astrophysicists Hoyle and Salpeter worked out that this process of forming carbon works only because of a strange feature: a mode of vibration or resonance with a very specific energy. If this was changed by more than 1% either way then there would be no carbon to make life. Hoyle confessed that it looked as if a ‘super intellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with chemistry and biology’ and that ‘there were no blind forces in nature worth talking about’.6

The physicist Freeman Dyson wrote: “I do not feel like an alien in this universe, the more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming.”7 Is this just make-believe or is there really evidence here for a Creator? I will now look at some of the common objections to the idea of a designer of the universe.

Many will question that the universe is really finely tuned at all. Is what we see not just the way it is? After all, if we look at any system or group of objects we see highly unlikely complexity. If I pick up the all the pieces from a set of scrabble and throw them on the floor then the resultant order and position of the pieces is very unlikely; if I throw them again the chances of getting that particular assemblage again is astronomically small. There has been no design input and pure chance can account for the assemblage of pieces. I decide to leave the pieces scattered on the floor and have a cup of coffee. Coming back five minutes later I find that the pieces are still on the floor but some of them are arranged in a sentence. The sentence reads: “Dad is very messy and should not leave scrabble pieces on the floor”. There is no one in the room but I quickly decide that one of my children has actually arranged the pieces, by design, into that sentence. Whereas the first assemblage of pieces was very unlikely and due to chance, the second arrangement is also very unlikely but due to design. What is the difference? The difference is that the second arrangement is specified. It is specifically saying something in English. It has specified complexity. William Dembski the mathematician is one of the principle thinkers to elucidate this subject.8 Many systems can undergo this same test, not least biological ones. In the case of the universe however we see very very specified complexity. The conditions at the beginning, spelled out, if you like, life being possible in the future. Nothing else would have done the trick.

Martin Rees, and others, have used the example of a firing squad to show that there really is something to marvel at when we see fine-tuning.9 Imagine a man before a firing squad with 50 marksmen who fire at him. All of them miss. He opens his eyes and is allowed to walk away. He says to himself, “well, I am alive, so they must have missed! Nothing extraordinary about that.” His lack of wonder at the small chance of them missing is not at all unlike the sceptic who says there is nothing special about the fine-tuning of the universe.

Multiple universes?
Most cosmologists accept the fact that there is at least something to explain about the fine tuning. They look to a way to reduce the incredible improbability of the specified conditions at the beginning. One way is to say that there are multiple universes, trillions times trillions of them in fact. So many, that in at least one of them we will find the unlikely conditions we have in our universe. By posing this possibility, the design argument is seemingly unnecessary. It allows science to regain control if you like of the situation. To many, the idea of a supernatural designer is simply too much to accept. After all, science is about the natural world and to speak these days of a designer is just outside the brief of cosmology.

There is no evidence, theoretical or experimental, for any universe other than our own. To pose the idea of multiple universes is because of a particular belief system (“there is no designer”) rather than about science. So in fact it is a step which is outside of science. This is not to say there could not be more universes; it is just that the idea of them is coming from outside any scientific knowledge. Multiple universes of course do not do away with a designer either. The problem with the idea will always be (unless actual evidence emerges) that it is proposed for unscientific reasons.

The idea that science cannot cope with a designer is very open to dispute, as is seen from the history of great scientists such as Newton, who did wonderful science while all the time firmly of the view that all he saw was designed. It is a peculiarly modern phenomenon to say we cannot speak of a designer. In the end it is much more reasonable to see design or not from the evidence, not from any prior views about the supernatural. Physicist Edward Harrison has written: “Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes, or design that requires only one.”10

Is this man’s arrogance?
Is not the anthropic principle (the idea that the fine tuning leads to the appearance of life) very arrogant? Surely, since Copernicus showed that the earth is not the centre of the universe, we can avoid any such ego-centric nonsense! This is a sort of gut reaction many give to this idea of fine tuning. It is an admirably humble way of seeing our insignificance in the scheme of things. Many would add that evolution shows man to be just one of the many life forms and that there has been no actual purpose or teleology in our appearance.

The problem with this idea of man’s insignificance is that it has been made into a sort of law by many. There can be no deviation from it. Yet the Copernican astronomy had nothing to do with fine tuning. It was about the place of the earth within the solar system and beyond. The subject matter is entirely different. To make a blanket law from it seems excessive, to put it mildly. It is also important to note that the anthropic principle does not actually refer to mankind specifically. It refers to the appearance of any life at all. It is not in this sense man-centred. In the end, particular world views about our significance or lack of it, must bow to the simple facts of the precision tuning we find. We need to step out of our prejudices, including any religious ones we might have, and see this objectively. Does the evidence point to design or not?

God of the gaps?
John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Green Templeton College, Oxford, has written much in support of the design arguments from fine tuning. He writes concerning these arguments: “We should note that the preceding arguments are not ‘God of the gaps’ arguments; it is advance in science, not ignorance of science, that has revealed this fine-tuning to us. In that sense there is no ‘gap’ in the science, The question is rather: how should we interpret the science? In what direction is it pointing?”11

The makeup of the universe and the laws that govern how the it works are fine-tuned to an amazing degree. 3
For example, scientists would expect in the primordial universe that the ratio of quarks to antiquarks would be exactly equal to one, since neither would be expected to have been produced in preference to the other. However, quarks outnumbered antiquarks by a ratio of 1,000,000,001 to 1,000,000,000. The remaining small excess of quarks eventually made up all the matter that exists in the universe. Without this small excess of quarks, the universe would have consisted entirely of energy, with no matter.

The ratio of electrons compared to protons must be exactly equal to one to better than one part in 10^37 or else electromagnetic interactions would dominate gravity, resulting in the universe consisting of scattered particles.
The mass of the universe cannot be more than it is by one part in 10^59. Based upon the mass of the universe (about 10^80 baryons), adding just one extra grain of sand would have resulted in the collapse of the universe early in its history.

However, none of these parameters comes close to the design required for the most recently discovered law of physics - the cosmological constant (or dark energy). This constant is fine-tuned to one part in 10^120. One atheist cosmologist, confronted with these facts said, "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."18 In conclusion, cosmology is producing more and more evidence that our universe is based upon numerous parameters that must be extremely fine tuned in order for life to exist (which is exactly opposite of what would expected if the explanation were god of the gaps). Naturalism would posit that increased knowledge in cosmology would provide evidence that our universe was just an average one, instead of an extremely unlikely one.

Special Galaxy 
The earth is housed in a unique spiral galaxy. Although spirals are reasonably common in the universe (~15% of all galaxies), most have been disrupted to various degrees through collisions with other galaxies. In contrast, the milky way galaxy exists within a small galaxy cluster known as the local group, being one of only two large galaxies, and has numerous, symmetric spiral arms. Scientists have yet to find a comparable galaxy among millions of others examined (see Pictures of Galaxies). The solar system exists in a space between two spiral arms, at or near the co-rotation radius, which means that it will remain between spiral arms for some time to come. In contrast, most stars in other parts of the galaxy enter and leave spiral arms periodically. Stars that travel through spiral arms risk disrupting planetary orbits through gravitational interactions with other stars. In addition, our fortuitous location between spiral arms at the co-rotation radius allows us an almost unhindered view of the universe, with the possibility that this was intentional.19

Special Solar System  
Now that over 300 extrasolar planetary systems have been discovered to date, we know that our solar system is quite rare. So far, it is the only planetary system in which the large gas giants are located far (greater than 5 AU) from the parent star. In all other systems, such gas giants are found at locations within the region that would correspond to where our inner, rocky planets are located. In all other planetary systems discovered to-date, large gas giants form at a distance from their star, but migrate inward. Computer simulations indicate that this is the usual scenario, with our solar system being a rare exception.20 According to Frederic Rasio, the author of the study:

"We now know that these other planetary systems don't look like the solar system at all. We now better understand the process of planet formation and can explain the properties of the strange exoplanets we've observed. We also know that the solar system is special and understand at some level what makes it special."21

The reason why it is important to have gas giants far from the Sun is because Jupiter and Saturn protect the inner solar system from constant bombardment by comets. Without this protection, advanced life would not be possible on the earth. In addition, a large gas giant roaming close to a star's habitable zone would eject any rocky planets from the planetary system.

Special Star 
 Our star, the Sun, is a slightly above average-sized star. Large stars burn too quickly for life to develop on possible terrestrial-like planets (with stellar life spans as short as a few million years). Small stars burn for a long time (tens of billions of years). However, the reduced energy output requires that rocky planets be very close to the star in order to be within the habitable zone. This closeness results in all such planets becoming tidally locked (rotational period equals revolutionary period) within a short period of time. Tidal locking means that one side continually faces the star, resulting in extremely hot temperatures, whereas the other side stays very cold, eventually accumulating all the water as ice, and possibly even freezing out the atmosphere.

The Sun is unique in that it is one of only a small percentage that are metal-rich. Originally, the universe consisted almost entirely of hydrogen and helium. The first stars had no rocky planet companions, since there were no building materials. The Sun has rocky planets because it is probably a third generation star that had the fortune of igniting within an area of previous supernova events. Rocky planets cannot form at all unless the amount of metallicity is at least 60% of that of the Sun. The Sun is an unusually metal-rich star (richest out of 174 well-studied stars).22 Although planets are fairly common around stars, no earth-sized rocky planets have been discovered to date (2008). The smallest planet discovered is 5.5 times as massive as the earth, but is quite frozen.23 Part of the problem discovering rocky planets is that they had been impossible to detect with the techniques that have been used to discover large planets. However, new instrumentation and techniques developed since 2005 should allow the discovery of earth-like rocky planets within the next few years, if they exist. So, the lack of rocky planets is a God of the gaps explanation for now, but will be answered within the next few years.

Special Planet 
The earth is a remarkable place among the other planets and moons of our solar system. It is the only rocky planet in our solar system that contains significant amounts of liquid water on its surface. Although the planet Mars sustained surface water billions of years ago, it was mixed with large amounts of sulfuric acid - producing toxic seas that would have made it unlikely that living organisms could have survived there.24
Earth from Apollo 11Earth from Apollo 11

However, the presence of liquid water is not the only unusual feature of planet earth. Although water is quite common in the universe, it would be either absent (as it is on the other rocky planets in our stellar system) or so abundant on rocky planets that virtually all other rocky planets would be either deserts or waterworlds.25 All other rocky planets (including our "sister planet," Venus) in our solar system have no significant tectonic activity. Without tectonic activity, water-abundant planets like earth would be water worlds. The reason that earth has tectonic activity and continents is because it suffered a major collision with a Mars-sized planet soon after its formation. The metallic core of the collider was incorporated into the earth's core, with the outer part becoming earth's moon. Without this additional metallic component, earth's core, kept molten through radioactive decay, would have solidified, shutting down tectonic activity and the earth's magnetic dynamo (which protects earth's creatures from solar radiation).  Large planets do not form continents because the increased gravity prevents significant mountain and continent formation. Earth-sized planets completely flood, and any land formed is eroded by the seas in a short period of time. Smaller planets lack tectonic activity, so would have no land masses, but would be completely covered with water. Therefore, virtually all rocky planets (other than those that suffered a large collision soon after formation) would be expected to be water worlds. Earth-like planets (with both water and dry land) would be extremely rare. Exactly how rare they would be in the universe is uncertain, making the argument somewhat of a God of the gaps type for now. However, the next decade should give us a much better estimation. For more information on these design features, see The Incredible Design of the Earth and Our Solar System.

Whereas a God of the gaps explanation of the design of our galaxy, solar system, and planet would posit that science would be discovering that we really aren't that unique, the data continues to show that we are more unique than first thought. In fact, some of this uniqueness was discovered just this year.20 If the data truly were God of the gaps, we would expect the evidence for design to decrease, rather than increase with additional scientific knowledge.

According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence.

In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences" are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse The Anthropic Principle, which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind. Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the "fine-tuning" and conclude that the universe is "too contrived" to be a chance event.

In a BBC science documentary, "The Anthropic Principle," some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.

Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:
If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.

Dr. Paul Davies noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University:
"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job'."

According to the latest scientific thinking, the matter of the universe originated in a huge explosion of energy called "The Big Bang." At first, the universe was only hydrogen and helium, which congealed into stars. Subsequently, all the other elements were manufactured inside the stars. The four most abundant elements in the universe are: hydrogen, helium, oxygen and carbon.

When Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be, in the "blast-furnaces" of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were numerous "fortunate" one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate that purposeful "adjustments" had been made in the laws of physics and chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon.

“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics".

To see the problem, imagine playing God with the cosmos. Before you is a designer machine that lets you tinker with the basics of physics. Twiddle this knob and you make all electrons a bit lighter, twiddle that one and you make gravity a bit stronger, and so on. It happens that you need to set thirtysomething knobs to fully describe the world about us. The crucial point is that some of those metaphorical knobs must be tuned very precisely, or the universe would be sterile.

Example: neutrons are just a tad heavier than protons. If it were the other way around, atoms couldn't exist, because all the protons in the universe would have decayed into neutrons shortly after the big bang. No protons, then no atomic nucleuses and no atoms. No atoms, no chemistry, no life. Like Baby Bear's porridge in the story of Goldilocks, the universe seems to be just right for life.”

Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. Adds Dr. David D. Deutch: If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely.

Universal Acceptance Of Fine Tuning
Besides the BBC video, the scientific establishment's most prestigious journals, and its most famous physicists and cosmologists, have all gone on record as recognizing the objective truth of the fine-tuning. The August '97 issue of "Science" (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled "Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Here is an excerpt:

The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life -- such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars -- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.

In his best-selling book, "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable."
The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.

Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of "a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)" (ibid. p. 125).

Dr. Gerald Schroeder, author of "Genesis and the Big Bang" and "The Science of Life" was formerly with the M.I.T. physics department. He adds the following examples:
Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal "Scientific American", reflects on:
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:
One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning -- The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.
This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not: 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000, but instead: 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001, there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states: the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.


Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe with a simile:
The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.
Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding, namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)

Penrose continues,
Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe -- and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure -- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.

Cosmologists debate whether the space-time continuum is finite or infinite, bounded or unbounded. In all scenarios, the fine-tuning remains the same. It is appropriate to complete this section on "fine tuning" with the eloquent words of Professor John Wheeler:
To my mind, there must be at the bottom of it all, not an utterly simple equation, but an utterly simple IDEA. And to me that idea, when we finally discover it, will be so compelling, and so inevitable, so beautiful, we will all say to each other, "How could it have ever been otherwise?"

Unique location in our galaxy - co-rotation radius
The Sun and our Solar System have been located in a stable orbit within our galaxy for the last 4.5 billion years. This orbit lies far from the center of our galaxy and between the spiral arms. The stability of our position is possible because the sun is one of the rare stars that lies within the “galactic co-rotation radius.” Typically, the stars in our galaxy orbit the center of the galaxy at a rate that differs from the rate of the trailing spiral arms. Thus, most stars located between spiral arms do not remain there for long, but would eventually be swept inside a spiral arm. Only at a certain precise distance from the galaxy’s center, the "co-rotation radius," can a star remain in its place between two spiral arms, orbiting at precisely the same rate as the galaxy arms rotate around the core ( Mishurov, Y.N. and L. A. Zenina. 1999. Yes, the Sun is Located Near the Corotation Circle. Astronomy & Astrophysics 341: 81-85.). Why is it important that we are not in one of the spiral arms? First, our location gives us a view of the universe that is unobstructed by the debris and gases found in the spiral arms. This fact allows us to visualize what the Bible says, "The heavens declare the glory of God." If we were within the spiral arms, our view would be significantly impaired. Second, being outside the spiral arms puts us in a location that is safer than anywhere else in the universe. We are removed from the more densely occupied areas, where stellar interactions can lead to disruption of planetary orbits. In addition, we are farther from the deadly affects of supernovae explosions. The 4+ billion year longevity of life on earth (the time needed to prepare the planet for human occupation) would not have been possible at most other locations in our galaxy.

Unique stabilization of the inner solar system
A recent study reveals some unusual design in our solar system. With the continuing growth in the capabilities and sophistication of computer systems, scientists are gaining the ability to model the dynamics of the Solar System and ask "what if" questions regarding the presence and size of planets. The presence of Jupiter is required to allow advanced life to exist on the Earth (see below). However, Jupiter's large mass (along with the other gas giants) has a profound destabilizing effect upon the inner planets. In the absence of the Earth-moon system, the orbital period of Jupiter sets up what is called resonance over the period of 8 million years. This resonance causes the orbits of Venus and Mercury to become highly eccentric, so much so, that eventually the orbits become close enough so that there would be a "strong Mercury-Venus encounter." Such an encounter would certainly lead to the ejection of Mercury from the Solar System, and an alteration of the orbit of Venus. In doing the simulations, the scientists learned that the stabilizing effect of the Earth-moon requires a planet with at least the mass of Mars and within 10% of the distance of the Earth from the Sun. The authors of the study used the term "design" twice in the conclusion of their study:

Our basic finding is nevertheless an indication of the need for some sort of rudimentary "design" in the solar system to ensure long-term stability. One possible aspect of such "design" is that long-term stability may require that terrestrial orbits require a degree of irregularity to "stir" certain resonances enough so that such resonances cannot persist. (Innanen, Kimmo, S. Mikkola, and P. Wiegert. 1998. The earth-moon system and the dynamical stability of the inner solar system. The Astronomical Journal 116: 2055-2057.)

Unusually circular orbit of the earth
The unique arrangement of large and small planetary bodies in the solar system may be required to ensure the 4+ billion year stability of the system. In addition, it is readily apparent from the cycle of ice ages that the earth is at the edge of the life zone for our star. Although the earth has one of the most stable orbits among all the planets discovered to date, its periodic oscillations, including changes in orbital eccentricity, axial tilt, and a 100,000-year periodic elongation of Earth's orbit, results in a near freeze over (Kerr, R. 1999. Why the Ice Ages Don't Keep Time. Science 285: 503-505, and Rial, J.A. 1999. Pacemaking the Ice Ages by Frequency Modulation of Earth's Orbital Eccentricity. Science 285: 564-568.). According to Dr. J. E. Chambers, simulations of planetary formation "yield Earth-like planets with large eccentricities (e ~ 0.15)," whereas the Earth has an e value of 0.03. He goes on to say, "Given that climate stability may depend appreciably on e, it could be no coincidence that we inhabit a planet with an unusually circular orbit." (Chambers, J. E. 1998. How Special is Earth's Orbit? American Astronomical Society, DPS meeting #30, #21.07) With this new information, it seems very unlikely that stable planetary systems, in which a small earth-like planet resides in the habitable zone, exist in any other galaxy in our universe. This does not even consider the other design parameters that are required for life to exist anywhere in the universe.

Axial tilt and eccentricity of orbit
The earth is titled on its axis at an angle of 23.5°. This is important, because it accounts for the seasons. Two factors impact the progression of seasons. The most important is the location of land masses on the earth. Nearly all of the continental land mass is located in the Northern Hemisphere. Since land has a lower capacity to absorb the Sun's energy, the earth is much warmer when the Northern Hemisphere is pointing towards the Sun. This happens to be the point at which the earth is farthest from the Sun (the aphelion of its orbit). If the opposite were true, the seasons on the earth would be much more severe (hotter summers and colder winters). For more information, see Aphelion Away! from the NASA website.

The presence of an "impossibly" large moon
The earth has a huge moon orbiting around it, which scientists now know 1) did not bulge off due to the earth's high rotational speed and 2) could not have been captured by the earth's gravity, due to the moon's large mass. For further explanations, see "The scientific legacy of Apollo" (1). The best explanation (other than outright miracle) for the moon's existence is that a Mars-sized planet crashed into the earth around 4.25 billion years ago (the age of the Moon). As you can imagine, the probability of two planets colliding in the same solar system is extremely remote. Any "normal" collision would not have resulted in the formation of the moon, since the ejecta would not have been thrown far enough from the earth to form the moon. The small planet, before it collided with the earth, must have had an unusually elliptical orbit (unlike the orbit of any other planet in the Solar System), which resulted in a virtual head-on collision. The collision of the small planet with the earth would have resulted the ejection of 5 billion cubit miles of the earth's crust and mantle into orbit around the earth. This ring of material, the theory states, would have coalesced to form the moon. In addition, the moon is moving away from the earth (currently at 2 inches per year), as it has been since its creation. If we calculate backwards we discover that the moon must have formed just outside the Roche limit, the point at which an object would be torn apart by the earth's gravity (7,300 miles above the earth's surface). A collision which would have ejected material less than the Roche limit would have formed only rings around the earth. Computer models show that a collision of a small planet with the earth must have been very precise in order for any moon to have been formed at all (coincidence or design?). (see What If the Moon Didn't Exist?, by Neil F. Comins, professor of Astronomy and Physics).

Unusually thin atmosphere
Why is the moon important to life on earth? The collision of the small planet with the earth resulted in the ejection of the majority of the earth's primordial atmosphere. If this collision had not occurred, we would have had an atmosphere similar to that of Venus, which is 80 times that of the earth (equivalent to being one mile beneath the ocean). Such a thick atmosphere on Venus resulted in a runaway greenhouse affect, leaving a dry planet with a surface temperature of 800°F. The earth would have suffered a similar fate if the majority of its primordial atmosphere had not been ejected into outer space. In fact, the Earth is 20% more massive than Venus and further away from the Sun, both factors of which should have lead to a terrestrial atmosphere much thicker than that of Venus. For some strange reason, we have a very thin atmosphere - just the right density to maintain the presence of liquid, solid and gaseous water necessary to life (coincidence or design?).

If the force of explosion was only slightly higher, the universe would only consist of gas without stars, galaxies, or planets. Without stars, galaxies and planets, life could not exist. The matching had to be to the remarkable precision of one part in 10^55. ... Some physicists believe that one explanation can be found in a model of an inflationary epoch at about 10-35 of the first second where a short period of accelerated expansion caused the perfect balance between gravity and the rate of expansion and density and critical density. This could explain the very flat characteristics of the universe given by these precise matchings, but the inflation required in this model would itself require an extraordinary fine tuning to yield the precisely balanced result. If the inflationary model is true, the inflationary epoch would contain enormous fine tuning and the precision of values issue is only removed one step.

Many of the rather basic features of the Universe are determined in essence by the values that are assigned to the fundamental constants of nature,...and these features would be drastically altered if the constants assumed even moderately different values. It is clear that for nature to produce a cosmos even remotely resembling our own, many apparently unconnected branches of physics have to cooperate to a remarkable degree (1982, p. 111). 5
The extreme fine-tuning of the universe 7

The laws of nature.
The constants of physics.
The initial conditions of the universe.

Collins makes a threefold “fine-tuning case” for God.

“How many universes then would you need to make it at all probable that one of them could be like our universe? String theorists posit a number of 10 to the power of 500….Now that is an awful lot of universes, particularly since the estimate for the total number of atoms in the entire observable universe is no more than 10 to the power of 80.”

The universe is finely tuned to permit life on our planet. Over 120 fine tune constants are know up to know, and as more time pasts, more are discovered. This might be due to chance, to physical need, or to design. Chance is a very bad explanation. Some advocate a Multiverse. But to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done. Thats a 1 with 500 zeros. If we put it in comparison, that in our universe, there exist around 10^80 atoms, this shows how improbable it is, that a Multiverse could explain finetuning. Beside this, the Multiverse argument does not explain away God. A mechanism needs to be in place to trigger these multiverses. It could not be by physical need, since if so, why are there many planets, which are not life permitting, but our is ? So its best explained by design. Our earth/solar/moon system is a very strong evidence. Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds. The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids, avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth, and more over 70 different paramenters must be just right. To believe, all these are just right by chance, needs a big leap of faith. This is indeed maibe the strongest argument for theism.

Probability of Fine-Tuning
I think your intuitions on this matter are basically correct, Ken. I’d commend to you the work of Robin Collins, who is probably the best thinker working on these questions. I’ll include a list of references at the end of this answer. In order to calculate the probability of a constant’s being such that it leads to a life-supporting universe, we need to calculate the ratio between the range of life-permitting values and the range of values it might have, whether life-permitting or not. We can assess the range of life-permitting values by holding the laws of nature constant while altering the value of the constant which plays a role in that law. So, for example, we can figure out what would happen if we decrease or increase the force of gravity, and we discover that alterations beyond a certain range would result either in large-scale objects’ ceasing to stick together or else collapsing. That will give us an idea of the range of strength of the gravitational force that is compatible with physical life forms.

Then we compare that range with the range of values that the constant could have assumed. This is trickier, but a simple rule of thumb is to take the range to be as wide as we can see that such values are possible. There may be values that a constant could have which lie outside our ken, but so long as the range that we can see is large in comparison to the life-permitting range, then that constant’s having the value it does is improbable. For some of the constants, like the cosmological constant, the range of life permitting values is incomprehensibly tiny in comparison with the range of values we see that it could have, so that the chances of the constant’s having the value it does is virtually next to impossible.

The range itself is not fine-tuned. Rather it is the individual constant that is fine-tuned, that is to say, in order for the universe to be life-permitting the constant must fall into a very narrow life-permitting range in comparison to the range of values it could have assumed.

You’re right that detractors of design have been forced to resort to the extraordinary Many Worlds Hypothesis in an effort to explain away fine-tuning. If there is a World Ensemble of universes which are infinite in number and varying randomly in their constants and initial conditions, then by chance alone a life-permitting universe will appear in the ensemble, indeed, it will appear an infinite number of times.

Now this recourse to the World Ensemble will be in vain if it turns out that the mechanism that generates the World Ensemble must itself be fine-tuned, for then one has only kicked the problem upstairs. And, indeed, that does seem to be the case. The most popular candidate for a World Ensemble today, the inflationary multiverse, does appear to require fine-tuning. For example, M-theory, the theory which supposedly governs the multiverse, works only if there are exactly eleven dimensions—but it does nothing to explain why precisely that number of dimensions should exist.

So when your teachers or classmates pull the multiverse out of the bag, just ask them, “Isn’t the multiverse itself describable by specific physical laws? Don’t those laws themselves include constants and boundary conditions which must be fine-tuned in order for the multiverse to exist?’” It will be interesting to hear their reply! 8

Further readings :
https://calumsblog.com/apologetics/arguments-for-gods-existence/finetuning/p4/

Anthropic coincidences :

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Anthropic+Coincidences&start=30&sa=N
http://www.anthropic-principle.com/
http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints.html#history
http://anthropic-principle.com/preprints.html
WHY IS THE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND FLUCTUATION LEVEL 10~5?
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/499/2/526/pdf/37147.pdf

http://quake.stanford.edu/~bai/finetuning.pdf
http://www.focus.org.uk/weinberg.php
http://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=180:the-fine-tuned-universe&catid=42:rnr-articles

1. http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/how-to-defend-the-fine-tuning-argument-just-like-william-lane-craig/
2. http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/exploring-a-finely-tuned-universe.html
3. http://worldview3.50webs.com/mathprfcosmos.html
4. http://www.unm.edu/~hdelaney/finetuning.html
5. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=405
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
7. http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2010/05/13/does-a-fine-tuned-universe-lead-to-god/
8. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6411



Last edited by Otangelo on Fri Jun 25, 2021 6:14 am; edited 9 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

7Fine tuning of the Universe Empty Re: Fine tuning of the Universe Sun Sep 09, 2018 9:12 am

Otangelo


Admin

Lynn Picknett: THE FORBIDDEN UNIVERSE  page 134:

Scientific cosmology has amassed a great deal of evidence about the nature of the universe that has seriously jolted the complacency of determined rationalists. The new data reveals a universe that is not merely the result of the blind workings of the immutable laws of physics. This universe emerges as being deliberately designed for a purpose in which intelligent life plays a crucial, if not the crucial, role. The road to this point began back in the late 1970s when a paper appeared in the respected journal Nature, sending strong ripples through the scientific community worldwide. This was entitled ‘The Anthropic Principle and the Structure of the Physical World’ and was written by British physicists Bernard Carr and Martin Rees. Based on the evidence of seven decades, the authors reflected on an unsettling pattern that was emerging from the accumulated discoveries of science: to an uncanny degree, the laws of physics seem to have been ‘fine tuned’ to allow the development of intelligent life. Carr is now Professor of Mathematics and Astronomy at the University of London and, unusually for today, a member – and former president – of the Society for Psychical Research. Rees is the Astronomer Royal, Baron Lees of Ludlow, and since 2005, President of the Royal Society. The passage of time has done nothing to sway the authors of the paper from their original conclusions. Carr was still saying in 2008 that judging by the fine-tuning, ‘the universe is designed for intelligence’. 1 He is not alone. Leading cosmologists John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler similarly declared that:

there exist a number of unlikely coincidences between numbers of enormous magnitude that are, superficially, completely independent; moreover, these coincidences appear essential to the existence of carbon-based observers in the Universe.

Carr and Rees adopted British cosmologist Brandon Carter’s term, first used in the 1960s of ‘anthropic [man-centered] principle’ to define the situation their paper examines. Carter mused about what the universe would be like if the laws of physics were different, and realized that for almost every variation, the universe they produced would be incapable of supporting life. But he later regretted ‘anthropic’, which refers only to humans; he had meant that the universe seems fine-tuned for intelligent life in general. Of course, the notion that the universe was ‘designed’ for anything, let alone us, is unconscionable to the vast majority of scientists, since it contradicts the very basis of their discipline. Not only does it reintroduce the notion of a creator god but also the idea that the human species has some special relationship with Him/Her/It. As leading theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind remarked: 

This idea is, of course, anathema to physicists, who see the existence of themselves as an accidental property of a universe determined by mathematical principles, to be discovered by disinterested analysis.

One can hardly imagine a more nihilistic worldview than that expressed by another theoretical physicist and Nobel Prize-winner, Steven Weinberg: ‘The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.’  Of course, Carr and Rees were emphatically not claiming that they had found scientific evidence for the existence of God. They were highlighting a question that science had largely avoided, having only been explored by a handful such as Carter, and then only tentatively. The anthropic principle merely makes the observation that life could never have arisen except under very specific conditions, and does not necessarily propose that they were put in place in order to produce life. The assumption behind Carr and Rees’ paper was that what looks like design is really an illusion based on our human-centered perception of the cosmos: if the laws of physics were any different there would be no life to ponder this question in the first place. After all, just because we live on a habitable planet, it doesn’t mean that the planet was created especially for us. But they admitted that the odds were far too high to dismiss all the examples of apparent fine-tuning as coincidence. Some other, unknown, factor had to explain the illusion. As they concluded after surveying the many conditions that seemed so convincingly contrived: 

One day, we may have a more physical explanation for some of the relationships discussed here that now seem genuine coincidences … However, even if all apparently anthropic coincidences could be explained … it would still be remarkable that the relationships dictated by physical theory happened also to be those propitious for life.


Perhaps this situation can be explained using the analogy of a lottery: if we win, we might ascribe our success to our skill in picking the numbers or believe we were somehow ‘meant’ to win, but in fact our triumph would be entirely due to chance. Much the same, the anthropic principle shows that the odds seem to have been stacked in life’s favour, as if after scooping the jackpot we found that only our own numbers had been put into the machine. Although the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that the rigging of the universal lottery machine can be explained purely in terms of an illusion – the ‘weak anthropic principle’ – there are some who ascribe to the ‘strong anthropic principle’, which stipulates that the universe is the way it is specifically to give rise to intelligent life. Among them is Freeman Dyson, the British-born American theoretical physicist, who wrote in 1979:

 The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some way must have known we were coming. There are striking examples in the laws of nuclear physics of numerical accidents that seem to conspire to make the universe habitable. 



‘A MONSTROUS SEQUENCE OF ACCIDENTS’ In fact, the apparent fine-tuning of the universe involves so many factors that it is not merely the equivalent of winning the lottery once. This is scooping the jackpot week after week for several years.


One of the first to be intrigued by Brandon Carter’s anthropic principle was British cosmologist Paul Davies – that rare animal, both a highly regarded academic and a successful popular science writer. He has continued to explore the implications and mysteries of the anthropic principle, most famously in God and the New Physics (1983) and The Mind of God (1992), and most recently in The Goldilocks Enigma (2006) – the title referring to the conditions in the universe that are, like Goldilocks’ porridge, ‘just right’ for life. Davies points out that life has three main requisites: 

‘stable complex structures’ in the universe (galaxies, stars and planets rather than clouds of gas or vast numbers of black holes); certain chemical elements (for example carbon, oxygen); and a place where the components can come together (for example the surface of a planet). Of course our universe has all of these components, but each requires such fortuitous circumstances to exist that ours is, as Davies puts it, apparently a ‘designer universe’. 

 The universe as it is today is, of course, the result of how it was in the beginning. Had conditions been different then, it would be different now – and almost certainly hostile to the development of life. According to today’s thinking, the universe began 13.7 billion years ago with the ‘big bang’. (Ironically the term was invented by the sceptical Hoyle, but only as a put-down. Then to compound the irony, his team found some of the best supporting evidence for it.) The big bang had to be within a certain range of size and explosive potential to produce our universe. If it had been bigger or bangier, it would have expanded too quickly for galaxies to form. If it had been smaller or less bangy, gravity would have pulled the universe back into itself well before life could have evolved. For a time after the big bang the expanding universe was too hot to be anything other than a dense, incandescent plasma composed of subatomic particles like protons, neutrons and electrons. As it expanded further it cooled, so that – an estimated 380,000 years after the big bang – the particles could fuse to form the simplest elements, hydrogen and helium. Those two elements make up about 99 percent of matter in the universe. But if the relative masses of protons, electrons and neutrons were only minutely different, not a single hydrogen atom could form. It seems we must boldly go well beyond the frontiers of coincidence to begin to understand the way our universe was created, and how it continues to work. Attracted by the gravity of individual atoms, clouds of hydrogen and helium clump together, clumping faster and faster as they grow. The smaller the clumps, the hotter they become, until they are hot enough to kick-start nuclear reactions – and it is at this stage that a star is born, whose deadly beauty masks its true self, a gigantic fusion reactor. Acting as unimaginably massive factories that manufacture more complex elements from hydrogen and helium, stars then disperse these into space where they explode as supernovae. Every atom in every molecule, including those that make us up, was born in a star light years away, millions or billions of years ago, making even the tiniest newborn in some respects old beyond imagining. As the legendary American theoretical physicist, Richard P. Feynman observed, ‘the stars are of the same stuff as ourselves’.  And as Paul Davies comments:

The life cycle of stars provide just one example of the ingenious and seemingly contrived way in which the large-scale and small-scale aspects of physics are closely intertwined to produce complex variety in nature


In the mid-1990s this happy state of affairs suffered a major jolt, as independent research based on new, more accurate data from sources such as the Hubble Space Telescope showed that the rate of expansion is, in fact, speeding up. This means that the vacuum energy has a slight positive value, not all of which is cancelled out by the negative. It is only a tiny imbalance: calculations showed that the positive energy value is 10 120 times (that’s 119 zeroes after the decimal point before you even get to the 1) less than the total positive energy in the vacuum. In other words, the negative energy cancels out all the positive – apart from a minute portion. Learned jaws were on the ground yet again when it was realized that if that value was just one decimal place shorter – that is, the actual positive energy was 10 119 times less than the total (or 118 zeroes after the decimal point and before the 1) – then the universe as we know it simply couldn’t exist. It would expand too quickly for galaxies, stars or planets to form. Referring to this as the ‘biggest fix in the universe’, Davies points out that this tiny difference – a point between the 119 th and 120 th decimal place – is the thinness of the knife edge on which all life is balanced. 14 In answer to the dilemma posed by this ‘staggeringly precise’ balancing of the vacuum energy, Leonard Susskind writes: 

‘This seems like an absurd accident and we have no idea why it should happen. There is no fine-tuning quite like this in the rest of physics.’ 

 However, while acknowledging that there is no viable alternative to an ‘anthropic explanation’, Susskind does not imply the existence of a ‘grand designer’. For him this phenomenon can only be explained by whatever is behind the anthropic effect as a whole, which to the conventional scientist means the illusion of design. For Susskind, however, as for many scientists, there is only one solution to the conundrum: the marvelous and all-encompassing notion of ‘multiverse’.

Lee Smolin: The Life of the Cosmos (1999),

Fine-tuning of the parameters to get stars and life
Physicists are constantly talking about how simple nature is. Indeed, the laws of nature are very simple, and as we come to understand them better they are getting simpler. But, in fact, nature is not simple. To see this, all we need to do is to compare our actual universe to an imagined one that really is simple. Imagine, for example, a homogeneous gas of neutrons, filling the universe at some constant temperature and density. That would be simple. Compared to that possibility, our universe is extraordinarily complex and varied! Now, what is really interesting about this situation is that while the laws of nature are simple, there is a clear sense in which we can say that these laws are also characterized by a lot of variety. There are only four fundamental forces, but they differ dramatically in their ranges and interaction strengths. Most things in the world are made of only four stable particles: protons, neutrons, electrons and neutrinos; but they have a very large range of masses, and each interacts with a different mix of the four forces. The simple observation we have made here is that the variety we see in the universe around us is to a great extent a consequence of this variety in the fundamental forces and particles. That is to say, the mystery of why there is such variety in the laws of physics, is essentially tied to the question of why the laws of physics allow such a variety of structures in the universe.

If we are to genuinely understand our universe, these relations, between the structures on large scales and the elementary particles, must be understood as being something other than coincidence. We must understand how it came to be that the parameters that govern the elementary particles and their interactions are tuned and balanced in such a way that a universe of such variety and complexity arises. Of course, one possibility is that this is just a coincidence. Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229. To illustrate how truly ridiculous this number is, we might note that the part of the universe we can see from earth contains about 10^22 stars which together contain about 10^80 protons and neutrons. These numbers are gigantic, but they are infinitesimal compared to 10^229. In my opinion, a probability this tiny is not something we can let go unexplained. Luck will certainly not do here; we need some rational explanation of how something this unlikely turned out to be the case.

I know of three directions in which we might search for the reason why the parameters are tuned to such unlikely values. The first is towards some version of the anthropic principle.

One may say that one believes that there is a god who created the world in this way, so there would arise rational creatures who would love him. We may even imagine that he prefers our love of him to be a rational choice made after we understand how unlikely our own existence is. While there is little I can say against religious faith, one must recognize that this is mysticism, in the sense that it makes the answers to scientific questions dependent on faith.

A different form of the anthropic principle begins with the hypothesis that there are a very large number of universes. In each, the parameters are chosen randomly. If there are at least 10229 of them then it becomes probable that at least one of them will by chance contain stars. The problem with this is that it makes it possible to explain almost anything, for among the universes one can find most of the other equally unlikely possibilities. To argue this way is not to reason, it is simply to give up looking for a rational explanation.



Last edited by Otangelo on Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:48 pm; edited 2 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

MULTI-TUNING

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2810-multi-tuning

Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards THE PRIVILEGED PLANET HOW OUR PLACE IN THE COSMOS IS DESIGNED FOR DISCOVERY page 206
In most analyses of the fine-tuning of the force strengths and constants of nature, only one parameter is adjusted at a time (to make the problems more tractable). This would correspond to changing one dial at a time on our Universe-Creating Machine while leaving the other dials unchanged. Even taken individually, each of these examples of fine-tuning is impressive. But in the real universe the values of all the constants and force strengths must be satisfied simultaneously to have a universe hospitable to life. So for instance the strong nuclear force must be set to certain narrow limits for stars to produce carbon and oxygen in comparable amounts, for beryllium-8 to remain bound at least 10-16 seconds, to keep the deuteron bound, to allow a minimum periodic table for life, to keep the light abundant isotopes stable, and to keep the di-proton unbound. The range for each of these parameters is narrow. The range within which all of them are satisfied simultaneously is much smaller, like the bull’s-eye in the middle of an already tiny target. Add the required range for the weak force strength and the bull’s-eye becomes smaller still, and so on for the other forces. Add the specific requirements of simple life (water and carbon chemistries) and it becomes even smaller, and more so for advanced and then technological life. Eventually, we will have a set of equations, each describing a different constraint on the laws of nature that allows them to permit life.

Arguably the most impressive cluster of fine-tuning occurs at the level of chemistry. In fact, chemistry appears to be “overdetermined” in the sense that there are not enough free physical parameters to determine the many chemical processes that must be just so. Max Tegmark notes, “Since all of chemistry is essentially determined by only two free parameters,  and Beta [electromagnetic force constant and electron-to-proton mass ratio], it might thus appear as though there is a solution to an overdetermined problem with more equations (inequalities) than unknowns. This could be taken as support for a religion-based category TOE [Theory Of Everything], with the argument that it would be unlikely in all other TOEs” (Tegmark, 15). Tegmark artificially categorizes TOEs into type 1, “The physical world is completely mathematical,” and type 2, “The physical world is not completely mathematical.” The second category he considers as motivated by religious belief.

(Determining this complete set of equations may just be the single most important goal of science. We’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader.)32 While physicists still lack the theoretical know-how to do the complete calculation, it’s unlikely that simultaneously changing several physical constants or fundamental forces will lead to a universe as habitable as ours. Astronomer Virginia Trimble observed early in the debate on fine-tuning:

The changes in these properties required to produce the dire consequences are often several orders of magnitude, but the constraints are still nontrivial, given the very wide range of numbers involved. Efforts to avoid one problem by changing several of the constraints at once generally produce some other problem. Thus we apparently live in a rather delicately balanced universe, from the point of view of hospitality to chemical life.

John Gribbin and Martin Rees reach a similar conclusion:
If we modify the value of one of the fundamental constants, something invariably goes wrong, leading to a universe that is inhospitable to life as we know it. When we adjust a second constant in an attempt to fix the problem(s), the result, generally, is to create three new problems for everyone that we “solve.” The conditions in our universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves, and perhaps even for any form of organic chemistry. 

Changes in the relative strengths of gravity and electromagnetism affect not only cosmological processes but also galaxies, stars, and planets. The strong and weak nuclear forces determine the composition of the universe and, thus, the properties of galaxies, stars, and planets. As a result, we ultimately can’t divorce the chemistry of life from planetary geophysics or stellar astrophysics. Although we have only scratched the surface, it should be clear that
there are many examples of “cosmic-scale” fine-tuning in chemistry, particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology. Most published discussions of such fine-tuning are limited to the requirements for life, but cosmic finetuning
extends well beyond mere habitability.
https://3lib.net/book/5102561/45e43d

Luke Barnes: A Fortunate Universe Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos page 274
Claim: All these fine-tuning cases involve turning one dial at a time, keeping all the others fixed at their value in our Universe. But maybe if we could look behind the curtains, we’d find the Wizard of Oz moving the dials together. If you let more than one dial vary at a time, it turns out that there is a range of life-permitting universes. So the Universe is not fine-tuned for life.
Reply: This is a surprisingly persistent myth and one with no basis in fact whatsoever. There never was a time when fine-tuning investigations varied just one parameter. The original anthropic principle paper by Brandon Carter in 1974 identified a peculiar relationship between the mass of the proton, the mass of the electron, the strength of gravity, and the strength of electromagnetism. Stars can transport energy from their nuclear burning cores to their surface in two different ways – in the form of radiation, or via convective currents in which warmer gas rises and colder gas falls in cycles. In universes that subscribe to Carter’s coincidence, both kinds of stars are possible. Carter conjectured that life requires both kinds for heavy element production and planet formation. Physicists William Press and Alan Lightman showed in 1983 that the same coincidence must hold for stars to emit photons with the right energy to power chemical reactions. This is quite a coincidence, given the number of cosmic dials one must tune for the energy of a photon of light emerging from a star to be roughly equal to the energy of chemical bonds. The whole point of this relation and many more like them, with which the early anthropic literature is entirely concerned, is that they relate a number of different fundamental constants. More recent work has shown that spinning multiple dials is usually as destructive as spinning one. Suppose we spin the up quark, down quark, and electron mass dials. Protons and neutrons in the atomic nucleus are made of these three particles: two up quarks and one down quark make a proton, and one up quark and two down quarks make a neutron. Think of Figure 1 as a three-dimensional cube, where one dial sets the up quark mass, one sets the down quark mass, and the other sets the electron mass. When you’ve dialed in the masses, the stylus is at a particular point in the block. 

When physicists talk of ‘parameter space’, this is something like what we have in mind. What are the ranges of our dials? Or, to put it another way, how wide is our block? On the lower end, particles can have zero mass – the photon, for example. What about the upper end?  A particle with a mass equal to the Planck mass is the maximum mass that our theories could possibly handle. The Planck mass is roughly 24,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (2.4 × 10^22) times the mass of the electron! This mass is so large that, to help illustrate the interesting bits in our block, we need to use a logarithmic scale. It’s an easy idea: instead of each click of the dial moving the masses in the usual 0, 1, 2, 3 ... manner, we instead multiply by ten: ...,.0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, 100, ...  In a specific model Stephen Barr investigated, the lower mass limit set by something called ‘dynamical breaking of chiral symmetry’ to be about 60 orders of magnitude – 10^60 – smaller than the Planck mass. We will do the same for each side of our block. 

We’ll carve off parts of the block that we have identified as being unsuitable for life. 
For example, in Figure 2 we’ve carved off the disastrous Delta-plus-plus universe a), with one stable element and no chemical reactions, as well as the simply appalling Delta-minus universe b), with one element and one chemical reaction. In fact, we’ll go a step further by carving off the hydrogen-only universe c) and the ‘worst universe so far, the neutron universe d) – no elements, no chemistry. Stable atoms have a few more regions to avoid. We’ll carve off the parts where protons and neutrons don’t stick to create nuclei. We’ll carve off the regions where the electron can be captured by the nucleus, reducing atoms to piles of neutrons. We’ll carve off the parts where anything with the chemistry of hydrogen is unstable. 
Figure 3 shows what remains. Further, our dials are messing with stars’ nuclear fuel and the source of their internal pressure. We’ll carve off the region with no stable stars at all, as identified by Fred Adams. We’ll also ensure that the first product of stellar burning (the deuteron) is stable and that its production releases energy rather than absorbing it since this would upset the gravity vs. thermal energy balance in a star. 
Figure 4 shows what survives our slicing and dicing. Finally, we carve off universes in which the Hoyle resonance fails to allow stars to produce both carbon and oxygen, which leads to 
Figure 5. What remains is a thin shaft of life-permitting universes extending to small values of the up quark mass, surrounded by a vast wasteland. Remember that we needed to use a logarithmic scale; we can now see why. If we used a normal (linear) scale from zero to the Planck mass e), we would need a block of at least 10 light-years (a hundred billion kilometers) high for the life-permitting region visible to the human eye. The problem with this reaction is obvious. Sure, there are many dials. But there are also many requirements for life. Adding more dials opens up more space, but most of this space is dead. We see no trace whatsoever of a vast oasis of life. Life is similarly confined in cosmological parameter space. Max Tegmark, Anthony Aguirre, Martin Rees and Frank Wilczek (2001) find eight constraints on seven dials f) . Again, life is left to huddle on a tiny island. (Wilczek is a Nobel Prize-winning particle physicist, and Rees is the Astronomer Royal and former president of the Royal Society.) We’d love to plot all seven dimensions for you – blasted two-dimensional paper! This myth may have started because, when fine-tuning is presented to lay audiences, it is often illustrated by describing what happens when one parameter is varied. Martin Rees, for example, does this in his excellent book Just Six Numbers. Rees knows that the equations of fine-tuning involve more than one parameter – he derived many of those equations. 

Two fallacies must be avoided. 
The first is focusing on the shape of the life-permitting island, rather than its size. As we saw above, the life-permitting island is not a single blob. In general, it could snake through the dimensions of parameter space. We could say that life is possible for a range of values, but this would be misleading. We still need to carefully adjust the dials. A random spin of each dial is unlikely to result in success. 
The second fallacy is comparing the life-permitting range to the value of the constant in our Universe. Here’s an analogy. Suppose you throw a dart at a board and it lands inside the bullseye, 3 mm from the exact center (see Figure 6). Not bad, eh? Not so fast, says your friend. You could have landed twice as far from the center and still scored a bullseye. So your throw is only ‘fine-tuned’ within a factor of 2 ... not very impressive at all! Something has gone wrong here. It is the size of the bullseye compared to the size of the wall – not compared to where your dart landed – that makes a bullseye evidence of either your dart-throwing prowess or your determination (despite your terrible aim) to keep throwing until you hit the bullseye. Increasing the mass of the down quark by a factor of 6 results in the atom-, chemistry-, star- and planet-free neutron universe. This might seem like plenty of room. While ‘a factor of 6’ is fine for stating the limits of the fine-tuning region, it gives a misleading impression of its size. Compared to the highest energies that particle accelerators have reached, the life-permitting range is less than one in a hundred thousand. Compared to the Planck mass, it is one part in 10^20. The range of possible values of a constant (in a given theory) is often far larger than the actual value.
https://3lib.net/book/3335826/1b6fa8

Nucleosynthesis - evidence of design
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t3141-nucleosynthesis-evidence-of-design

a) The Delta-Plus-Plus Universe: 
Let’s start by increasing the mass of the down quark by a factor of about 70. Down quarks would readily transform into up quarks (and other stuff), even inside protons and neutrons. Thus, they would rapidly decay into the new ‘most stable’ title-holder, our old friend the Δ++ particle. We would find ourselves in the ‘Delta-plus-plus universe’. As we’ve seen, the Δ++ particle is a baryon containing three up quarks. Unlike the proton and neutron, however, the extra charge, and hence electromagnetic repulsion, on the Δ++ particles makes them much harder to bind together. Individual Δ++ particles can capture two electrons to make a helium-like element. And this will be the only element in the universe. Farewell, periodic table! The online PubChem database in our Universe lists 60, 770, 909 chemical compounds (and counting); in the Δ++ universe, it would list just one. And, being like helium, it would undergo zero chemical reactions.

b) The Delta-Minus Universe: 
Beginning with our Universe again, let’s instead of increase the mass of the up quark by a factor of 130. Again, the proton and neutron will be replaced by one kind of stable particle made of three down quarks, known as the Δ− . Within this Δ− universe, with no neutrons to help dilute the repulsive force of their negative charge, there again will be just one type of atom, and, in a dramatic improvement on the Δ++ universe, one chemical reaction! Two Δ− particles can form a molecule, assuming that we replace all electrons with their positively charged alter-ego, the positron.

c) The Hydrogen Universe: 
To create a hydrogen-only universe, we increase the mass of the down quark by at least a factor of 3. Here, no neutron is safe. Even inside nuclei, neutrons decay. Once again, kiss your chemistry textbook goodbye, as we’d be left with one type of atom and one chemical reaction.

d) The Neutron Universe: 
If you think the hydrogen universe is rather featureless, let’s instead increase the mass of the up quark by a factor of 6. The result is that the proton falls apart. In a reversal of what we see in our Universe, the proton, including protons buried in the apparent safety of the atomic nucleus, decay into neutrons, positrons and neutrinos. This is by far the worst universe we’ve so far encountered: no atoms, no chemical reactions. Just endless, featureless space filled with inert, boring neutrons. There is more than one way to create a neutron universe. Decrease the mass of the down quark by just 8 percent and protons in atoms will capture the electrons in orbit around them, forming neutrons. Atoms would dissolve into clouds of featureless, chemical-free neutrons. What about the other particle of everyday stuff, the electron? Since the electron (and its antiparticle, the positron) is involved in the decay of neutron and proton, it too can sterilize a universe. For example, increase its mass by a factor of 2.5, and we’re in the neutron universe again. The situation is summarized in Figure below.

e) Planck mass:  https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/p/Planck+Mass

f) Fine-tuning of atoms: https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2763-fine-tuning-of-atoms


Fine tuning of the Universe Luke_b10
Figure 1 A three-dimensional cube, representing ‘parameter space’. To help visualize the possible values of the masses of the fundamental particles, we imagine choosing a point in the block. As we spin the dials and choose different masses, our stylus moves through the block. Where can life flourish?

Fine tuning of the Universe Luke_b11
Figure 2 Carving off failed universes, Stage 1. Starting with the block of Figure 1, we carve off the Delta-plus-plus, Delta-minus, hydrogen-only and neutron-only universes, in which there is at most one chemical element and one possible chemical reaction.

Fine tuning of the Universe Luke_b12
Figure 3 Carving off failed universes, Stage 2. We remove regions of the block where atomic nuclei fail to be stable at all

Fine tuning of the Universe Luke_b14
Figure 4 Carving off failed universes, Stage 3. If a universe fails to support stable stars, then it is cut out of our block.

Fine tuning of the Universe Luke_b15
Figure 5 Carving off failed universes, Stage 4. A special property of carbon nuclei (the Hoyle resonance) allows stars in our Universe to make both carbon and oxygen. We remove from the block universes in which this fails.

Fine tuning of the Universe Luke_b16
Figure 6 A dart lands inside the bullseye. It could have landed twice as far away from the center and still scored a bullseye. Does that mean that the throw was only ‘fine-tuned’ to within a factor of 2, or that scoring a bullseye was a fifty-fifty chance? Obviously not! The smallness of the bullseye compared to the size of the wall – the set of places that the dart could have landed – could be evidence of dart-throwing prowess.

Fine tuning of the Universe DGCNvzU

Are fecund universes rare or common in the multiverse?

Gribbin & Rees: Cosmic coincidences, page 20
So our existence tells us that the Universe must have expanded, and be expanding, neither too fast nor too slow, but at just the "right" rate to allow elements to be cooked in stars. This may not seem a particularly impressive insight. After all, perhaps there is a large range of expansion rates that qualify as "right" for stars like the Sun to exist. But when we convert the discussion into the proper description of the Universe, Einstein's mathematical description of space and time, and work backwards to see how critical the expansion rate must have been at the time of the Big Bang, we find that the Universe is balanced far more crucially than the metaphorical knife edge. If we push back to the
earliest time at which our theories of physics can be thought to have any validity, the implication is that the relevant number, the so-called "density parameter," was set, in the beginning, with an accuracy of 1 part in 10^60 . Changing that parameter, either way, by a fraction given by a decimal point followed by 60 zeroes and a 1, would have made the Universe unsuitable for life as we know it.

Barrow and Tipler
Now, we create a considerable problem. For we are tempted to make statements of comparative reference regarding the properties of our observable Universe with respect to the alternative universes we can imagine possessing different values of their fundamental constants. But there is only one Universe; where do we find the other possible universes against which to compare our own in order to decide how fortunate it is that all these remarkable coincidences that are necessary for our own evolution actually exist?

H.Zenil, Irreducibility and Computational Equivalence, p.167:

The quote by Barrow and Tipler is claimed to summarize the core problem of finetuning. And if we solve it, atheists have only one escape to object that a cosmic fine-tuner is required: an unsubstantiable multi-bubble - universe.

To assess in how far our universe is fine-tuned, we must study the place of our universe in the space of possible universes. We call this space the virtual multiverse. Fine-tuning arguments vary just one parameter, a fallacy which is nearly always committed. Fine-tuning arguments vary just one parameter, a fallacy which is nearly always committed. The underlying assumption is that parameters are independent.

Let us first call a fecund universe a universe-generating at least as much complexity as our own. Are fecund universes rare or common in the multiverse? This is the core issue of fine-tuning. But the question remains— is the
Universe tailor-made for man? Or is it, to extend that analogy, more a case that there is a whole variety of universes to "choose" from, and that by our existence we have selected, off the peg as it were, the one that happens to fit? If so, what are the other universes, and where are they hiding? If it turns out that our kind of complex universe is common, then an explanation of fine-tuning would be a principle of fecundity: “there is no fine-tuning because intelligent life of some form will emerge under extremely varied circumstances”.

But even IF that were the case, and choosing other parameters, other life permitting universes could emerge, the issue is far from over:

Such speculative models do not answer the following key questions: would other interesting complex structures like planetary systems, life, intelligence or technology emerge in those other universes? The answer is: A clear no - if by chance. The odds to have a functional proteome with about a minimal set of 560 proteins is far above one success in 10^250.000 attempts. There are 10^80 atmos in the universe.

What, though, can we make of the coincidences in the physical constants involved in nucleosynthesis? They cannot be dismissed as readily as other arguments. A complicated biological organism must indeed evolve in tune with its environment; but the basic physical laws are "given," and nothing can react back to modify them.

Most fine-tuning arguments change just one parameter at a time and conclude that the resulting universe is not fit for developing complexity. This leads to the “one-factor-at-a-time” paradox. What if we would change several parameters at the same time? Systematically exploring the multiple variations of parameters seems like a very cumbersome enterprise.

Gribbin and Rees, “Cosmic Coincidences”, p. 146
"If we modify the value of one of the fundamental constants, something invariably goes wrong, leading to a universe that is inhospitable to life as we know it. When we adjust a second constant in an attempt to fix the problem(s), the result, generally, is to create three new problems for everyone that we "solve." The conditions in our Universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves, and perhaps even for any form of organic complexity."

The possibility space is the huge M resulting from the definition of possible universes; The topic becomes quite speculative because it is not clear at all which cosmic outcomes are the most relevant to assess. What if other possible universes do not generate objects like galaxies, stars and planets, but completely different kinds of complex structures? Nothing that we know may evolve anymore... but other things might!

John Gribbin and Martin Rees: "Cosmic Coincidences", (New York:Bantam Books, 1989), 26. 1
The flatness of the Universe must have been precise to within 1 part in 10^60. This makes the flatness parameter the most accurately determined number in all of physics, and suggests a fine-tuning of the Universe, to set up conditions suitable for the emergence of stars, galaxies, and life, of exquisite precision. If this were indeed a coincidence, then it would be a fluke so extraordinary as to make all other cosmic coincidences pale into insignificance.

Fine tuning of the Universe Gibbin10

1. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/Gribbin.html



Last edited by Otangelo on Tue Nov 16, 2021 7:25 am; edited 5 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

9Fine tuning of the Universe Empty Fine-Tuning Argument for God? Sun Jun 07, 2020 4:03 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Fine-Tuning Argument for God? | Otangelo Vs Leophilius
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT6gZKqQkPw&lc=UgzIcC79Heaij_KPRAd4AaABAg.99f0HzZig1F99f3Tw2BtoV

Fine-Tuning Argument for God?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1277p50-fine-tuning-of-the-universe#7576

Introduction
The fine-tuning of the laws and the constants of physics is one of the most extraordinary discoveries of the 20th century in physics. It makes a strong argument for design, which comes out of physics.

Albert Einstein
"The most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible"  

The more science advances, the more it discovers that the laws of physics and cosmological parameters must be finely tuned to permit a life-permitting universe.  Both the fundamental constants that describe the laws of physics and the cosmological parameters that determine the properties of our universe must fall within a range of values in order for the cosmos to develop astrophysical structures and ultimately the earth able to support life. The laws of physics need to have the right parameters to support the making of the building blocks that are needed for life to arise.

The thing that really does surprise us and which really does need explanation and that is the incredible improbability of the conditions that are necessary for our existence

We can make a syllogistic argument pointing to intelligent design as the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe. 

1.  The laws of physics and cosmological parameters are finely tuned to the extreme to permit life.  
2.  The fine-tuning of the universe is either due to chance, physical necessity, or intelligent design. 
3.  This fine-tuning is too improbable to be due to chance, and there was no physical necessity or constraint to permit only the parameters that actually exist. 
4.  Therefore, the fine-tuning is most likely due to intelligent design. 

The three possible explanations are

design
physical necessity
chance, or random, unguided natural events.

1. The initial conditions of the universe, subatomic particles, the Big Bang, the fundamental forces of the universe, the Solar System, the earth and the moon, are finely tuned to permit life. Over 150 fine-tuning parameters are known.
2. Finetuning is either due to chance, necessity, or design.
3. Finetuning is extremely unlikely due to chance. Neither had the parameters the necessity to be precisely what they are. Therefore, it is most probably due to a powerful creator which did set up the universe in the most precise exact fashion to permit life on earth.

"Incredulous" basically means "I don't believe it". Well, why should someone believe a "just so" story of the amazing capabilities of lucky accidents HOW the universe was finely adjusted to permit a life-permitting universe? That is the THING that i am incredulous about - a *certain scenario* ( natural, unguided lucky accidents precisely adjusted to an unimaginable extreme all laws of physics and cosmological parameters ) that's only *imagined* about how the amazing ability of lucky chaotic accidents defying known and reasonable principles of the limited range of chance, and physical necessity. There are a large number of constants that must be precisely adjusted. Codata lists about 360 different constants, which must precisely be tuned.

Fundamental Physical Constants --- Complete Listing 2018 CODATA adjustment
https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/Table/allascii.txt?fbclid=IwAR1wllIggtvjUltZUyrNeLQO0c67keXqybFrDjwKZ5NFtuIW_bwm6YBf1RU

But the problem extends further, as John Gribbin and Martin Rees explain:
If we modify the value of one of the fundamental constants, something invariably goes wrong, leading to a universe that is inhospitable to life as we know it. When we adjust a second constant in an attempt to fix the problem(s), the result, generally, is to create three new problems for everyone that we “solve.” The conditions in our universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves, and perhaps even for any form of organic chemistry.

Changes in the relative strengths of gravity and electromagnetism affect not only cosmological processes but also galaxies, stars, and planets. The strong and weak nuclear forces determine the composition of the universe and, thus, the properties of galaxies, stars, and planets. As a result, we ultimately can’t divorce the chemistry of life from planetary geophysics or stellar astrophysics. Although we have only scratched the surface, it should be clear that
there are many examples of “cosmic-scale” fine-tuning in chemistry, particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology. Most published discussions of such fine-tuning are limited to the requirements for life, but cosmic finetuning
extends well beyond mere habitability.

A large cadre of researchers continues to make new discoveries of new parameters that have to be just right, at a regular basis. The materialistic mythology is that unguided random events explain why the universe operates based on mathematical principles and is finely adjusted to permit life on planet earth, but the system is far, far too complex to occur by accident, and requires that features to support many processes are required, making a path for its cosmic evolution very hard to surmise. Fine-tuning is the secret to a life-permitting universe. It's a whole bunch of puzzles we don't have answers for. The proponent of naturalism is "incredulous" that an intelligent creator/designer could exist, beyond and behind our entire space-time continuum, who is our Creator. But there is nothing ridiculous about that - especially if you can't personally examine reality to that depth - how do you know nature is all that exists? What IS ridiculous (IMO) is trying to imagine a *naturalistic origin* of this unimaginable precision. What we need, is giving a *plausible* account of how it came about to be in the first place, and the " No-God hypothesis" simply doesn't cut the cake.

============================================================================================================================================

Laws of physics:

The laws of physics are the 

Law of Universal Gravitation, 
Three Laws of Motion, 
Conservation of Mass and Energy, 
Laws of Thermodynamics, 
Electrostatic Laws

The laws of physics had to emerge with physical stuff at the same time. They are interdependent. There would not be one without the other. If there where not time, space, and matter, then the laws of physics would not have anything to enforce their mathematical laws upon. But physical stuff has to work upon these laws, forced upon them.

There is no scientific reason why there should be any laws at all. It would be perfectly logical for there to be chaos instead of order. Therefore the FACT of order itself suggests that somewhere at the bottom of all this there is a Mind at work. This Mind, which is uncaused, can be called 'God.' If someone asked me what's your definition of 'God', I would say 'That which is Uncaused and the source of all that is Caused.'

WH. McCrea
"The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed. Actually, it seems more natural to suppose that the physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent." —*

Dirac:
It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature that fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power, needing quite a high standard of mathematics for one to understand it. You may wonder: Why is nature constructed along these lines? One can only answer that our present knowledge seems to show that nature is so constructed. We simply have to accept it.

Paul Davies:
The universe obeys mathematical laws; they are like a hidden subtext in nature. Science reveals that there is a coherent scheme of things

============================================================================================================================================

Quark fine-tuning 

A quark is a type of elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter. 
A proton is composed of two up quarks, and one down quark. The mass of the down quark is slightly heavier than the up quark.
A neutron is made of two heavy down-quarks plus one light up-quark. Hence a neutron is a little heavier than a proton.

That heaviness has consequences. If if were not so,  the simplest atoms would not join and form molecules, and the universe would host no life.  More than 70 times heavier and there would be no life. While this may not seem too finely tuned, physics suggests that the down-quark could have been many trillions of times heavier. So we are actually left with the question: why does the down-quark appear so light?

============================================================================================================================================

A fine example of fine-tuning is the famous Higgs boson recently discovered in the atom smasher at CERN it's dubbed the god particle because it gives substance to all nature's other particles but it too is just right so that we can exist if the Higgs boson were not all so finely balanced in a similar way to the way the dark energy is that would be very dangerous because it would in effect mean that gravity was much stronger so the earth it would probably collapse into a black hole. The Higgs mass  requires fine-tuning on the order of 1-in-10^34

============================================================================================================================================

The four Fundamental Forces of nature
The gravitational force, The Strong Nuclear Force, The Weak Nuclear Force, The Electromagnetic Force, all four must be finely tuned for life. 

If the strong nuclear force were very slightly weaker by just one part in 10,000 billion billion billion billion, then protons and neutrons would not stick together, and the only element possible in the universe, would be hydrogen only.
The weak nuclear force is what controls the rates at which radioactive elements decay. If this force were slightly stronger, the matter would decay into the heavy elements in a relatively short time. However, if it were significantly weaker, all matter would almost totally exist in the form of the lightest elements, especially hydrogen and helium ---there would be (for example) virtually no oxygen, carbon or nitrogen, which are essential for life.

Gravity
Were gravity not almost exactly 10^36 times weaker then we wouldn't be here.

Gravity also needs fine-tuning for stars and planets to form, and for stars to burn stably over billions of years. It is roughly 10^39 times weaker than electromagnetism. Had it been only 10^33 times weaker, stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster.

The cosmos threatened to recollapse within a fraction of a second or else to expand so fast that galaxy formation would be impossible. To avoid these disasters its rate of expansion at early instants needed to be fine-tuned to perhaps one part in 10^55 (which is 10 followed by 54 zeros).

The electromagnetic force must be finely tuned in many different ways, in order for life in our universe, and on earth, to be possible.

1. If the electromagnetic force were weaker than it is, chemicals could not bond properly and there would be insufficient carbon and oxygen to support life.
2. The electromagnetic force needs to be much weaker than the strong nuclear force for atoms to be stable 
3. The electromagnetic radiation range produced by the sun must be precisely tuned to the energies of the various chemical bonds on Earth. 
4. Ratio of electromagnetic and gravitational forces must be right in 10^40
5. A precise number of electrons must exist in the universe. Unless the number of electrons is equivalent to the number of protons to at least an accuracy of one part in 10^37, electromagnetic forces in the universe would have to overcome gravitational forces that galaxies, stars, and planets never would have formed. 
6. Electromagnetic repulsion between protons prevents most of their collisions from resulting in proton-proton fusion, this explaining how stars can burn so slowly
7. Matching the radiation from the sun to the chemical bonding energy requires that the magnitude of six constants be selected and finely adjusted, guaranteeing that the photons are sufficiently energetic, but not too energetic.
8. Most UV wavelengths are absorbed by oxygen and ozone in Earth’s atmosphere. Absorption of light by either Earth's atmosphere or by water where the necessary chemical reactions occur could render life on Earth impossible.
9. Strangely enough, the electromagnetic radiation of the sun is restricted to a tiny region of the total electromagnetic spectrum, equivalent to one card in a deck of 10^25, and that the very same infinitely minute region is precisely that required for life. 
10. There's a unique, non-dimensional atomic constant in physics known as “alpha” or the “electromagnetic fine structure constant” which underpins the whole of nature, the form and structure of the whole universe. It is better known by its reciprocal number which is essentially equivalent to 1/137.
11. The Balance of the Strong and Electromagnetic Forces must be just right. 
12. Stars need to produce carbon and oxygen in comparable amounts.


============================================================================================================================================

Multi Fine-tuning

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2810-multi-tuning
In most analyses of the fine-tuning of the force strengths and constants of nature, only one parameter is adjusted at a time (to make the problems more tractable). This would correspond to changing one dial at a time on our Universe-Creating Machine while leaving the other dials unchanged. Even taken individually, each of these examples of fine-tuning is impressive. But in the real universe, the values of all the constants and force strengths must be satisfied simultaneously to have a universe hospitable to life.



Arguably the most impressive cluster of fine-tuning occurs at the level of chemistry. In fact, chemistry appears to be “overdetermined” in the sense that there are not enough free physical parameters to determine the many chemical processes that must be just so.

Astronomer Virginia Trimble observed early in the debate on fine-tuning:
The changes in these properties required to produce the dire consequences are often several orders of magnitude, but the constraints are still nontrivial, given the very wide range of numbers involved. Efforts to avoid one problem by changing several of the constraints at once generally produce some other problem. Thus we apparently live in a rather delicately balanced universe, from the point of view of hospitality to chemical life.

John Gribbin and Martin Rees reach a similar conclusion:
If we modify the value of one of the fundamental constants, something invariably goes wrong, leading to a universe that is inhospitable to life as we know it. When we adjust a second constant in an attempt to fix the problem(s), the result, generally, is to create three new problems for everyone that we “solve.” The conditions in our universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves, and perhaps even for any form of organic chemistry.

Changes in the relative strengths of gravity and electromagnetism affect not only cosmological processes but also galaxies, stars, and planets. The strong and weak nuclear forces determine the composition of the universe and, thus, the properties of galaxies, stars, and planets. As a result, we ultimately can’t divorce the chemistry of life from planetary geophysics or stellar astrophysics. Although we have only scratched the surface, it should be clear that
there are many examples of “cosmic-scale” fine-tuning in chemistry, particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology. Most published discussions of such fine-tuning are limited to the requirements for life, but cosmic finetuning
extends well beyond mere habitability.

============================================================================================================================================

Martin Rees, just six numbers

According to Martin Reese, cosmologist of the English Royal family,  6 numbers  need to be fine-tuned in order to have a life-permitting universe.

Rees writes here:
These six numbers constitute a ‘recipe’ for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life.

The cosmological parameters include the
1. If the density parameter Ω (omega),  one second after the big bang had varied by one part in a million billion,  the universe would not be expanding.

2. The measure of nuclear efficiency, epsilon ε, has a value of 0.007. If it had a value of 0.006 there would be no other elements: hydrogen could not fuse into helium and the stars could not have cooked up carbon, iron, complex chemistry and, ultimately, us. Had it been a bit higher, at 0.008, protons would have fused in the big bang, leaving no hydrogen to fuel future stars or to make water.

3. The dark matter contribution  delta (δ)

4. In the Big Bang nucleosynthesis the baryon-to-photon ratio (η), must be just right

5. If the amplitude of primordial density fluctuations (Q), the one part in 100,000 ratios between the rest mass energy of matter and the force of gravity were a lot smaller, gas would never condense into galaxies.

6. Then we have the cosmological constant lambda λ, is finely tuned to 10^123 – if it were different, the expansion rate of the universe would be different, if positive, cause space to expand at such an enormous rate that almost every object in the Universe would fly apart, and would, if negative, cause the Universe to collapse almost instantaneously back in on itself.

These quantities must have just-right values in order for the universe to host stars, planets, and heavy elements in the periodic table.  The earth must be big enough to hold onto an atmosphere.

============================================================================================================================================

As Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle wrote: "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

If the Holye state didn’t exist, stars could not produce the abundance of carbon they do. Life is carbon-based. 

it seems to me the same being that created space matter in time is the same being that fine-tuned the expansion rate to be precisely what it needed to be the gravitational force if we altered that by any more than one part in 10
to the 40th power we wouldn't be here what's one part in 10 to the 40th power?

============================================================================================================================================

Exemplifications of fine-tuning
take a tape measure and stretch it across the entire known universe that's a long way set the gravitational force at a particular inch mark on that tape measure I realize gravity's not measured in inches but this just give you a scale idea in your mind if the strength of gravity were different by one inch in either direction across a scale as wide as the entire known universe we wouldn't be here that's one in 10 to the 40th precision I don't have enough faith to believe at that value just landed there by chance

This probability is hard to imagine but an illustration may help. Imagine covering the whole of the USA with small coins, edge to edge. Now imagine piling other coins on each of these millions of coins. Now imagine continuing to pile coins on each coin until reaching the moon about 400,000 km away! If you were told that within this vast mountain of coins there was one coin different to all the others. The statistical chance of finding that one coin is about 1 in 10^55 . In other words, the evidence that our universe is designed is overwhelming!

============================================================================================================================================

Fine-tuning of the Solar system: 

Our sun is placed at the right distance from our galactic center
Our sun is placed in an arm of the Milky way where we can see and discover the universe

============================================================================================================================================

Our sun 
has the right mass, gives off the right amount of energy, its fusion reaction is finely tuned, contains the right amount of life requiring metals, is uncommonly stable, 

============================================================================================================================================

Our moon

If ther moon would not exist :

The day would be eight hours long.
The winds would be much stronger.
Complex life would probably not exist.

- the Moon's distance from the Earth provides tides to keep life thriving in our oceans. If Earth did not have a large revolving moon, we would have no tides, causing the ocean waters to remain stagnant and produce no oxygen for its creatures.
- the Moon's mass helps stabilize the Earth's tilt on its axis, which provides for the diversity of alternating seasons
- the Moon's nearly circular orbit (eccentricity ~ 0.05) makes it's influence extraordinarily reliable
- the Moon is 1/400th the size of the Sun, and at 1/400th its distance, enables educational perfect eclipses

If Earth had no Moon, we wouldn’t be here. 
A large moon stabilizes the rotation axis of the earth, yielding a more stable, life-friendly climate. Our Moon keeps Earth’s axial tilt, from varying over a large range. A larger tilt would cause larger climate fluctuations.At present, Earth tilts 23.5 degrees. 

The moon produces a physical effect over planet Earth, and it is the cause of the rise and fall of the tides.  The tides mix nutrients from the land with the oceans

Our planet rotates completely on its own axis once every 24 hours. But without the presence of the moon and its gravitational effect, the Earth would complete a rotation every 8 hours instead of 24, so one year on Earth would consist of 1095 days of 8 hours each. With a rotational speed as high as this, the winds would be much more powerful and violent than we know today, the atmosphere would have much more oxygen and the planet’s magnetic field would be three times more intense. Under these so different conditions, it is reasonable to assume that if plant and animal life would have developed, it would have evolved completely differently than it actually has. The 24-hour days in the rotation of our planet greatly favors the life forms that inhabit it, since the temperature variations are not too abrupt in the transition from day to night, as they would be in days of only 8 hours.

The sun and moon are roughly the same size in the sky when viewed from Earth. This means that, when we are lined up just right, the moon blocks the sun entirely, resulting in a total solar eclipse. We have accepted that there is no scientific reason for this.  There is nothing in physics that says the Moon and Sun must appear the same size in our skies. In fact, our Moon is the only satellite in our system that even comes close to doing this. It is truly amazing that the Moon and Sun discs match up—and they won’t forever as the Moon is slowly moving away from the Earth. A look at any total solar eclipse is proof of the astronomically unlikely situation that the Sun is 400 times larger than the Moon and 400 times farther away from Earth than the Moon. 1

============================================================================================================================================

Fine-tuning of the earth

The earth requires the right size and gravity. 
If the sun where closer to the earth, we would burn up; if farther away we would freeze. 
The earth requires to be tilted at 23 degrees
What we see is a planet that is perfectly balanced for our habitation. We see design in the perfect balance.
Many chemical processes necessary for life are dependent on elements we call ‘rare earth’ minerals. These only exist as ‘trace’ amounts, but without which life could not continue.

the Earth's has a just-right ozone layer which filters out ultraviolet radiation and helps mitigate temperature swings
the Earth's surface gravity strength preventing the atmosphere from losing water to space too rapidly
the Earth's spin rate on its axis provides for a range of day and nightime temperatures to allow life to thrive
the atmosphere's composition (oxygen, nitrogren, etc.) is just right for life
the atmosphere's pressure enables our lungs to function and water to evaporate at an optimal rate to support life
the atmosphere's transparency to allow an optimal range of life-giving solar radiation to reach the surface
the atmosphere's capacity to hold water vapor providing for stable temperature and rainfall ranges  
efficient life-giving photosynthesis depends on quantum physics
The earth requires sufficient amount of water. 
the water molecule's astounding robustness results from finely balanced quantum effects. "Water's life-giving properties exist on a knife-edge. It turns out that life as we know it relies on incredibly delicate, balance of quantum forces. 
water is an unrivaled solvent; its low viscosity permits the tiniest blood vessels; its high specific heat stabilizes biosphere temperatures; its low thermal conductivity as a solid insulates frozen-over lakes and as a liquid its high conductivity lets organisms distribute heat; its an efficient lubricant; is only mildly reactive; has an anomalous (fish-saving) expansion when it freezes; its high vapor tension keeps moisture in the atmosphere; and it tastes great too!
VOLCANIC ACTIVITY: Volcanic activity is responsible for bringing heaver elements and gasses to the surface, as well as oxygen. Without this activity, the planet would never have sustained life in the first place.
EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD: We are bombarded daily with deadly rays from the sun, but are protected by the earth’s magnetic field.
SEASONS: Because of the earths tilt, we have seasons, and no part of the earth is extremely hot or cold. The seasons have balancing effect of the temperature on the surface and cause the winds and sea currents which we and all life depend on for a temperate climate.



Last edited by Admin on Thu Jun 11, 2020 2:53 am; edited 16 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

10Fine tuning of the Universe Empty Re: Fine tuning of the Universe Mon Jun 08, 2020 8:45 am

Otangelo


Admin

The weak anthropic principle
Physical necessity

Douglas Adam's Puddle thinking
Multiverse

The weak anthropic principle is just tautological. It just says the same thing twice.

Physical necessity:
Implausibility
On the very face of it, this is an extraordinarily implausible explanation of the fine tuning. It would require us to say that a life-prohibiting universe is physically impossible – such a thing could not exist. And that is an extremely radical view. Why take such a radical position? The constants, as we have seen, are not determined by the laws of nature. Nature’s laws could hold, and the constants could take any of a wide range of values, so there is nothing about the laws of nature that require the constants to have the values that they do.

Arbitrary Quantities
As for the arbitrary quantities, remember those are completely independent of the laws of nature – they are just put in as initial conditions on which the laws of nature then operate. Nothing seems to make these quantities necessary in the values they have. The opponent of design is taking a very radical line which would require some sort of evidence, some sort of proof. But there isn’t any proof that these constants and quantities are physically necessary. This alternative is just put forth as a bare possibility; and possibilities come cheap. What we are looking for is probabilities or plausibilities, and there just isn’t any evidence that the constants and quantities are physically necessary in the way that this alternative imagines.

Puddle thinking
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking…” He doesn’t seem to realize that, in order for a puddle to wake up and think its first thought, a vast number of interconnected and incredibly unlikely coincidences have to occur.

The Big Bang had to happen, and the Big Bang had to explode with just the right amount of force to allow matter to disperse and allow galaxies to form. Had the Big Bang not been precisely fine-tuned, our universe might consist of nothing but tenuous hydrogen gas—or a single supermassive black hole. The laws of nature had to be laid down at the instant of the Big Bang, and had to be fine-tuned to an accuracy of one part in the trillions before the universe itself could exist, much less a contemplative puddle.

The electromagnetic force, the gravitational force, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force all had to be perfectly balanced in order for stars to form and begin cooking up the elements needed to make planets—silicon, nickel, iron, oxygen, magnesium, and so forth. Adams’ pensive puddle could not find itself sitting in “an interesting hole” unless the hole was situated on a planet orbiting a star that was part of a galaxy that was created by the incredibly fine-tuned forces and conditions of the Big Bang.

And in order for that puddle to wake up one morning and think at all, it would need to be a lot more complex than a mere puddle of water. A thinking puddle would be a very complex puddle. Even if that puddle were comprised of exotic alien nerve cells suspended in a matrix of liquid ammonia, it would certainly need something like lipid molecules and protein structures and nucleic acids in order to become sufficiently evolved as to wake up and contemplate its own existence.

Such components require the existence of carbon. And if you know anything about where carbon comes from, you know that carbon doesn’t grow on trees. It is formed in an amazingly fine-tuned process involving the precise placement of a nuclear resonance level in a beryllium atom. Any enlightened plashet would have to conclude that a superintellect had monkeyed with physics, chemistry, and the biological composition of pools and puddles.

The rest of Douglas Adams’ scenario, in which “the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and … the puddle gets smaller and smaller” is meaningless in view of the fact that dozens and dozens of events, forces, and conditions have to interact in a fine-tuned way in order for the sun to exist, the air to exist, the sky to exist, and the hole in the ground to exist, so that a puddle can wake up one morning and wonder about its place in the cosmic order.

No analogy is perfect, of course, but The Puddle Analogy is downright misleading. It misrepresents the essence of the fine-tuning argument. An analogy should simplify, but not over-simplify.

Is the universe hostile to life?
The fact to be explained is why the universe is life-permitting rather than life-prohibiting.

It should be obvious by now that the fine-tuning argument holds in the relation to the universe as a whole, and is not meant to address the question of why you cannot live on the sun or breathe on the moon. Of course, sources of energy (stars) are needed to drive life and evolution, and of course, you cannot live on them. Nor can you live in the, by necessity, frighteningly large stretches of empty space between them and planets. So what is the point? Nobody would deny that the light bulb is an invention that greatly enhances modern life. But when you would try to hold your hand around a light bulb that is turned on, you would burn it to pieces. Is the light bulb then "hostile to life"? Certainly not. This modest example, however, indicates how utterly irrelevant the argument really is – one of those false arguments that appear to be brought forth and rehashed solely in order to avoid the deeper issues. 3

The "many-universes generator" seems like it would need to be designed. For instance, in all current worked-out proposals for what this "universe generator" could be--such as the oscillating big bang and the vacuum fluctuation models explained above--the "generator" itself is governed by a complex set of physical laws that allow it to produce the universes.

Now let's suppose there was a multiverse generator. He would have had to make up to 10^123 attempts to get one universe with the right expansion rate. He would have made 10^18 attempts after 30 billion years.
Once he had that right, to get a universe with atoms, he would have to make the following number of trials:
the right Ratio of Electrons: Protons 1:10^37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force: Gravity 1:10^40
If a multiverse generator existed, he must have been VERY busy in the last trillion trillion trillion years to get out only our universe......
does that make sense?

Life on other planets
THE LOG LOG PRIOR FOR THE FREQUENCY OF EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCES September 21, 2016
This log log prior can handle a very wide range of PETI values, from 1 to 1010^122 while remaining responsive to evidence about extraterrestrial societies.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.05931.pdf

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

11Fine tuning of the Universe Empty Re: Fine tuning of the Universe Sat Dec 05, 2020 2:09 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Does a Fine-Tuned Universe Lead to God? | Episode 502 | Closer To Truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbjOkLu2gc&t=1411s

ROBIN COLLINS, A YOUNG CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHER TRAINED IN PHYSICS. 
>>WELL FOR ABOUT THE LAST FORTY YEARS, SCIENTISTS HAVE DISCOVERED THAT THE UNIVERSE, ITS BASIC STRUCTURE HAS TOBE JUST RIGHT IN ORDER FOR LIFE TO OCCUR, PARTICULARLY INTELLIGENT, CONSCIOUS OBSERVERS LIKE OURSELVES. AND THIS FINE-TUNING PROBLEM COMES DOWN TO BASICALLY THREE SORTS OF FINE-TUNING. 


FIRST THERE IS THE FINE-TUNING OF THE LAWS OF NATURE.
SECOND IS THE FINETUNING WHAT SCIENTISTS CALL THE CONSTANTS OF PHYSICS, AND 
THIRD,THE FINE-TUNING OF WHAT THEY CALL THE INITIAL CONDITIONS OF THE UNIVERSE. 

THE LAWS OF NATURE HAVE TO BE JUST RIGHT IN ORDER FOR LIFE TO OCCUR. FOR EXAMPLE IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE GRAVITY OR A UNIVERSAL ATTRACTIVE FORCE, THEN MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE WOULD NEVER CLUMP WHEN THE UNIVERSE BLEW OUT IN THE BIG BANG,YOU WOULD JUST HAVE SIMPLY MATTER DISPERSE,NEVER CLUMPING TOGETHER INTO PLANETS OR STARS. IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE,THE FORCE THAT HOLDS NEUTRONS AND PROTONS TOGETHER, THEN ALL PROTONS WOULD REPEL EACH OTHER AND YOU COULD NOT GET ATOMS WITH A GREATER ATOMIC NUMBER THAN HYDROGEN.AND IN THAT CASE UNLIKE WHAT YOU SEE IN STAR TREK, YOU CAN NOTGET COMPLEX LIFE OUT OFA HYDROGEN GAS CLOUD.IT DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH STABLECOMPLEXITY.IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE, IF IT JUST DIDN'T EXIST, THEN YOU WOULDN'TGET COMPLEX CHEMISTRY.>THOSE ARE LAWS?>>THOSE ARE LAWS.>THAT'S CATEGORY ONE.>>THAT'S CATEGORY ONE.

>CATEGORY TWO ARE THE CONSTANTS.>>
THE CONSTANTS OF PHYSICS.NOW WHEN WE LOOK AT THE, A LOTOF LAWS LIKE FORCE LAWS, IN FACTMOST LAWS, HAVE VARIOUS WHATTHEY CALL FREE PARAMETERS.LET MEGIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.LET'S LOOK AT GRAVITY.GRAVITY HAS, THERE IS NEWTON'SLAW OF GRAVITY, AND IT'S FORCEEQUALS G TIMES THE FIRST MASS,THIS TIMES THE SECOND MASSDIVIDED BY THE DISTANCE,SQUARED.THAT G IS A CRITICAL NUMBER.IF I WERE TO MAKE IT ONE HALF OFWHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW YOU WOULDWEIGH ONE HALF THE AMOUNT.THEN THERE IS THE COSMOLOGICALCONSTANT. >WHICH CONTROLS THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE. >>IT OPPOSES GRAVITY.

IN THE CASE OF THE COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT THERE IS A NATURAL EXPECTED RANGE FOR IT TO OCCUR IN. DEPENDING ON HOW YOU CALCULATETHIS RANGE ITS ANYWHERE FROM ONE TO TEN TO THE HUNDRED AND TWENTIETH POWER TIMES WHAT IT IS NOW.>WHICH IS MORE, IS A BIGGER NUMBER THAN EVERY PARTICLE IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE.>>RIGHT.SO IT'S, IT'S WAY, WAY LARGER THAN EVEN THAT. SO WHAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE, IT HAS TO BE ADJUSTED JUST RIGHT.THE ESTIMATE IS, IT HAS TO BE ONE PART IN TEN TO THE HUNDRED AND TWENTIETH POWER.>WHICH IS INCALCULABLE.>>INCALCULABLE. IF YOU HAD A RULER STRETCHED ACROSS THE UNIVERSE AND YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT FINE-TUNING AND YOU THOUGHT OF IT AS A RADIODIAL, IT WOULD HAVE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE FINE-TUNED TO MUCH, MUCH LESS THAN ONE TRILLIONTH OF A TRILLIONTH OF AN INCH AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE RULER.THAT'S HOW FINE-TUNED IT WOULD HAVE TO BE.

THE THIRD CATEGORY OFT HE INITIAL CONDITIONS OFTHE UNIVERSE.>>
THE INITIAL CONDITIONS HAVE TO BE JUST RIGHT IN ORDER FOR LIFE TO OCCUR. THE BIGGEST ONE OF THESE INITIAL CONDITIONS IS THE VERY LOW ENTROPY STATE OF THE UNIVERSE. IF IT WASN'T IN THAT ORDER STATE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE USABLE ENERGY. LOW ENTROPY CORRESPONDS TO USABLE ENERGIES.> SO IF YOU CUT ACROSS ALL OF THESE THREE AREAS, THE LAWS,THE CONSTANTS, AND THE INITIAL CONDITIONS, WHAT KIND OF CONCLUSION DO YOU COME TO?>


I COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THIS PROVIDES STRONG EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS A DESIGNER OR SOMEBODY WHO SET THE UNIVERSE UP, STRUCTURED IT JUST THE RIGHT WAY IN ORDER FOR CONSCIOUS, INTELLIGENT BODIED BEINGS TO COME IN TO EXISTENCE. I THINK IT  GLORIFIES GOD THE MOST TO SEE THAT HOW WONDERFULLY CONSTRUCTED NATURE IS, THAT EVERYTHING WORKS.

>AND THAT GOD NEED NOT INTERVENE?>>
NEED NOT INTERVENE, IN FACTIF GOD HAD TO INTERVENE ALL THE TIME, IT WOULD BE SORT OF A SLOPPY OR A BAD CREATOR,OR A BAD ENGINEER OR MATHEMATICIAN IF YOU WILL.

>THE LAWS OF NATURE.THE CONSTANTS OF PHYSICS.THE INITIAL CONDITIONS OF THE UNIVERSE. ROBIN MAKES A THREE FOLD,FINE-TUNING CASE FOR GOD.

>VICTOR OFFERS FIVE NATURAL REASONS WHY THE FINE-TUNINGOF THE UNIVERSE DOES NOT LEADTO GOD.LIFE NEED NOT BE LIKE US, FINE-TUNING IS NOT THAT FINE, NEW THEORIES LIKE COSMIC INFLATION SOLVE MYSTERIES, GOD OF THE GAPS NEVER LASTS, AND AFTER ALL, OUR LIFE ON EARTH ISN'T SO GREAT.

ERNAN MCMULLIN IS A PHYSICS EDUCATED PRIEST WHO ENVISIONS FINE-TUNING AS A RADICALLY NEW KIND OF ARGUMENT FOR GOD.ERNAN, THE FINE-TUNING OF THE UNIVERSE IS TODAY ONE OF THE HOTTEST INTELLECTUAL SUBJECTS.

>>IN ORDER TO GET THE UNIVERSE OF OUR KIND WITH MULTIPLE KINDS OF ELEMENTS AND LONG LASTING AND SO ON, THERE'S A LOT OF REQUIREMENTS TO GET A LIFE BEARING UNIVERSE. IN ORDER TO GET THAT IT TURNS OUT THAT THE LAWS OF NATURE HAVE TO BE PRETTY MUCH WHAT THEY ARE. NOW AT THAT POINT, THE QUESTION WAS WHAT DO WE MAKE OF THAT? WELL THERE ARE ONLY FOUR POSSIBLE ANSWERS TO THAT, IN MY VIEW.

ONE ANSWER WOULD BE TO SAY WELL THIS IS A MATTER OF LUCK.
THE SECOND POSSIBILITY WHICH I THINK HAPPENS TO BE TAKENS ERIOUSLY, IS THAT THE THEORIES THEMSELVES ARE AT THE GROWING POINT I THINK MYSELF THAT THERE ARE SO MANY COINCIDENCES IN THE LAWS OF NATURE, SO MANY DIFFERENT ONES, AND VERY SPECIFIC, LIKE THE SPECIFIC RELATIONS BETWEEN SPECIFIC FORCES, THAT ALL OF THAT COULD FOLLOW FROM A SIMPLE SINGLE THEORY, IT'S POSSIBLE BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S VERY LIKELY.  IT LEAVES US WITH ONLY TWO ANSWERS. ONE OF THEM SEEMS QUITE EXTREME,AND IT'S THE MULTI VERSE, AS ITS SOMETIMES CALLED, AND THAT KIND OF SOLUTION WOULD MEAN POSTULATING THE ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF A HUGE NUMBER OF UNIVERSES TO MAKE THIS WORK OUT, POSSIBLY AN INFINITY IF THAT EVEN MAKES SENSE, AN INFINITY OF UNIVERSES.THERE IS ONLY ONE OTHER ALTERNATIVE AS FAR AS I CAN SEE,AND THAT IS TO HEARKEN BACK TO A VERY ANCIENT TRADITION --THE ANCIENT TRADITION OF THE CREATION OF THEOLOGY, THE IDEA THAT THE UNIVERSE IS THE WORK OF A CREATOR AND THAT THAT CREATOR HAS A SPECIAL, IF YOU LIKE, ROLE FOR THE HUMAN WITHIN THIS UNIVERSE. BUT IF YOU CONTRAST THE CHRISTIAN BELIEF HERE AND THE BELIEF IN MULTI UNIVERSES, YOU HAVE TO MAKE AN ENORMOUS ADDITIONAL POSTULATE IN ORDER TO PULL OFF THE MULTI UNIVERSE VIEW.

HUMAN BEINGS HAVE, LONG BEFORE PHYSICS DEVELOPED, FOUND IT QUITE NATURAL TO POSTULATE A BEING WHO IS A CREATOR.THE NOTION OF CREATION ALREADY INCORPORATES THE NOTION OF FINE
TUNING IF NEEDED,WHERE AS PHYSICS DOESN'T. THE PHYSICIST HAS GOT TO TAKE THE UNIVERSE AS GIVEN. I MEAN THAT'S SIMPLY NOT A QUESTION THEY CAN ADDRESS. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND FROM THE CREATION STAND POINT THE UNIVERSE AS GIVEN REQUIRES A REASON FOR ITS OWN EXISTENCE.

FIRST OF ALL IT IS BY NO MEANS NECESSARY THAT A BEING IS SUFFICIENTLY POWERFUL TO CREAT OUR UNIVERSE, WOULD HAVE TO BE COMPLEX. I MEAN SCIENTISTS IN FACT THEMSELVES ARE ACCUSTOMED TO FINDING SIMPLE ANSWERS TO VERY COMPLEX QUESTIONS.WE CAN ASK WHY THERE SHOULD BE A UNIVERSE IN THE FIRST PLACE.THE QUESTION OF EXISTENCE IS A UNIQUE QUESTION -- THAT'S A QUESTION WHICH A SCIENTIST CAN'TADDRESS AND SHOULDN'T ADDRESS.THIS IS NOT A GAP.THIS IS SIMPLY A QUESTION THAT IS OF A DIFFERENT SORT, BUT THEPOINT IS THAT THE RELIGIOUS FLAVOR HAS ALWAYS ASKED IT AND HAS ALWAYS GIVEN AN ANSWER TO IT AND THE ANSWER IS THAT THERE IS A BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FACT THAT THE UNIVERSE EXISTS,INCLUDING POSSIBLY AN INFINITY OF UNIVERSES OR A LARGE NUMBER,OR POSSIBLY A UNIVERSE WHICH HAS ALWAYS EXISTED.

YOU HAVE A CHOICE BETWEEN TWO ALTERNATIVES.YOU EITHER STOP WHAT THE UNIVERSE HAS GIVEN, AS A PHYSICIST MANY OF THEM WOULD WANT, WOULD SAY THAT YOU SHOULD,OR YOU TAKE THE ONE STEP FURTHER AND YOU POSTULATE A SINGLE BEING WHICH, AND A SINGLE ACT OF CREATION BRINGS OUR UNIVERSE TO BE, WHICH ANSWERS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE AN OBJECT FOR PHYSICISTS TO WORK WITH IN THE FIRST PLACE.>

BUT IT DOESN'T ANSWER WHY THERESHOULD BE THAT GOD IN THE FIRSTPLACE.>>
NO, NO, NO, NO, AND THAT'SVERY IMPORTANT. THERE HAS TO BE A STOP POINT. THE QUESTION IS WHAT STOP POINT DO YOU PRESERVE? THE PHYSICIST MAY CHOOSE TO HAVE HIS STOP POINT BE ONE STEP EARLIER AND THE RELIGIOUS BELIEVER SAYS UH UH, WE WANT TO TAKE ONE STEP FURTHER. AND SO WE STOP THERE. NOW THE QUESTION IS, WHICH IS THE BETTER STOPPING POINT? 
>YOU'VE GOT TO STOP SOME PLACE. >>
YEAH.SO I THINK MYSELF THAT IT'S AN ISSUE THAT HAS NEVER COME UP BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE PREVIOUS TO THIS, THE WAY IN WHICH GOD GOT IN TO IT WAS USUALLY AS AN ANSWER TO SOME SPECIFIC FEATURE OF THE UNIVERSE, LIKE DESIGN FOREXAMPLE. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT, SO IT'S NOT A SHORT COMING OF SCIENCE. NOT SAYING LOOK, THERE IS SOMETHING SCIENCE CAN'T EXPLAIN,WE CAN'T EXPLAIN. THAT'S NOT IT. THERE'S A, WHAT'S BEING POSTULATED HERE, IS A REASON WHYTHERE SHOULD BE AN OBJECT FOR PHYSICISTS TO STUDY IN THE FIRST PLACE.>
TO ERNAN, FINE-TUNING ISDIFFERENT IN KIND FROM TRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS FROM AND IT BORES TO THE CORE OF THE ESSENCE OF EXISTENCE ITSELF.

SO I GO TO NEW YORK TO INQUIRE OF PHYSICIST MICHIO KAKU,
WHOSE BACKGROUND INCLUDES BOTH BUDDHISM AND CHRISTIANITY. MECHIO, AS A PHYSICIST FROM A BUDDHIST FAMILY, EXPERIENCED IN THE CHRISTIAN WORLD VIEW, HOW DO YOU, HOW DO YOU ANALYZE THISFINE-TUNING?>>
WHEN I WAS IN SECOND GRADE MY TEACHER MADE A STATEMENT THAT SHOCKED ME TO THE CORE.I STILL REMEMBER IT AFTER ALL OF THESE YEARS. SHE SAID THAT GOD SO LOVED THE EARTH THAT HE PUT THE EARTH JUST RIGHT FROM THE SUN -- NOT TOO CLOSE, BECAUSE THE OCEANS WOULD BOIL, NOT TOO FAR, BECAUSE THE OCEANS WOULD FREEZE.I WAS FLOORED. THAT'S RIGHT.THE EARTH IS JUST RIGHT FROM THE SUN.VENUS DOES HAVE A SCORCHED SURFACE.MARS IS A FROZEN DESERT.WE ARE JUST RIGHT FROM THE SUN.THEN I GREW UP A AND OF COURSE NOW WE LOOK AT STARS AND SEEOVER TWO HUNDRED DEAD PLANETSTHAT ARE TOO CLOSE, THAT ARE TOOFAR, FROM THE MOTHER SUN,TO HAVE LIQUID OCEANS.SO THE SOLUTION TO THE SO CALLEDGOLDILOCKS PARADOX, WHY IS THEEARTH JUST RIGHT FROM THE SUN,IS ANSWERED BY THE OBSERVATIONTHAT THEY ARE DEAD PLANETS.WELL HOW MANY GOLDILOCKS STARSARE THERE?YOU START TO COUNT THEM AND YOUREALIZE OH MY GOD, WE ARE JUSTRIGHT IN SO MANY DIFFERENT AREAS.IT'S LIKE A JET AIRPLANE BEING RIPPED APART BY A HURRICANE AND THEN SUDDENLY REASSEMBLED INTACT, AFTER THE STORM.THAT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT.SO WE HAVE THIS PARADOX -- WHYARE WE IN SO MANY GOLDILOCKS ZONES?

THE UNIVERSE, THAT HE PUT THE UNIVERSE JUST RIGHT IN THE GOLDILOCKS ZONE? OR ARE THERE DEAD UNIVERSES? I TEND TO LEAD TOWARD THE LATER,THAT THERE ARE DEAD UNIVERSES OUT THERE, THERE ARE MULTIPLE UNIVERSES WHERE THE SUN NEVER DID IGNITE, UNIVERSES WHICH POPPED IN TO EXISTENCE AND POPPED RIGHT BACK IN TO EXISTENCE IN A BIG CRUNCH.WELL THERE ARE TWO PHILOSOPHIES YOU CAN TAKE.THE COPERNICAN PRINCIPLESAYS THAT THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT HUMANS, NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT US,NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT OUR PIECE OF THE UNIVERSE.WE ARE VERY ORDINARY, WE EXIST WITH BILLIONS AND BILLIONS AND TRILLIONS OF STARS, BILLIONS OF PLANETS PERHAPS IN THE UNIVERSE,WE ARE ALMOST INSIGNIFICANT,WE ARE NOTHING.YET ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE SAYS WAIT A MINUTE, WAIT AMINUTE, WE ARE SPECIAL, WE ARE SO SPECIAL THAT WE ARE THE ONLY,PERHAPS THE ONLY UNIVERSE AMONG THE WHOLE COLLECTION OF UNIVERSES THAT HAVE INTELLIGENT LIFE.

I THINK WE ARE SPECIAL.WE ARE SPECIAL FIRST OF ALL BECAUSE WE HAVE THE CONDITIONS FOR LIFE, DNA, AND EVEN CONSCIOUSNESS.
IT IS FINE-TUNED, PERHAPS FINE-TUNED BY LUCK, BUT IT IS FINE-TUNED NONE THE LESS.OUR UNIVERSE, IN SOME SENSE,KNEW WE WERE COMING.WE ARE IN A UNIVERSE THAT MAKES INTELLIGENT LIFE POSSIBLE.>
DOES THAT GIVE ANY CORROBORATION, ANY CONFIDENCE,ANY INCREASED PROBABILITY TO SOME SORT OF A NON PHYSICAL EXPLANATION FOR THE UNIVERSE?>>
THERE'S ANOTHER WAY TO EXPLAIN IT, AND THIS IS THAT PERHAPS UNIVERSES EVOLVE, THAT AS THESE UNIVERSES DIE, BABY UNIVERSES ARE CREATED BY ADVANCED CIVILIZATIONS AND THE DNA IS PRECISELY THE PHYSICAL CONSTANTS OF THE UNIVERSE.>
THIS WOULD REQUIRE A SUPER,SUPER ADVANCED CIVILIZATION TO BE ABLE TO CREATE.>>
UNIMAGINABLY ADVANCED,BUT THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AS WE KNOW THEM, AND THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR AN EVOLUTION OF UNIVERSES.IT'S NO ACCIDENT THAT IT HAS THESE CONDITIONS, BECAUSE IT WAS A SPIN OFF OF ANOTHER UNIVERSE, AND WE ARE, IN SOME SENSE, WINNERS NOT OF A COSMIC JACKPOT, WE ARE SIMPLY WINNERS OF SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST. SO THINK OF A BUBBLE BATH WITH BILLIONS OF SOAP BUBBLES, MOST OF THEM DEAD, BUT THE SOAP BUBBLES THAT HAVE LIFE, SPIN OFF MORE SOAP BUBBLES.MORE SOAP BUBBLES.>SO OVER TIME THOSE WEREPERFORATE.>>THAT'S RIGHT.

SO ANOTHER IS THAT PERHAPS THERE IS A REASON WHY WE ARE JUST RIGHT FROM THE SUN, BECAUSE WE HAVE BENEFITTED FROM SURVIVALOF THE FITTEST, GOING BACK UNIMAGINABLE IONS IN TO THE PAST, SO THAT EACH UNIVERSE HAS THE DNA CONSISTENT WITH,NOT JUST INTELLIGENCE,BUT ADVANCED INTELLIGENCE.>
BUT EVEN SO, THERE HAD TO BE A FIRST UNIVERSE, AND THERE THE FINE-TUNING PROBLEM WOULD REASSEMBLE AND REEMERGE, STRONGER THAN EVER, NO?

THE FINE-TUNING PROBLEM DEMANDS EXPLANATION. HERE ARE FOUR. 
ONE, BRUTE, FACT, AND LUCK.THE ONE UNIVERSE THAT JUST HAPPENS TO EXIST, ALSO JUST HAPPENS TO SUPPORT LIFE.
TWO, THE UNIVERSE CAN BE ONLY ONE WAY.AND THAT ONE WAY WOULD GENERATE LIFE.
THREE, MULTIPLE UNIVERSES, SUCH THAT EVERYTHING WILL HAPPEN SOMEWHERE, INCLUDING US.
FOUR, A CREATOR GOD WHO DESIGNED THE UNIVERSE.

HERE'S WHAT I THINK.MULTIPLE UNIVERSES WOULD EXPLAIN FINE-TUNING OF OUR UNIVERSE, BUT A FINE-TUNED UNIVERSE GENERATOR FOR THE VAST ENSEMBLE OF MULTIPLE UNIVERSES,IS STILL NEEDED.AS FOR SUPERNATURAL EXPLANATIONS, A TRADITIONAL GOD IS BUT ONE OF MANY UNTOLD OPTIONS.MORE OVER NEW KINDS OF PHYSICAL LAWS MAY SEEM SUPERNATURAL.WHERE DO WE STOP? THAT'S THE QUESTION.WHAT'S THE END OF ALL EXPLANATIONS? OUR UNIVERSE, MULTIPLE UNIVERSES, OR SOMETHING BEYOND? FOR THE RIDDLE OF EXISTENCE, FINE-TUNING IS OUR BIGGEST CLUE. THAT'S WHY WE STRESS IT ON CLOSER TO TRUTH.



Last edited by Otangelo on Mon May 10, 2021 7:54 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

12Fine tuning of the Universe Empty Re: Fine tuning of the Universe Mon May 10, 2021 8:34 am

Otangelo


Admin

Martin J. Rees: Fine-Tuning, Complexity, and Life in the Multiverse 2018
The physical processes that determine the properties of our everyday world, and of the wider cosmos, are determined by some key numbers: the ‘constants’ of micro-physics and the parameters that describe the expanding universe in which we have emerged. We identify various steps in the emergence of stars, planets and life that are dependent on these fundamental numbers, and explore how these steps might have been completely prevented — if the numbers were different.

At their fundamental level, phenomena in our universe can be described by certain laws—the so-called “laws of nature” — and by the values of some three dozen parameters. Those parameters specify such physical quantities as the coupling constants of the weak and strong interactions in the Standard Model of particle physics, and the dark energy density, the baryon mass per photon, and the spatial curvature in cosmology. What actually determines the values of those parameters is an open question.  But growing numbers of researchers are beginning to suspect that at least some parameters are in fact random variables, possibly taking different values in different members of a huge ensemble of universes — a multiverse.   At least a few of those constants of nature must be fine-tuned if life is to emerge. That is, relatively small changes in their values would have resulted in a universe in which there would be a blockage in one of the stages in emergent complexity that lead from a ‘big bang’ to atoms, stars, planets, biospheres, and eventually intelligent life. We can easily imagine laws that weren’t all that different from the ones that actually prevail, but which would have led to a rather boring universe — laws which led to a universe containing dark matter and no atoms; laws where you perhaps had hydrogen atoms but nothing more complicated, and therefore no chemistry (and no nuclear energy to keep the stars shining); laws where there was no gravity, or a universe where gravity was so strong that it crushed everything; or the cosmic lifetime was so short that there was no time for evolution; or the expansion was too fast to allow gravity to pull stars and galaxies together.

Nucleosynthesis of the light elements gives us compelling corroboration of the hot and dense conditions in the first few seconds of the universe’s existence. The cosmic microwave background (CMB) provides us not only with an astonishingly accurate proof for a black-body radiation state, but also with a detailed map of the fluctuations in temperature (and density), from which eventually structure emerged. Peaks in the power spectrum of the CMB fluctuations, mapped with great accuracy by the WMAP.

Prerequisites for Complexity 
There are (at least) five prerequisites for the emergence of complexity in a universe; these prerequisites would not be fulfilled in a counterfactual universe where the fundamental constants were too different from their actual values. ‘Counterfactual’ exercises of this type are useful for developing an intuition about the role of physical constants in the evolution of the universe and in the emergence of complexity. 

Constraints on Gravity 
Gravity in our universe is a very weak force. The reason gravity becomes important on the scale of large asteroids and higher, is that large objects have a net electric charge that is close to zero, so gravity wins once sufficiently many atoms are packed together. Stars, which effectively are gravitationally bound nuclear fusion reactors, would be smaller in such a universe and would have shorter lives. If gravity were much stronger, then even small solid bodies (such as rocks) might be gravitationally crushed. If gravity’s strength were such that it would still have allowed tiny planets to exist, life forms the size of humans would be crushed on the planetary surface. To have what we may call an “interesting” universe (in the sense of complexity), we must have many powers of ten between the microscale and the cosmic scale, and this requires gravity to be very weak. It is important to note, however, that gravity does not need to be fine-tuned for complexity to emerge. In fact, a universe in which gravity is ten times weaker than in our universe, may be even more “interesting” in that it would allow bigger stars and planes, and more time for life to emerge and evolve.

Charge conjugation and parity CP Violation 
More Matter than Antimatter The Big Bang in our universe created a slight excess (by about one part in three billion) of matter over antimatter. It has been shown that for such an imbalance to be created, baryon number and CP symmetry (charge conjugation and parity) had to be violated in the Big Bang, as well as interactions being out of thermal equilibrium. Had the matter–antimatter imbalance not existed, particles and antiparticles would have all annihilated to form only radiation (what we observe today as the CMB), leaving no atoms and therefore no galaxies, no stars, no planets and no life. Within the Standard Model of particle physics the most promising source of CP violation appears to be in the lepton sector, where it generates matter-antimatter asymmetry via a process known as leptogenesis. If, however, CP violation in the lepton sector will be experimentally determined to be too small to explain the matter-antimatter imbalance (as was the case with the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix in the quark sector), physics beyond the Standard Model would be required.

Non-Trivial Chemistry
For life to emerge, the universe requires nuclear fusion. Fusion not only powers the stars, but nucleosynthesis at the hot stellar centers also forges elements such as carbon, oxygen, iron and phosphorus, all of which are essential for life as we know it. In general, many of the elements in the Periodic Table participate in the complex chemistry required for the formation of planets and the evolution of their biospheres. To obtain the nuclear fusion reactions that lead to the creation of the Periodic Table requires a certain balance between the strength of the electromagnetic force (that repels two protons from each other) and the strong nuclear force (that attracts them). This balance, in our universe, where the strong nuclear force is about a hundred times stronger than the electromagnetic force, is responsible for the fact that we don’t have atomic numbers higher than 118. Had the ratio of the two interactions been much smaller, carbon and heavier elements could not have formed, but the necessary tuning is not excessive. Similarly, much has been written about Fred Hoyle’s prediction of the existence of a 7.65 MeV resonant level of 12C. However, while the prediction itself was indeed remarkable. The topic of chemistry actually allows us to examine a much more extreme counterfactual universe — a ‘Nuclear-Free Universe’ — in which hydrogen is the only element that exists. Surprisingly, on the large scale such a universe would not look much different from ours. Gravity would ensure that galaxies would still form, and even stars would shine (albeit generally for shorter times) by releasing their gravitational energy as they contract to form white dwarfs and black holes. Even Jupiter-like planets composed of solid hydrogen could exist. Of course no complexity or life of the types we are familiar with will emerge in such a universe.

JAY RICHARDS, PHD: List of Fine-Tuning Parameters 1
“Fine-tuning” refers to various features of the universe that are necessary conditions for the existence of complex life. Such features include the initial conditions and “brute facts” of the universe as a whole, the laws of nature or the numerical constants present in those laws (such as the gravitational force constant), and local features of habitable planets (such as a planet’s distance from its host star).

The basic idea is that these features must fall within a very narrow range of possible values for chemical-based life to be possible.

Some popular examples are subject to dispute. And there are some complicated philosophical debates about how to calculate probabilities. Nevertheless, there are many well-established examples of fine-tuning, which are widely accepted even by scientists who are generally hostile to theism and design. For instance, Stephen Hawking has admitted: “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers [the constants of physics] seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” (A Brief History of Time, p. 125) Here are the most celebrated and widely accepted examples of fine-tuning for the existence of life:

Cosmic Constants
Gravitational force constant: too weak, and planets and stars cannot form; too strong, and stars burn up too quickly
Electromagnetic force constant: If it were much stronger or weaker, we wouldn’t have stable chemical bonds.
Strong nuclear force constant: If it were weaker, the universe would have far fewer stable chemical elements, eliminating several that are essential to life.
Weak nuclear force constant:  If it were much stronger or weaker, life-essential stars could not form.
Cosmological constant: To get the right balance, the cosmological constant must be fine-tuned to something like 1 part in 10^120

Initial Conditions and “Brute Facts”
Initial distribution of mass-energy:  The odds of the initial low entropy state of our universe occurring by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10 10(123)
Ratio of masses for protons and electrons:   If it were slightly different, building blocks for life such as DNA could not be formed.
Velocity of light: If it were larger, stars would be too luminous. If it were smaller, stars would not be luminous enough.
Mass excess of neutron over proton:  if it were greater, there would be too few heavy elements for life. If it were smaller, stars would quickly collapse as neutron stars or black holes.

Local” Planetary Conditions
Steady plate tectonics with the right kind of geological interior: If the Earth’s crust were significantly thicker, plate tectonic recycling could not take place.
Right amount of water in the crust: (which provides the universal solvent for life)
Large moon with the right rotation period: In the case of the Earth, the gravitational pull of its moon stabilizes the angle of its axis at a nearly constant 23.5 degrees.
Proper concentration of sulfur: (which is necessary for important biological processes).
Right planetary-mass: If the Earth were smaller, its magnetic field would be weaker, allowing the solar wind to strip away our atmosphere, slowly transforming our planet into a dead, barren world.
Near the inner edge of the circumstellar habitable zone:  If the Earth were just 5% closer to the Sun, it would be subject to the same fate as Venus, a runaway greenhouse effect.
Low-eccentricity orbit outside spin-orbit and giant planet resonances: (which allows a planet to maintain a safe orbit over a long period of time).
A few, large Jupiter-mass planetary neighbors in large circular orbits: The Earth would be far more susceptible to collisions with devastating comets that would cause mass extinctions.
Outside spiral arm of the galaxy:  allows a planet to stay safely away from supernovae: enables a planet to avoid traversing dangerous parts of the galaxy.
Near co-rotation circle of the galaxy, in a circular orbit around galactic center: allows a planet to have access to heavy elements while being safely away from the dangerous galactic center
Within the galactic habitable zone: allows a planet to have access to heavy elements while being safely away from the dangerous galactic center
During the cosmic habitable age: when heavy elements and active stars exist without too high a concentration of dangerous radiation events

This is a very basic list of “ingredients” for building a single, habitable planet. At the moment, we have only rough probabilities for most of these items. For instance, we know that less than ten percent of stars even in the Milky Way Galaxy are within the galactic habitable zone. And the likelihood of getting just the right kind of moon by chance is almost certainly very low, though we have no way of calculating just how low. What we can say is that the vast majority of possible locations in the visible universe, even within otherwise habitable galaxies, are incompatible with life.

It’s important to distinguish this local “fine-tuning” is different from cosmic fine-tuning. With cosmic fine-tuning, we’re comparing the actual universe as a whole with other possible but non-actual universes. And though theorists sometimes postulate multiple universes to try to avoid the embarrassment of a fine-tuned universe, we have no direct evidence that other universes exist. When dealing with our local planetary environment, however, we’re comparing it with other known or theoretically possible locations within the actual universe. That means that, given a large enough universe, perhaps you could get these local conditions at least once just by chance (though it would be “chance” tightly constrained by cosmic fine-tuning).

So does that mean that evidence of local fine-tuning is useless for inferring design? No. Gonzalez and Richards argue that we can still discern a purposeful pattern in local fine-tuning. As it happens, the same cosmic and local conditions, which allow complex observers to exist, also provide the best setting, overall, for scientific discovery. So complex observers will find themselves in the best overall setting for observing. You would expect this if the universe were designed for discovery, but not otherwise. So the fine-tuning of physical constants, cosmic initial conditions, and local conditions for habitability, suggests that the universe is designed not only for complex life, but for scientific discovery as well.

Effects of Primary Fine-Tuning Parameters
There are a number of striking effects of fine-tuning “downstream” from basic physics that also illustrate just how profoundly fine-tuned our universe is. These “effects” should not be treated as independent parameters (see discussion below). Nevertheless, they do help illustrate the idea of fine-tuning. For instance:

The polarity of the water molecule makes it uniquely fit for life. If it were greater or smaller, its heat of diffusion and vaporization would make it unfit for life. This is the result of higher-level physical constants, and also of various features of subatomic particles.

What About All Those Other Parameters?
In discussing fine-tuned parameters, one can take either a maximal or a minimal approach.

Those who take the maximal approach seek to create as long a list as possible. For instance, one popular Christian apologist listed thirty-four different parameters in one of his early books, and maintains a growing list, which currently has ninety parameters. He also attaches exact probabilities to various “local” factors.

While a long (and growing) list sporting exact probabilities has rhetorical force, it also has a serious downside: many of the parameters in these lists are probably derived from other, more fundamental parameters, so they’re not really independent. The rate of supernova explosions, for instance, may simply be a function of some basic laws of nature, and not be a separate instance of fine-tuning. If you’re going to legitimately multiply the various parameters to get a low probability, you want to make sure you’re not “double booking,” that is, listing the same factor twice under different descriptions. Otherwise, the resulting probability will be inaccurate. Moreover, in many cases, we simply don’t know the exact probabilities.

To avoid these problems, others take a more conservative approach, and focus mainly on distinct, well-understood, and widely accepted examples of fine-tuning. This is the approach taken here. While there are certainly additional examples of fine-tuning, even this conservative approach provides more than enough cumulative evidence for design. After all, it is this evidence that has motivated materialists to construct many universe scenarios to avoid the implications of fine-tuning.


Cosmic Constants
1. Gravitational force constant
2. Electromagnetic force constant
3. Strong nuclear force constant
4. Weak nuclear force constant
5. Cosmological constant

Initial Conditions and “Brute Facts”
6. Initial distribution of mass energy
7. Ratio of masses for protons and electrons
8. Velocity of light
9. Mass excess of neutron over proton

Local” Planetary Conditions
10. Steady plate tectonics with right kind of geological interior
11. Right amount of water in crust
12. Large moon with right rotation period
13. Proper concentration of sulfur
14. Right planetary mass
15. Near inner edge of circumstellar habitable zone
16. Low-eccentricity orbit outside spin-orbit and giant planet resonances
17. A few, large Jupiter-mass planetary neighbors in large circular orbits
18. Outside spiral arm of galaxy
19. Near co-rotation circle of galaxy, in circular orbit around galactic center
20. Within the galactic habitable zone
21. During the cosmic habitable age

Evidence for Fine-Tuning 2
Thanks to impressive progress in both cosmology and (sub) nuclear physics, over the second half of the 20th Century it began to be realized that the above scenario is predicated on seemingly exquisite fine-tuning of some of the constants of Nature and initial conditions of the Universe. We just give some of the best known and best understood cases here.

One of the first examples was the ‘Beryllium bottleneck’ studied by Hoyle in 1951, which is concerned with the mechanism through which stars produce carbon and oxygen.11 This was not only a major correct scientific prediction based on ‘anthropic reasoning’ in the sense that some previously unknown physical effect (viz. the energy level in question) had to exist in order to explain some crucial condition for life; it involves dramatic fine-tuning, too, in that the nucleon-nucleon force must lie near its actual strength within about one part in a thousand in order to obtain the observed abundances of carbon and oxygen, which happen to be the right amounts needed for life .

Another well-understood example from nuclear physics is the mass difference between protons and neutrons, or, more precisely, between the down quark and the up quark. This mass difference is positive (making the neutron
heavier than the proton); if it weren’t, the proton would fall apart and there would be no chemistry as we know it. On the other hand, the difference can’t be too large, for otherwise stars (or hydrogen bombs, for that matter) could not be fueled by nuclear fusion and stars like our Sun would not exist. Both require a fine-tuning of the mass difference by about 10 %.

Moving from fundamental forces to initial conditions, the solar system seems fine-tuned for life in various ways, most notably in the distance between the Sun and the Earth: if this had been greater (or smaller) by at most a few precent it would have been too cold (or too hot) for at least complex life to develop. Furthermore, to that effect the solar system must remain stable for billions of years, and after the first billion years or so the Earth should not be hit by comets or asteroids too often. Both conditions are sensitive to the precise number and configuration of the planets.

Turning from the solar system to initial conditions of our Universe, but still staying safely within the realm of well-understood physics and cosmology, Rees and others have drawn attention to the fine-tuning of another cosmological number called Q, which gives the size of inhomogeneities, or ‘ripples’, in the early Universe and is of the order Q * 0.00001, or one part in a hundred thousand. This parameter is fine-tuned by a factor of about ten on both sides: if it had been less than a tenth of its current value, then no galaxies would have been formed (and hence no stars and planets). If, on the other hand, it had been more than ten times its actual value, then matter would have been too lumpy, so that there wouldn’t be any stars (and planets) either, but only black holes. Either way, a key condition for life would be violated.

The expansion of the Universe is controlled by a number called Ω, defined as the ratio between the actual matter density in the Universe and the so-called critical density. If Ω ≤ 1, then the Universe would expand forever, whereas Ω > 1 would portend a recollapse. Thus Ω = 1 is a critical point. It is remarkable enough that currently Ω ≈ 1 (within a few percent); what is astonishing is that this is the case at such a high age of the Universe. Namely, for Ω to retain its (almost) critical value for billions of years, it must have had this value right from the very beginning to a precision of at least 55 decimal places.This leads us straight to Einstein’s cosmological constant Λ, which he introduced into his theory of gravity in 1917 in order to (at least theoretically) stabilize the Universe against contracting or expanding, to subsequently delete it in 1929 after Hubble’s landmark observation of the expansion of the Universe (famously calling its introduction his “biggest blunder”). Ironically, Λ made a come-back in 1998 as the leading theoretical explanation of the (empirical) discovery that the expansion of the Universe is currently accelerating. For us, the point is that even the currently accepted value of Λ remains very close to zero, whereas according to (quantum field) theory it should be about 55 (some even say 120) orders of magnitude larger. This is often seen as a fine-tuning problem, because some compensating mechanism must be at work to cancel its very large natural value with a precision of (once again) 55 decimal places. The fine-tuning of all numbers considered so far seems to be dwarfed by a knock-down FTA given by Roger Penrose, who claims that in order to produce a Universe that even very roughly looks like ours, its initial conditions (among some generic set) must have been fine-tuned with a precision of one to 10^123 , arguably the largest number ever conceived: all atoms in the Universe would not suffice to write it out in full. Penrose’s argument is an extreme version of an idea originally due to Boltzmann, who near the end of the 19th Century argued that the direction of time is a consequence of the increase of entropy in the future but not in the past, which requires an extremely unlikely initial state. However, this kind of reasoning is as brilliant as it is controversial. More generally, the more extreme the asserted fine-tuning is, the more adventurous the underlying arguments are (or so we think). To be on the safe side, the fine-tuning of Ω, Λ, and Penrose’s initial condition should perhaps be ignored, leaving us with the other examples. But these should certainly suffice to make a case for fine-tuning that is serious enough to urge the reader to at least make a bet on one the five options listed above.

Forbes : The Universe Really Is Fine-Tuned, And Our Existence Is The Proof 3
A Universe with too much matter-and-energy for its expansion rate would have recollapsed in short order; a Universe with too little would have expanded into oblivion before it would have been possible even to form atoms.
The Universe's initial expansion rate and the sum total of all the different forms of matter and energy in the Universe not only need to balance, but they need to balance to more than 20 significant digits.  The odds of this occurring naturally, if we consider all the random possibilities we could have imagined, are astronomically small.  If things were slightly different from how they actually are, we wouldn't exist.
The fact that the Universe has a perfect balance in an extraordinary precision between the expansion rate and the energy density today is evidence that it is finely tuned. 
One option — the worst option, if you ask me — is to claim that there are a near-infinite number of possible outcomes, and a near-infinite number of possible Universes that contain those outcomes. Only in those Universes where our existence is possible can we exist, and therefore it's not surprising that we exist in a Universe that has the properties that we observe. If you read that and your reaction was, "what kind of circular reasoning is that," congratulations. You're someone who won't be suckered in by arguments based on the anthropic principle.

1. Either we are the product of a fortuitous extremely unlikely accident, or the product of an intelligent agent with foresight, which knew beforehand how to fine tune the laws of nature, the constants of physics, and the initial conditions of the universe.
2. Fine-tuning is extremely unlikely due to the selection amongst an infinite pool of options.
3. Therefore, it is most probably due to an unimaginably brilliant and infinitely intelligent, powerful creator which did set up the universe in the most precise exact fashion to permit life on earth.

When you take stock of what's in the Universe on the largest scales, only one force matters: gravitation. While the nuclear and electromagnetic forces that exist between particles are many, many orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force, they cannot compete on the largest cosmic scales. The Universe is electrically neutral, with one electron to cancel out the charge of every proton in the Universe, and the nuclear forces are extremely short-range, failing to extend beyond the scale of an atomic nucleus.

When it comes to the Universe as a whole, only gravitation matters. The Universe expands at the rate it does throughout its history — and not at a different one — for two reasons alone: our laws of gravity and all the forms of energy that exist in the Universe. If things were slightly different from how they actually are, we wouldn't exist.

Imagine that you came upon a thin, tall, rocky spire here on planet Earth. If you were to place another large rock atop this spire, you would expect it would topple over and either fall or roll down one side, coming to rest down in the valley below. It would be unrealistic to expect the rock would remain perfectly balanced in the configuration where a heavy, massive object remained in a precariously balanced state.

When we do encounter this unexpected kind of balance, we call it a system in unstable equilibrium. Sure, it would be far more energetically favorable to find the heavy mass at the bottom of the valley rather than at the top of the spire. But every once in a while, nature surprises us. When we do find the proverbial boulder balanced in unstable equilibrium, we talk about there being a fine-tuning problem.

Fine-tuning is an easy concept to understand in principle. Imagine that I asked to you pick a number between 1 and 1,000,000. You could choose anything you want, so go ahead, do it.

Pick a number between 1 and 1,000,000: any number that you choose.

I'll go ahead and do the same.

There; I've got mine and you've got yours.

Now, before I reveal my number to you and you reveal your number to me, let me tell you what we're going to do. We're going to take my number, once we reveal it, and we're going to subtract it from your number. Then, we're going to compare what we get with what we actually expect, and this is going to teach us about fine-tuning.

My number was 651,229. When you subtract it from your number, whatever it is, here are some things that we expect.

There's a very good chance that the difference will yield a 6-digit number.
There's a better-than-average chance that the difference will yield a negative number, but around a 1-in-3 chance we get a positive number.
There's only a very, very small chance that the difference will be a 3-digit number or fewer.
And if our numbers match exactly, it's very, very likely that there's a good reason, such as you have psychic powers, you've read this article before, or you peeked and knew my number beforehand.
If the difference between these two numbers is very, very small compared to the numbers themselves, that's an example of fine-tuning. It could be a rare, random, and unlikely coincidence, but your initial suspicion would be that there's some underlying reason why this occurred.

If we come back to the expanding Universe, that's the situation we find ourselves in: the Universe appears to be enormously fine-tuned.

On the one hand, we have the expansion rate that the Universe had initially, close to the Big Bang. On the other hand, we have the sum total of all the forms of matter and energy that existed at that early time as well, including:

radiation,
neutrinos,
normal matter,
dark matter,
antimatter,
and dark energy.

Einstein's General theory of Relativity gives us an intricate relationship between the expansion rate and the sum total of all the different forms of energy in it. If you know what your Universe is made of and how quickly it starts expanding initially, you can predict how it will evolve with time, including what its fate will be.

Fine tuning of the Universe Https_13

A Universe with too much matter-and-energy for its expansion rate will recollapse in short order; a Universe with too little will expand into oblivion before it's possible to even form atoms. Yet not only has our Universe neither recollapsed nor failed to yield atoms, but even today, some 13.8 billion years after the Big Bang, those two sides of the equation appear to be perfectly in balance.

If we extrapolate this back to a very early time — say, one nanosecond after the hot Big Bang — we find that not only do these two sides have to balance, but they have to balance to an extraordinary precision. The Universe's initial expansion rate and the sum total of all the different forms of matter and energy in the Universe not only need to balance, but they need to balance to more than 20 significant digits. It's like guessing the same 1-to-1,000,000 number as me three times in a row, and then predicting the outcome of 16 consecutive coin-flips immediately afterwards.

Fine tuning of the Universe Https_12

The odds of this occurring naturally, if we consider all the random possibilities we could have imagined, are astronomically small.

It's possible, of course, that the Universe really was born this way: with a perfect balance between all the stuff in it and the initial expansion rate. It's possible that we see the Universe the way we see it today because this balance has always existed.

But if that's the case, we'd hate to simply take that assumption at face value. In science, when faced with a coincidence that we cannot easily explain, the idea that we can blame it on the initial conditions of our physical system is akin to giving up on science. It's far better, from a scientific point of view, to attempt to come up with a reason for why this coincidence might occur.

One option — the worst option, if you ask me — is to claim that there are a near-infinite number of possible outcomes, and a near-infinite number of possible Universes that contain those outcomes. Only in those Universes where our existence is possible can we exist, and therefore it's not surprising that we exist in a Universe that has the properties that we observe.

If you read that and your reaction was, "what kind of circular reasoning is that," congratulations. You're someone who won't be suckered in by arguments based on the anthropic principle. It might be true that the Universe could have been any way at all and that we live in one where things are the way they are (and not some other way), but that doesn't give us anything scientific to work with. Instead, it's arguable that resorting to anthropic reasoning means we've already given up on a scientific solution to the puzzle.

However, a good scientific argument would do the following things.

It would provide a mechanism for creating these conditions that appear to be finely tuned to us.
That mechanism would also make additional predictions that differ from, and are testable against, the predictions that arise from not having that mechanism present.
That second condition is what separates a non-scientific argument from a scientific one. If all you can do is appeal to the initial conditions of a problem, you'll have no way of testing whether your scenario any further. Other Universes might exist, but if we cannot observe them and determine whether they have the same initial conditions that our Universe has or not, there's no scientific merit there.

On the other hand, if some pre-existing phase of the Universe created these initial conditions while also making additional predictions, we'd have something of enormous scientific importance.

In the case of the energy balance of the Universe, where the expansion rate appears to match up with the total energy density perfectly, an idea like cosmic inflation is the perfect theoretical candidate. Inflation would stretch the Universe flat, yielding an energy density that matched the expansion rate, and then when inflation ended, the Big Bang's initial conditions would be set up. In addition, inflation also makes additional predictions that could be experimentally or observationally measured, putting the scenario to the rigorous scientific test we require.

Whenever we run into an unexplained phenomenon, where two seemingly unrelated physical quantities match up either perfectly or almost perfectly, it's our duty to seek out an explanation. Perhaps the outcome truly is a coincidence, but that should only be a conclusion we reach if we cannot find any other scientific explanation. The key is to tease out novel and unique predictions that can be put to the experimental or observational test; without it, our attempts at theorizing will remain divorced from reality.

The fact that our Universe has such a perfect balance between the expansion rate and the energy density — today, yesterday, and billions of years ago — is a clue that our Universe really is finely tuned. With robust predictions about the spectrum, entropy, temperature, and other properties concerning the density fluctuations that arise in inflationary scenarios, and the verification found in the Cosmic Microwave Background and the Universe's large-scale structure, we even have a viable solution. Further tests will determine whether our best conclusion at present truly provides the ultimate answer, but we cannot just wave the problem away. The Universe really is finely tuned, and our existence is all the proof we need.

Fine tuning of the Universe Https_14




Fred C. Adams: The Degree of Fine-Tuning in our Universe – and Others 11 Feb 2019 4

Both the fundamental constants that describe the laws of physics and the cosmological parameters that determine the properties of our universe must fall within a range of values in order for the cosmos to develop astrophysical structures and ultimately support life. The standard model of particle physics contains both coupling constants (α, αs , αw) and particle masses (mu, md, me), and there are allowed ranges. We then consider cosmological parameters, including the total energy density of the universe (Ω), the contribution from vacuum energy (ρΛ), the baryon-to-photon ratio (η), the dark matter contribution (δ), and the amplitude of primordial density fluctuations (Q). These quantities are constrained by the requirements that the universe emerges from the epoch of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis with an acceptable chemical composition, and can successfully produce large-scale structures such as galaxies. On smaller scales, stars and planets must be able to form and function. The stars must have high enough surface temperatures, and have smaller masses than their host galaxies. The planets must be massive enough to hold onto an atmosphere, and contain enough particles to support a biosphere of sufficient complexity. These requirements place constraints on the gravitational structure constant (αG), the fine structure constant (α), and composite parameters (C?) that specify nuclear reaction rates. We then consider specific instances of possible fine-tuning in stellar nucleosynthesis, including the triple-alpha reaction that produces carbon, the case of unstable deuterium, and the possibility of stable diprotons.

The laws of physics in our universe support the development and operations of biology — and hence observers — which in turn require the existence of a range of astrophysical structures. The cosmos synthesizes light nuclei during its early history and later produces a wide variety of stars, which forge the remaining entries of the periodic table. On larger scales, galaxies condense out of the expanding universe and provide deep gravitational potential wells that collect and organize the necessary ingredients. On smaller scales, planets form alongside their host stars and provide suitable environments for the genesis and maintenance of life. Within our universe, the laws of physics have the proper form to support all of these building blocks that are needed for observers to arise. However, a large and growing body of research has argued that relatively small changes in the laws of physics could render the universe incapable of supporting life. In other words, the universe could be fine-tuned for the development of complexity. The overarching goal of this contribution is to review the current arguments concerning the possible fine-tuning of the universe and make a quantitative assessment of its severity. 

1) No hydrogen would form
2) No elements heavier than hydrogen would form
3) Atoms would be unstable
4) Too much hydrogen would have converted to helium
5) Too little helium would have been produced
6) Stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements
7) Stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements
8 )Stars would be too hot and burn too rapidly
9) Stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion
10) Chemical bonding would be disrupted
11) Elements more massive than boron would be unstable
12) Chemical bonding would be insufficient for life
13) Stars would be at least 40%-80% more massive than the sun
14) Stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven
15) Stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun
16) Stars would be incapable of producing heavy elements
17) Electromagnetism would dominate gravity
18) No galaxies, stars or planets would form
19) Universe would collapse
20) Stars would not form within proto-galaxies
21) No proto-galaxies would form
22) Overabundance of deuterium would cause stars to burn rapidly
23) Insufficient helium would result in a shortage of heavy elements
24) Stars would be too luminous for life support
25) Stars would be insufficiently luminous for life
26) Stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
27) Universe would be mostly black holes and empty space
28) Gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
29) Galaxy collisions & mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
30) Heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
31) Planetary orbits would be unstable
32) Matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
33) Life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
34) Universe would contain insufficient matter for life
35) Universe would contain insufficient carbon AND oxygen for life
36) Heavy element fusion would cause catastrophic explosions
37) No element heavier than beryllium would form

Extreme hierarchies are required for any universe to be viable.

Lynn Picknett: THE FORBIDDEN UNIVERSE  page 134:

Scientific cosmology has amassed a great deal of evidence about the nature of the universe that has seriously jolted the complacency of determined rationalists. The new data reveals a universe that is not merely the result of the blind workings of the immutable laws of physics. This universe emerges as being deliberately designed for a purpose in which intelligent life plays a crucial, if not the crucial, role. The road to this point began back in the late 1970s when a paper appeared in the respected journal Nature, sending strong ripples through the scientific community worldwide. This was entitled ‘The Anthropic Principle and the Structure of the Physical World’ and was written by British physicists Bernard Carr and Martin Rees. Based on the evidence of seven decades, the authors reflected on an unsettling pattern that was emerging from the accumulated discoveries of science: to an uncanny degree, the laws of physics seem to have been ‘fine tuned’ to allow the development of intelligent life. Carr is now Professor of Mathematics and Astronomy at the University of London and, unusually for today, a member – and former president – of the Society for Psychical Research. Rees is the Astronomer Royal, Baron Lees of Ludlow, and since 2005, President of the Royal Society. The passage of time has done nothing to sway the authors of the paper from their original conclusions. Carr was still saying in 2008 that judging by the fine-tuning, ‘the universe is designed for intelligence’. 1 He is not alone. Leading cosmologists John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler similarly declared that:

there exist a number of unlikely coincidences between numbers of enormous magnitude that are, superficially, completely independent; moreover, these coincidences appear essential to the existence of carbon-based observers in the Universe.

Carr and Rees adopted British cosmologist Brandon Carter’s term, first used in the 1960s of ‘anthropic [man-centered] principle’ to define the situation their paper examines. Carter mused about what the universe would be like if the laws of physics were different, and realized that for almost every variation, the universe they produced would be incapable of supporting life. But he later regretted ‘anthropic’, which refers only to humans; he had meant that the universe seems fine-tuned for intelligent life in general. Of course, the notion that the universe was ‘designed’ for anything, let alone us, is unconscionable to the vast majority of scientists, since it contradicts the very basis of their discipline. Not only does it reintroduce the notion of a creator god but also the idea that the human species has some special relationship with Him/Her/It. As leading theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind remarked: 

This idea is, of course, anathema to physicists, who see the existence of themselves as an accidental property of a universe determined by mathematical principles, to be discovered by disinterested analysis.

One can hardly imagine a more nihilistic worldview than that expressed by another theoretical physicist and Nobel Prize-winner, Steven Weinberg: ‘The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.’  Of course, Carr and Rees were emphatically not claiming that they had found scientific evidence for the existence of God. They were highlighting a question that science had largely avoided, having only been explored by a handful such as Carter, and then only tentatively. The anthropic principle merely makes the observation that life could never have arisen except under very specific conditions, and does not necessarily propose that they were put in place in order to produce life. The assumption behind Carr and Rees’ paper was that what looks like design is really an illusion based on our human-centered perception of the cosmos: if the laws of physics were any different there would be no life to ponder this question in the first place. After all, just because we live on a habitable planet, it doesn’t mean that the planet was created especially for us. But they admitted that the odds were far too high to dismiss all the examples of apparent fine-tuning as coincidence. Some other, unknown, factor had to explain the illusion. As they concluded after surveying the many conditions that seemed so convincingly contrived: 

One day, we may have a more physical explanation for some of the relationships discussed here that now seem genuine coincidences … However, even if all apparently anthropic coincidences could be explained … it would still be remarkable that the relationships dictated by physical theory happened also to be those propitious for life.


Perhaps this situation can be explained using the analogy of a lottery: if we win, we might ascribe our success to our skill in picking the numbers or believe we were somehow ‘meant’ to win, but in fact our triumph would be entirely due to chance. Much the same, the anthropic principle shows that the odds seem to have been stacked in life’s favour, as if after scooping the jackpot we found that only our own numbers had been put into the machine. Although the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that the rigging of the universal lottery machine can be explained purely in terms of an illusion – the ‘weak anthropic principle’ – there are some who ascribe to the ‘strong anthropic principle’, which stipulates that the universe is the way it is specifically to give rise to intelligent life. Among them is Freeman Dyson, the British-born American theoretical physicist, who wrote in 1979:

 The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some way must have known we were coming. There are striking examples in the laws of nuclear physics of numerical accidents that seem to conspire to make the universe habitable. 



‘A MONSTROUS SEQUENCE OF ACCIDENTS’ In fact, the apparent fine-tuning of the universe involves so many factors that it is not merely the equivalent of winning the lottery once. This is scooping the jackpot week after week for several years.


One of the first to be intrigued by Brandon Carter’s anthropic principle was British cosmologist Paul Davies – that rare animal, both a highly regarded academic and a successful popular science writer. He has continued to explore the implications and mysteries of the anthropic principle, most famously in God and the New Physics (1983) and The Mind of God (1992), and most recently in The Goldilocks Enigma (2006) – the title referring to the conditions in the universe that are, like Goldilocks’ porridge, ‘just right’ for life. Davies points out that life has three main requisites: 

‘stable complex structures’ in the universe (galaxies, stars and planets rather than clouds of gas or vast numbers of black holes); certain chemical elements (for example carbon, oxygen); and a place where the components can come together (for example the surface of a planet). Of course our universe has all of these components, but each requires such fortuitous circumstances to exist that ours is, as Davies puts it, apparently a ‘designer universe’. 

 The universe as it is today is, of course, the result of how it was in the beginning. Had conditions been different then, it would be different now – and almost certainly hostile to the development of life. According to today’s thinking, the universe began 13.7 billion years ago with the ‘big bang’. (Ironically the term was invented by the sceptical Hoyle, but only as a put-down. Then to compound the irony, his team found some of the best supporting evidence for it.) The big bang had to be within a certain range of size and explosive potential to produce our universe. If it had been bigger or bangier, it would have expanded too quickly for galaxies to form. If it had been smaller or less bangy, gravity would have pulled the universe back into itself well before life could have evolved. For a time after the big bang the expanding universe was too hot to be anything other than a dense, incandescent plasma composed of subatomic particles like protons, neutrons and electrons. As it expanded further it cooled, so that – an estimated 380,000 years after the big bang – the particles could fuse to form the simplest elements, hydrogen and helium. Those two elements make up about 99 percent of matter in the universe. But if the relative masses of protons, electrons and neutrons were only minutely different, not a single hydrogen atom could form. It seems we must boldly go well beyond the frontiers of coincidence to begin to understand the way our universe was created, and how it continues to work. Attracted by the gravity of individual atoms, clouds of hydrogen and helium clump together, clumping faster and faster as they grow. The smaller the clumps, the hotter they become, until they are hot enough to kick-start nuclear reactions – and it is at this stage that a star is born, whose deadly beauty masks its true self, a gigantic fusion reactor. Acting as unimaginably massive factories that manufacture more complex elements from hydrogen and helium, stars then disperse these into space where they explode as supernovae. Every atom in every molecule, including those that make us up, was born in a star light years away, millions or billions of years ago, making even the tiniest newborn in some respects old beyond imagining. As the legendary American theoretical physicist, Richard P. Feynman observed, ‘the stars are of the same stuff as ourselves’.  And as Paul Davies comments:

The life cycle of stars provide just one example of the ingenious and seemingly contrived way in which the large-scale and small-scale aspects of physics are closely intertwined to produce complex variety in nature


In the mid-1990s this happy state of affairs suffered a major jolt, as independent research based on new, more accurate data from sources such as the Hubble Space Telescope showed that the rate of expansion is, in fact, speeding up. This means that the vacuum energy has a slight positive value, not all of which is cancelled out by the negative. It is only a tiny imbalance: calculations showed that the positive energy value is 10 120 times (that’s 119 zeroes after the decimal point before you even get to the 1) less than the total positive energy in the vacuum. In other words, the negative energy cancels out all the positive – apart from a minute portion. Learned jaws were on the ground yet again when it was realized that if that value was just one decimal place shorter – that is, the actual positive energy was 10 119 times less than the total (or 118 zeroes after the decimal point and before the 1) – then the universe as we know it simply couldn’t exist. It would expand too quickly for galaxies, stars or planets to form. Referring to this as the ‘biggest fix in the universe’, Davies points out that this tiny difference – a point between the 119 th and 120 th decimal place – is the thinness of the knife edge on which all life is balanced. 14 In answer to the dilemma posed by this ‘staggeringly precise’ balancing of the vacuum energy, Leonard Susskind writes: 

‘This seems like an absurd accident and we have no idea why it should happen. There is no fine-tuning quite like this in the rest of physics.’ 

 However, while acknowledging that there is no viable alternative to an ‘anthropic explanation’, Susskind does not imply the existence of a ‘grand designer’. For him this phenomenon can only be explained by whatever is behind the anthropic effect as a whole, which to the conventional scientist means the illusion of design. For Susskind, however, as for many scientists, there is only one solution to the conundrum: the marvelous and all-encompassing notion of ‘multiverse’.

Lee Smolin: The Life of the Cosmos (1999),

Fine-tuning of the parameters to get stars and life
Physicists are constantly talking about how simple nature is. Indeed, the laws of nature are very simple, and as we come to understand them better they are getting simpler. But, in fact, nature is not simple. To see this, all we need to do is to compare our actual universe to an imagined one that really is simple. Imagine, for example, a homogeneous gas of neutrons, filling the universe at some constant temperature and density. That would be simple. Compared to that possibility, our universe is extraordinarily complex and varied! Now, what is really interesting about this situation is that while the laws of nature are simple, there is a clear sense in which we can say that these laws are also characterized by a lot of variety. There are only four fundamental forces, but they differ dramatically in their ranges and interaction strengths. Most things in the world are made of only four stable particles: protons, neutrons, electrons and neutrinos; but they have a very large range of masses, and each interacts with a different mix of the four forces. The simple observation we have made here is that the variety we see in the universe around us is to a great extent a consequence of this variety in the fundamental forces and particles. That is to say, the mystery of why there is such variety in the laws of physics, is essentially tied to the question of why the laws of physics allow such a variety of structures in the universe.

If we are to genuinely understand our universe, these relations, between the structures on large scales and the elementary particles, must be understood as being something other than coincidence. We must understand how it came to be that the parameters that govern the elementary particles and their interactions are tuned and balanced in such a way that a universe of such variety and complexity arises. Of course, one possibility is that this is just a coincidence. Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229. To illustrate how truly ridiculous this number is, we might note that the part of the universe we can see from earth contains about 10^22 stars which together contain about 10^80 protons and neutrons. These numbers are gigantic, but they are infinitesimal compared to 10^229. In my opinion, a probability this tiny is not something we can let go unexplained. Luck will certainly not do here; we need some rational explanation of how something this unlikely turned out to be the case.

I know of three directions in which we might search for the reason why the parameters are tuned to such unlikely values. The first is towards some version of the anthropic principle.

One may say that one believes that there is a god who created the world in this way, so there would arise rational creatures who would love him. We may even imagine that he prefers our love of him to be a rational choice made after we understand how unlikely our own existence is. While there is little I can say against religious faith, one must recognize that this is mysticism, in the sense that it makes the answers to scientific questions dependent on faith.

A different form of the anthropic principle begins with the hypothesis that there are a very large number of universes. In each, the parameters are chosen randomly. If there are at least 10229 of them then it becomes probable that at least one of them will by chance contain stars. The problem with this is that it makes it possible to explain almost anything, for among the universes one can find most of the other equally unlikely possibilities. To argue this way is not to reason, it is simply to give up looking for a rational explanation.

1. https://intelligentdesign.org/articles/list-of-fine-tuning-parameters/
2. The Challenge of Chance A Multidisciplinary Approach from Science and the Humanities
3. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/19/the-universe-really-is-fine-tuned-and-our-existence-is-the-proof/?sh=1e0d17994b87&fbclid=IwAR3enAn2gJUNJk4lKDAx0_YvSZnHBeJD1uiXnWB_Fh7dYxxHPXYE45ck8Mc
4. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.03928.pdf



Last edited by Otangelo on Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:55 pm; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

13Fine tuning of the Universe Empty Re: Fine tuning of the Universe Mon Jun 14, 2021 2:30 pm

Otangelo


Admin

The standard model of physics contains around 26 constant paramenters and changing most of these by even the smallest amount can result in changes to chemistry, nuclear physics and space itself that would cause life to be impossible. Why it is that particular forces have the strengths that they do is a deep and fascinating mystery.
http://www.bretthall.org/fine-structure.html

The expansion rate of the universe: 1 part in 10^55
The chance to get a finely tuned universe with stars: 10^229
The electromagnetic radiation of the sun is restricted to a tiny region of the total electromagnetic spectrum, equivalent to one of 10^25, and that is the region precisely required for life.
The odds against a successful unguided synthesis of a batch of primed nucleotide on the primitive Earth: 10^10^9
The odds to specify just ONE life-essential protein like Helicase by chance: 1 to 10^1300
The odds to specify the right amino acid sequence for a minimal Cell: 560 proteins x average 400 amino acids each:  224.000 amino acids. The odds: 10^378.000 !!

Estimate of number of grains of sand on earth: 7.5 x 10^18 grains of sand
How Many Stars Are In The Universe? 10^24
How Many Atoms Are There in the Universe? 10^82 atoms in the known, observable universe.

Life emerged either by a freaky lucky accident or the creative act of a super intelligent, powerful designer. Based on the knowledge of how minutely small the probability is, that a life-permitting universe and life arose by unguided occurrences, we can infer creation as the better alternative.

The following gives a sense of the degree of fine-tuning that must go into some of these values to yield a life-friendly universe:
The expansion rate of the universe: 1 part in 10^55
Initial entropy:  1 part in 10^ (10^123)
Gravitational constant: 1 part in 10^34
Electromagnetic force versus force of gravity: 1 part in 10^37
Cosmological constant: 1 part in 10^123
The mass density of the universe:  1 part in 10^59
The chance to get a universe with stars is 10^229
The chance to get the force of gravity just right for life to exist is 1 out of 10^21
The chance to get the strong nuclear force  just right for life to exist is 1 out of 10^21

A few examples of this fine-tuning:
http://www.discovery.org/a/91
1. If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 1060, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. [See Davies, 1982, pp. 90-91. (As John Jefferson Davis points out (p. 140), an accuracy of one part in 10^60 can be compared to firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target.)
2. Calculations indicate that if the strong nuclear force, the force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom, had been stronger or weaker by as little as 5%, life would be impossible. (Leslie, 1989, pp. 4, 35; Barrow and Tipler, p. 322.)
3. Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible. (Davies, 1984, p. 242.)
4. If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and thus life would not be possible. (Leslie, 1989, pp. 39-40 )
5. If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, life would be impossible, for a variety of different reasons. (Leslie, 1988, p. 299.)


Barnes: Beginning in the 1970’s, a number of physicists have noticed the extreme sensitivity of the life-permitting qualities of our universe to the values of many of the physical constants and cosmological parameters of our universe. Seemingly small changes in the free parameters of the laws of nature as we know them have dramatic, uncompensated and detrimental effects on the ability of the universe to support the complexity needed by physical life forms.

Along with atheists generally, Krauss uses the Anthropic Principle to explain away the extraordinarily unlikely precise values of the many finely-tuned parameters like those listed above, including the one in 10,000 decillion odds against us having a virtually perfect one-to-one electron-to-proton ratio.

The number of electrons (in the universe) is equivalent to the number of protons to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the 37th power. If it were not so, galaxies, stars, and planets would never form (because electromagnetic forces would so overwhelm gravitational forces). So what does one part in 10 to the 37th power look like? Ross asks us to imagine the entire North American continent covered in dimes, and that continent-wide pile of dimes reaching all the way to the moon. Now, consider a million such continent-wide, to-the-moon-high stacks of dimes, and among all those dimes a single one painted red. One part in 10 to the 37th power is like a blind-folded person successfully selecting that one red dime on the first try!

And the ratio of electrons to protons is just one of more than 93 characteristics of the universe (so far documented) that exhibit extreme fine-tuning for life. 1

They make the philosophical argument that it is not surprising that the universe has all the necessary fine-tuning for life, for otherwise, we wouldn't be here to notice. In this way, they deflect attention onto the observer and away from the very design of the universe that they are pretending to explain. Meanwhile, Stephen Hawking admits, while faithfully adhering to the anthropic doctrine, "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars either would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium or else they would not have exploded [as beautiful supernovas]" (Hawking, Brief History of Time, p. 129). And in Hawking's book, The Grand Design, he quotes a famed astronomer, "[Fred] Hoyle wrote, 'I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce...'" with Hawking adding, "At the time no one knew enough nuclear physics to understand the magnitude of the serendipity that resulted in these exact physical laws" (p. 159).

The universe is finely tuned to permit life on our planet. Over 120 fine tune constants are known up to date, and as more time pasts, more are discovered. This might be due to chance, to physical need, or to design. Chance is a very bad explanation. Some advocate a Multiverse. But to have just one life-permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done. That's a 1 with 500 zeros. If we put it in comparison, that in our universe, there exist around 10^80 atoms, this shows how improbable it is, that a Multiverse could explain fine tuning. Besides this, the Multiverse argument does not explain away God. A mechanism needs to be in place to trigger these multiverses. It could not be by physical need, since if so, why are there many planets, which are not life permitting, but our is? So it's best explained by design. Our earth/solar/moon system is a very strong evidence. Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. It's also the only location, which aloud us to explore the universe, In the other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds. The earth has the right distance from the sun and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozone protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids, avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earth magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth, and more over 70 different parameters must be just right. To believe, all these are just right by chance, needs a big leap of faith. This is indeed maybe the strongest argument for theism.

Estimate of number of grains of sand on earth: 7.5 x 10^18 grains of sand
How Many Stars Are In The Universe? 10^24
How Many Atoms Are There in the Universe? 10^82 atoms in the known, observable universe.

Getting Metaphysical
At this conference, George Ellis has invited us to think about not only cosmology with a small ‘c’, defined as the the physics of the universe on large scales, but also Cosmology with a capital ‘C’, which asks the great questions of existence, meaning and purpose that are raised by physical cosmology. Nothing in our formalism assumes that T is a physical theory. Indeed, if there is a final, ultimate physical theory of nature F, then whatever we think about that theory will have to be deeper than physics, so to speak. 

The gravitational force is an unimaginable thirty-nine order of magnitude smaller than the nuclear force.  If it was a mere (in comparison) trillion times larger than it is now, then the universe would be far smaller than it is now.  The average star would have a mass a trillion times smaller than our sun and the lifespan of about a year.  Far too short for life to develop in any meaningful way if at all.  If the force of gravity had been any less powerful, the universe would not be able to hold itself together (and therefore never would have formed at all).
The other forces are no less essential and precariously positioned in their values.  If the strong force had been slightly weaker, the only substance that would be stable would be hydrogen.  No other atoms could exist.

As Paul Davies in his Accidental Universe summarizes it:
The numerical values that nature has assigned to the fundamental constants, such as the charge on the electron, the mass of the proton, and the Newtonian gravitational constant, may be mysterious, but they are crucially relevant to the structure of the universe that we perceive. . . . Had nature opted for a slightly different set of numbers, the world would be a very different place.  Probably we would not be here to see it. .And when one goes on to study cosmology – the overall structure and evolution of the universe – incredulity mounts.  Recent discoveries about the primeval cosmos oblige us to accept that the expanding universe has been set up in its motion with a cooperation of astonishing precision.

Paul Davies
“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics".

To see the problem, imagine playing God with the cosmos. Before you are a designer machine that lets you tinker with the basics of physics. Twiddle this knob and you make all electrons a bit lighter, twiddle that one and you make gravity a bit stronger, and so on. It happens that you need to set thirtysomething knobs to fully describe the world about us. The crucial point is that some of those metaphorical knobs must be tuned very precisely, or the universe would be sterile.

Example: neutrons are just a tad heavier than protons. If it were the other way around, atoms couldn't exist, because all the protons in the universe would have decayed into neutrons shortly after the big bang. No protons, then no atomic nucleuses and no atoms. No atoms, no chemistry, no life. Like Baby Bear's porridge in the story of Goldilocks, the universe seems to be just right for life.”

The Big Picture
In order for this article to be concise enough, it will suffice to say that am I excluding the names and explanations of several ratios, constants, forces, biological and chemical interactions etc. that need to be precisely the way they are to allow human life.  I will gradually get into many of these fine-tuned phenomena.
Taking into account the many phenomena that need to be precisely the way they are, and considering the possible range of values they COULD HAVE, the probability of fine-tuning for human life has been conservatively estimated to be at least one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion.  That would be a ten followed by fifty-three zeroes. If you were to randomly throw a dart at some part of the Earth, that would be like hitting a bullseye that’s less than one trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter.  That’s less than the size of a single atom.  It’s unbelievably precise, and the universe NEEDS this precision in order for human life to be possible.  Chance cannot begin to explain this precision, it’s like throwing darts an atom.  Only Intelligence explains this precision.

The laws and constants of nature are so “finely-tuned,” and so many “coincidences” have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence.

Hoyle :
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. Adds Dr. David D. Deutch: If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely.

Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half-life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg’s wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:
One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning — The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.
This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,
but instead:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,
there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:
the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.

http://www.saintsandsceptics.org/evidence-for-god-design-part-2-fine-tuning-of-the-cosmos/

These are the facts relating to fine-tuning; how are they to be explained?[1] According to the design argument, the best explanation is that the universe is the product of a rational mind. The basic motivation for design can be expressed as follows. We consider a range of possible values for these features of the universe and then ask why they happen to have values lying in the very precise region suitable for life. From an atheistic perspective, there seems to be no reason for this whatsoever. That is, given only atheism and our current scientific knowledge we would have no reason to expect the values of these features to be in the life-permitting range.

By contrast, theism provides a very neat explanation. Fine-tuning is a very precise example of the sort of order we’d expect to find in a universe created by God. We pointed out in Part 1 that God would have reason to bring about valuable things, like a community of embodied moral agents. In light of this, we’d have reason to expect God to create a universe that is fine-tuned with values in the life-permitting range. In other words, fine-tuning is the sort of thing we’d expect in a theistic universe, but not at all what we’d expect in an atheistic universe. As such, it provides strong evidence in favor of the existence of God.

Dr. Walter L. Bradley Needs Statement for a Suitable Universe
https://web.archive.org/web/20110805203154/http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html
An abbreviated list of requirements for a universe suitable to support life of any imaginable type must include the following items:

Order to provide the stable environment that is conducive to the development of life, but with just enough chaotic behavior to provide a driving force for change.
Sufficient chemical stability and elemental diversity to build the complex molecules necessary for essential life functions: processing energy, storing information, and replicating. A universe of just hydrogen and helium will not "work."
Predictability in chemical reactions, allowing compounds to form from the various elements.
A "universal connector," an element that is essential for the molecules of life. It must have the chemical property that permits it to react readily with almost all other elements, forming bonds that are stable, but not too stable, so disassembly is also possible. Carbon is the only element in our periodic chart that satisfies this requirement.
A "universal solvent" in which the chemistry of life can unfold. Since chemical reactions are too slow in the solid state, and complex life would not likely be sustained as a gas, there is a need for a liquid element or compound that readily dissolves both the reactants and the reaction products essential to living systems: namely, a liquid with the properties of water.
A stable source of energy to sustain living systems in which there must be photons from the sun with sufficient energy to drive organic, chemical reactions, but not so energetic as to destroy organic molecules (as in the case of highly energetic ultraviolet radiation).
A means of transporting the energy from the source (like our sun) to the place where chemical reactions occur in the solvent (like water on Earth) must be available. In the process, there must be minimal losses in transmission if the energy is to be utilized efficiently.

Unless ALL of these conditions and many more not included in this list are met, we would have a universe that would preclude the possibility of conscious, complex life forms. However, it is possible to meet all of these conditions for the universe and still not necessarily find a suitable habitat in the universe for complex, conscious life. Therefore, we might say that the above requirements for our universe are necessary, but not by themselves sufficient, conditions for a habitat suitable for complex human life. Next we try to identify the additional conditions within such a suitable universe that would provide a place of habitation for conscious, complex life.


The Precise Nuclear Resonances of Carbon and Oxygen:
http://www.ps-19.org/Crea04SettingForLife/index.html
Someone "Monkeyed with the Physics"

Helium burning in stars is a critical part of the production of all elements other than helium and primordial hydrogen. Helium burning is the first step in the creation of all of the other elements, and so their existence depends vitally on helium burning. As Fred Hoyle pointed out before it was discovered, helium burning in the stars is only possible because a precise resonance (excited energy level) in the carbon nucleus exists. Furthermore, a second precise resonance must exist in the oxygen nucleus (the next step in nucleosynthesis: C + He -> O) -- in this case a resonance that slightly retards the production of oxygen so that not all of the carbon converts to oxygen. This is what led Fred Hoyle to make several remarkable statements, including that cited above.
The position of a nuclear resonance in Oxygen is the second "coincidence" that makes it possible to have carbon/oxygen based life. In the case of carbon, the resonance was slightly above the combined mass-energy of Beryllium and Helium. In the case of Oxygen, a similar resonance is slightly above the combined mass-energy of Carbon and Helium (7.68 MeV resonance vs. 7.65 MeV mass-energy). These two "accidents" determined that the stars would produce similar amounts of Carbon and Oxygen. If the Oxygen resonance had been slightly lower, essentially all Carbon would have fused into Oxygen; if the resonance had been slightly higher, then only small amounts of Carbon would have fused into oxygen, which would have blocked not only oxygen production but also the production of the higher elements.  The remarks of Hoyle refer to the combined effect of these two carefully chosen resonances.

the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational force constant must be equally delicately balanced. Increase it by only one part in 1040 and only small stars can exist; decrease it by the same amount and there will only be large stars. You must have both large and small stars in the universe: the large ones produce elements in their thermonuclear furnaces, and it is only the small ones that burn long enough to sustain a planet with life.

To use Davies’ illustration, that is the kind of accuracy a marksman would need to hit a coin at the far side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away. If we find that difficult to imagine, a further illustration suggested by astrophysicist Hugh Ross may help. Cover America with coins in a column reaching to the moon (380,000 km or 236,000 miles away), then does the same for a billion other continents of the same size. Paint one coin red and put it somewhere in one of the billion piles. Blindfold a friend and ask her to pick it out. The odds are about 1 in 10^40 that she will.
http://www.focus.org.uk/lennox.php

Professor Ulf-G Meißner, in explaining his new groundbreaking study, states:
[size=12]1.]http://antiochapologetics.blogspot.com/2011/04/electron-to-proton-ratio.html]1. ]http://antiochapologetics.blogspot.com/2011/04/electron-to-proton-ratio.html[/url]
 “The Universe we live in is characterized by certain parameters that take specific values that appear to be remarkably fine-tuned to make life, including on Earth, possible. “
“certain fundamental parameters of the Standard Model of light quark masses or the electromagnetic fine structure constant must take values that allow for the formation of neutrons, protons and atomic nuclei.”
“the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis sets indeed very tight limits on the variations of the light quark mass.” “Such extreme fine-tuning supports the anthropic view of our Universe,
http://crev.info/2015/01/more-cosmic-fine-tuning-found/

The fine-tuning argument per se, when it just comes to pointing out the extraordinary special character of the laws of nature which appear to be balanced on the knife’s edge, is not a religious argument, contrary to what many atheists claim. No, the fine-tuning of the laws of nature is pointed out with broad consensus by leading cosmologists, many of them agnostics or atheists. I would think that everyone should take experts in the field of physics and cosmology seriously and be informed about what they have to say. It is remarkable and rather curious how many atheists conveniently ignore or even dismiss mainstream science when it comes to cosmological fine-tuning, thus committing the same mistake they rightfully accuse creationists of when it comes to evolution. Certainly, the further extension as a design argument is theistic, while atheistic scientists often see no other choice than to posit the multiverse (see below) as a non-design explanation.
http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

John A. Leslie,  Professor emeritus at the University of Guelph, in Ontario, Canada. In Universes:

Suppose there existed ninety-seven trillion universes, all but three of them life-excluding.

Gravity also needs fine tuning for stars and planets to form, and for stars to burn stably over billions of years. It is roughly 10^39 times weaker than electromagnetism. Had it been only 10^33 times weaker, stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster.

The cosmos threatened to recollapse within a fraction of a second or else to expand so fast that galaxy formation would be impossible. To avoid these disasters its rate of expansion at early instants needed to be fine-tuned to perhaps one part in 10^55 (which is 10 followed by 54 zeros). That would make Space remarkably ‘flat’, so this is often called the Flatness Problem.

A star’s surface temperature must be suitably related to the binding energies of chemical reactions used by organisms: it must be hot enough to encourage construction of new chemicals, as in photosynthesis, but also cool enough to limit destruction such as is produced by ultraviolet light.



Last edited by Otangelo on Thu Jun 24, 2021 8:48 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

14Fine tuning of the Universe Empty Re: Fine tuning of the Universe Thu Jun 24, 2021 6:37 am

Otangelo


Admin

There is only ONE combination that actually produces a universe even mildly habitable—namely, our own. the universe, as described by its physical laws and constants, is be fine-tuned for the existence of life.  If any of several fundamental physical constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to lead to the formation of nuclear, atomic, or cosmic structures which allow for chemical elements, stellar burning, and finally, life.

Naumann, Thomas: Do We Live in the Best of All Possible Worlds? The Fine-Tuning of the Constants of Nature Sep 2017
The Universe indeed appears to be extremely fine-tuned for life. We will illustrate this phenomenon by asking the question: “What if we change some of the constants of Nature?”, proceeding from the most general to more specific constants:

- the dimensionality of the Universe
- symmetries: the matter–antimatter asymmetry
- the cosmic inventory: mean density, Hubble and cosmological constant, curvature
- coupling constants
- What if no Higgs? The masses of weak bosons, quarks, and the electron

Changing the dimensionality of the Universe or dropping the electroweak symmetry breaking in a world without the Higgs boson are not acts of fine-tuning but of a more fundamental tuning of the laws of Nature. We should also keep in mind that beyond fundamental constants like the strengths of the interactions, constants like those defining the cosmic inventory (such as the Hubble and the cosmological constant) are of environmental nature.

The Dimensionality of the Universe
In a world with less than three dimensions,  the digestive tract of any higher animal would separate it into disjoint upper and lower parts. Additionally, nerves and blood vessels would cross in two dimensions, and food absorption would have to proceed by breaking a one-dimensional boundary. This illustrates how dramatically processes can depend on the number of dimensions and topological issues. The case of a world with more than three spatial dimensions was discussed by Ehrenfest in 1917. He considered the scattering of a small on a large mass. The probe particle is either trapped by the large mass—or it escapes to infinity. In more than three dimensions, no stable orbits of planets are possible! The same is true for electrons in classical atoms. In 1963, Tangherlini showed that also in quantum mechanics in more than three spatial dimensions there are no stable atoms.

The Matter–Antimatter Asymmetry
In order to avoid additional fine-tuned constants of Nature, it is reasonable to assume that the Big Bang started from a totally neutral state where the sum of all additive charge-like quantum numbers was zero, hence from equal amounts of matter and antimatter. A matter–antimatter symmetric universe would, however, have rapidly annihilated to an empty light bubble, while we live today in a matter-dominated Universe. Related to the density of relic photons, the number of matter particles amounts only to about one in several billions. The matter content of our Universe hence originates from a tiny but decisive disbalance characterized by a small number. In a closed universe, a significantly larger matter density (more than one matter particle per one million relic photons) would have caused a rapid recollapse of the Universe without any chance for structure formation and life.

The Cosmic Inventory
The evolution of the Universe is characterized by a delicate balance of its inventory, a balance between repulsion and attraction, between expansion and contraction. Since gravity is purely attractive, its action sums up throughout the whole Universe. The strength of this attraction is defined by the gravitational constant GN and by an environmental parameter, the density ΩM of (dark and baryonic) matter. The strength of the repulsion is defined by two parameters: the initial impetus of the Big Bang parameterized by the Hubble constant H0 and the cosmological constant Λ.

As determined from data of the PLANCK satellite combined with other cosmological observations, the total density of the Universe is Ωtot = ρ/ρcrit = 1.0002 ± 0.0026 and thus extremely close to its critical density ρcrit = 3H02/8πGN with a contribution from a curvature of the Universe of Ωk = 0.000 ± 0.005. However, the balance between the ingredients of the Universe is time-dependent. Any deviation from zero curvature after inflation is amplified by many orders of magnitude. Hence, a cosmic density fine-tuned to flatness today to less than a per mille must have been initially fine-tuned to tens of orders of magnitude.

Another mystery is the smallness of the cosmological constant. First of all, the Planck scale is the only natural energy scale of gravitation: mPl = (ħc/GN)1/2 = 1.2 × 1019 GeV/c2. Compared to this natural scale, the cosmological constant or dark energy density Λ is tiny: Λ~(10 meV)4~(10−30 mPl)4 = 10−120 mPl4. The cosmological constant is also much smaller than expected from the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field, which like the inflaton field or dark energy is an omnipresent scalar field: ‹Φ4›~mH4~(100 GeV)4~1052 Λ As observed by Weinberg in 1987 there is an “anthropic” upper bound on the cosmological constant Λ. He argued “that in universes that do not recollapse, the only such bound on Λ is that it should not be so large as to prevent the formation of gravitationally bound states.”.

The Interactions and Their Strengths
Harnik et al. discuss a universe without weak interactions that undergoes Big Bang nucleosynthesis, matter domination, structure formation, and star formation. They match their “Weakless Universe” to our Universe by simultaneously adjusting Standard Model and cosmological parameters. After multi-parameter adjustment, chemistry and nuclear physics are essentially unchanged. The apparent habitability of the Weakless Universe suggests that the anthropic principle does not determine the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking. They conclude that “the fine-tuning problems associated with the electroweak breaking scale and the cosmological constant appear to be qualitatively different from the perspective of obtaining a habitable universe”.

The strengths or coupling constants of the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions are fundamental parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics. They depend on energy and in Grand Unified Theories converge to a common value. Feynman once commented on the famous value of the fine structure constant α = e2/4π = 1/137 of quantum electrodynamics: “There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e—the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon… It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the ‘hand of God’ wrote that number, and ‘we don’t know how He pushed his pencil’. We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don’t know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!”.

The Fine-Tuning of Particle Masses. What If No Higgs?
Boson Masses
The carriers of the strong and electromagnetic interaction—the gluon and the photon—are massless. After spontaneous breaking of the electroweak symmetry through the Higgs field, the weak bosons acquire a mass which at low energies suppresses the weak interaction. Without this symmetry breaking (i.e., without a Higgs field), the weak bosons would be massless, and the weak interaction would be about as strong as the electromagnetic one. Star burning would resemble a nuclear explosion without the possibility of a planetary system formation and life.

Fermion Masses
The neutron is heavier than the proton and is hence unstable. This is due to the difference between the masses of the down and up quark (this difference is partially compensated by the stronger electric repulsion of the additional up quark in the proton). In the second and third quark families, however, the up quarks are significantly heavier than the down quarks. So, one might ask: what if also in the first family the up quark would be heavier than the down quark? Then, the proton would be heavier than the neutron and decay. The positron would subsequently annihilate with an electron. The result would be a neutral universe consisting of photons, neutrons, and neutrinos without a chance for the formation of nuclei and atoms, and hence, life. If mu − md > 1 MeV, then mp − (mn + me) > 2.2 MeV = Ebd and the free energy of the proton decay would be larger than the binding energy Ebd of the deuteron. This would also make the deuteron unstable so that the decaying protons could not be trapped in deuterium and form helium like in our world.

Since the Rydberg energy is R = 0.5α²me and the Bohr radius rB = 1/(αme), the mass of the electron governs the energy levels and distances of the atomic world. An increase of the electron mass to 5 MeV would have the same effect as making the up quark heavier than the down quark. Protons would decay, and we would end up in a neutral world with only photons, neutrons, and neutrinos left over.

In 1937, Paul Dirac in his large numbers hypothesis related ratios of size scales in the Universe to the ratio of force scales. The dimensionless ratios amount to some forty orders of magnitude. So, the size of the universe is about 10^40 times the classical electron radius, which is about the same ratio as the ratio of the electrical to the gravitational forces between a proton and an electron. Dirac hypothesized that the apparent similarity of these ratios might not be a mere coincidence, but instead could result from fundamental cosmological laws.

https://www.proquest.com/docview/2124812833

The proton mass is 1836 times that of an electron.  If this ratio were off even slightly, molecules would not form properly.  It is also interesting to note that although protons are very different in size and mass, the charges are exactly the same in the opposite degree.  If this were not the case, again, molecules necessary to support complex life could not form.  The same is true of the electromagnetic coupling constant between protons and electrons - it is very precisely balanced to support complex life.  

The strengths or coupling constants of the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions are fundamental parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics. They depend on energy and in Grand Unified Theories converge to a common value. Feynman once commented on the famous value of the fine structure constant 1/137 of quantum electrodynamics: “There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e—the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon . . . It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the ‘hand of God’ wrote that number, and ‘we don’t know how He pushed his pencil’. We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don’t know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!” 

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

15Fine tuning of the Universe Empty Re: Fine tuning of the Universe Sun Jul 25, 2021 4:53 pm

Otangelo


Admin

If there were an infinite number of universes then the odds of getting a fine-tuned universe workout to actually be 0
1/ infinity =0
Can verify that at any mathematical website
Cause the infinite untuned universes are uncountable and unbounded so so you will never get a fine-tuned universe by chance
Also, you can't get a universe by chance anyhow if you could... every infinite point would have popped out a universe
The only way out of that is to have an expanding multiverse but then you reintroduce the point problem which means there was a beginning still
And it also means that if you could get a multiverse by chance every infinite point would have birthed a multiple verses
To get fine-tuned universes you would have to have a fine-tuned multiple verses
So multiverse does not solve the problem it just pushes it back further but it's still there... the problem
Chance cannot cause multiple verses nor universes
And in the natural world, there was a beginning
Imagine a person from an infinite past in the natural world is counting the days to reach the here and now
Infinite means uncountable so he would never reach the here and now so an infinite past in the material world is impossible
1st cause would have to be eternal and outside of time and have a free will

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

16Fine tuning of the Universe Empty Re: Fine tuning of the Universe Tue Jul 27, 2021 3:42 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Hugh Ross: Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 2008
140 features of the cosmos as a whole (including the laws of physics) that must fall within certain narrow ranges to allow for the possibility of physical life’s existence. 1
https://d4bge0zxg5qba.cloudfront.net/files/compendium/compendium_part1.pdf

Fine-tuning of the  fundamental forces of the universe to permit life
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1339-fine-tuning-of-the-fundamental-forces-of-the-universe

1. Strong nuclear force constant

Luke A. Barnes The Fine-Tuning of Nature’s Laws 2015
The strong nuclear force is the glue that holds protons and neutrons together in the nuclei of atoms. If in a hypothetical universe, it is too weak, then nuclei are not stable and the periodic table would disappear. If it is too strong, then the intense heat of the early universe could convert all hydrogen into helium — meaning that there could be no water and that 99.97 percent of the 24 million carbon compounds we have discovered would be impossible, too.
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-fine-tuning-of-natures-laws

Fine-Tuning
If the strong nuclear force were just 2% greater in magnitude, hydrogen not undergo the normal process of fusion into helium, but rather create stable diprotons, meaning that stars as we know them would not exist.
http://philosophy-of-cosmology.ox.ac.uk/fine-tuning.html

2. Weak nuclear force constant

https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/5/7/172/htm

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Physicists are suprised with the fine-tuning of the Universe

Richard Feynman  QED: the strange Theory of Light and Matter. 1985
There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e.  It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to p or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms?  Nobody knows. It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man.  We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don’t know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!
 https://3lib.net/book/643810/98188b
http://www.feynman.com/science/the-mysterious-137/

IGOR TEPER Inconstants of Nature JANUARY 23, 2014
Physicists remain unable to explain why certain fundamental constants of nature have the values that they do, or why those values should remain constant over time. The question is a troubling one, especially for scientists. For one thing, the scientific method of hypothesis, test, and revision would falter if the fundamental nature of reality were constantly shifting. And scientists could no longer make predictions about the future or reconstructions of the past, or rely on past experiments with complete confidence. The fine-structure constant, α, is among the most ubiquitous and important of the fundamental constants of nature. It governs how strongly light and matter interact. If it were even slightly different from its present-day value of about 1/137, the universe would look very different indeed—and would almost certainly be inhospitable to life.
https://nautil.us/issue/9/time/inconstants-of-nature

George Ellis Physics ain't what it used to be 07 December 2005
There are major scientific conundrums. The puzzle is the “apparent miracles of physics and cosmology” that make our existence possible. Many aspects of both physics and cosmology seem to be fine-tuned in such a way as to allow chemistry to function, planets to exist, and life to come into being. If they were substantially different, no life at all, and so no processes of darwinian evolution, would have occurred.
https://www.nature.com/articles/438739a

Ian Stewart Life: porridge would be just right for each universe 21 December 2006
Arguments in favor of fine-tuning typically show that some key ingredient of our current Universe, such as atoms or stars, becomes unstable if some physical constant is changed by a relatively small amount and therefore cannot exist in a universe with different constants.
https://www.nature.com/articles/4441002b

Lawrence M. Krauss Anthropic fever 01 February 2006
It might be that the only way to understand why the laws of nature in our Universe are the way they are is to realize that if they were any different, life could not have arisen.  This is one version of the infamous 'anthropic principle'. More and more physicists have been subscribing to the idea that perhaps physics is an 'environmental science' — that the laws of physics we observe are merely an accident of our circumstances, and that an infinite number of different universes might exist with different laws.
https://sci-hub.ren/10.1038/nphys226

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

18Fine tuning of the Universe Empty Re: Fine tuning of the Universe Thu Aug 05, 2021 2:52 pm

Otangelo


Admin

THE FINELY-TUNED UNIVERSE

(none of the details are mine, all emphasis added, sources at bottom)
The Planck Epoch - In Big Bang cosmology, the Planck epoch or Planck era is the earliest stage of the Big Bang, before the time passed was equal to the Planck time, t P, or approximately 10 -43 second... from zero to approximately 10 -43 second (1 Planck Time). This is the closest that current physics can get to the absolute beginning of time. It is thought that all the four fundamental forces — strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetism, and gravity - were unified at this point, serving as one super-force... within the first second (.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010 of a second) -> 10 billion, quadrillion, quadrillionth of a second)!!!
There are a great many scientists, of varying religious persuasions, WHO ACCEPT THAT THE UNIVERSE IS FINE-TUNED FOR LIFE, e.g. Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Dawkins, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Hawking, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, Wilczek. They differ, of course, on what conclusion we should draw from this fact.
"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." - Stephen Hawking, theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology within the University of Cambridge
"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all... it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming." - Paul Davies, Physicist, Recipient of the Templeton Prize, the Kelvin Medal from the UK Institute of Physics, and the Michael Faraday Prize
"If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely." - David Deutsch, Physicist at the University of Oxford, visiting professor in the Dept. of Atomic and Laser Physics at the Centre for Quantum Computation (CQC) in the Clarendon Laboratory of the University of Oxford
Donald Page of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study has calculated that the odds against our universe randomly taking a form suitable for life is 1 in 10^124, a number beyond imagination. (10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)
"Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229. To illustrate how truly ridiculous this number is, we might note that the part of the universe we can see from earth contains about 10^22 stars which together contain about 10^80 protons and neutrons. These numbers are gigantic, but they are infinitesimal compared to 10^229 (see below). In my opinion, a probability this tiny is not something we can let go unexplained. Luck will certainly not do here; we need some rational explanation of how something this unlikely turned out to be the case." - Lee Smolin, theoretical physicist, in: The Life of the Cosmos, p. 53
(10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)
CHANGING THE LAWS OF NATURE
Fine-tuning isn’t about what the parameters and laws are in a particular universe. Given some other set of laws, we ask: if a universe were chosen at random from the set of universes with those laws, what is the probability that it would support intelligent life? If that probability is suitably (and robustly) small, then we conclude that that region of possible-physics-space contributes negligibly to the total life-permitting subset. It is easy to find examples of such claims.
• A universe governed by Maxwell’s Laws “all the way down” (i.e. with no quantum regime at small scales) will NOT have stable atoms — electrons radiate their kinetic energy and spiral rapidly into the nucleus — and hence NO chemistry (Barrow & Tipler, 1986, pg. 303). We don’t need to know what the parameters are to know that LIFE IN SUCH A UNIVERSE IS PLAUSIBLY IMPOSSIBLE.
• If electrons were bosons, rather than fermions, then they would not obey the Pauli exclusion principle. There would be NO chemistry.
• If gravity were repulsive rather than attractive, then matter wouldn’t clump into complex structures. Remember: your density, thank gravity, is 10^30 times greater than the average density of the universe.
• If the strong force were a long rather than short-range force, then there would be NO atoms. Any structures that formed would be uniform, spherical, undifferentiated lumps, of arbitrary size and INCAPABLE of complexity.
• If, in electromagnetism, like charges attracted and opposites repelled, then there would be NO atoms. As above, we would just have undifferentiated lumps of matter.
• The electromagnetic force allows matter to cool into galaxies, stars, and planets. Without such interactions, all matter would be like dark matter, which can only form into large, diffuse, roughly spherical haloes of matter whose only internal structure consists of smaller, diffuse, roughly spherical subhaloes.
• Gravitational constant - 1 in 10^60 (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) - If it varied by just 1 in 10^60 parts none of us would exist.
• Atomic weak force - 1 in 10^100 (10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) - A change of 1 in 10^100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe.
• Cosmological constant - 1 in 10^120 (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) - A change of 1 in 10^120 would have prevented a life-permitting universe.
The cosmological constant problem is described in the textbook of Burgess & Moore (2006) as...
“arguably the most severe theoretical problem in high-energy physics today, as measured by both the difference between observations and theoretical predictions, and by the lack of convincing theoretical ideas which address it”.
• Mass and energy constant - 1 in 10^10^123 - if the mass and energy of the early universe were not evenly distributed to a precision of 1 part in 10^10^123 the universe would be hostile to life of any kind.
“This now tells how precise the Creator’s aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10, to the power of 10, to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10 to the power of 123 successive 0’s. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe - and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure - we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.” – Roger Penrose, Oxford University mathematical physicist, mathematician
ENTROPY
We turn now to cosmology. The problem of the apparently low entropy of the universe is one of the oldest problems of cosmology. The FACT that the entropy of the universe is NOT at its theoretical maximum, coupled with the fact that entropy CANNOT decrease, means that the universe must have started in a very SPECIAL, LOW ENTROPY STATE.
As detailed by Penrose (1979), if we started at t1 with an extremely homogeneous spacetime, and then allowed a few billion years of entropy increasing processes to take their toll, and ended at t2 with an extremely inhomogeneous spacetime, full of black holes, then we must conclude that the t2 spacetime represents a significantly higher entropy state than the t1 spacetime. We conclude that we know what a high entropy big bang spacetime looks like, and it looks NOTHING like the state of our universe in its earliest stages. Why didn’t our universe begin in a high entropy, highly inhomogeneous state? Why did our universe start off in such a special, IMPROBABLE, low-entropy state?
Homogeneous, isotropic expansion cannot solve the entropy problem — it IS the entropy problem. A homogeneous, isotropic spacetime is an incredibly low entropy state. Penrose (1989) warned of precisely this brand of failed solution two decades ago:
"Virtually all detailed investigations [of entropy and cosmology] so far have taken the FRW models as their starting point, which, as we have seen, totally begs the question of the enormous number of degrees of freedom available in the gravitational field... the second law of thermodynamics arises because there was an ENORMOUS constraint (of a very PARTICULAR kind) placed on the universe at the beginning of time, giving us the very low entropy that we need in order to start things off."
As Carroll (2008) notes,
“an UNNATURAL low-entropy condition [that occurs] in the middle of the universe’s history (at the bounce)... passes the buck on the question of why the entropy near what we call the big bang was small”.
CAN INFLATION EXPLAIN FINE-TUNING?
Note the difference between this section and the last. Is inflation itself fine-tuned? This is no mere technicality — if the solution is just as fine-tuned as the problem, then no progress has been made.
Perhaps the most pressing issue with inflation is hidden in the fact that inflation must begin. Inflation is supposed to provide a dynamical explanation for the seemingly very fine-tuned initial conditions of the standard model of cosmology. But does inflation need special initial conditions? Can inflation act on generic initial conditions and produce the apparently fine-tuned universe we observe today? Hollands & Wald (2002b) contend not, for the following reason.
"Consider a collapsing universe. It would require an ASTONISHING sequence of correlations and coincidences for the universe, in its final stages, to suddenly and coherently convert all its matter into a scalar field with just enough kinetic energy to roll to the top of its potential and remain perfectly balanced there for long enough to cause a substantial era of “deflation”. The region of final-condition-space that results from deflation is thus much smaller than the region that does not result from deflation. Since the relevant physics is time-reversible, we can simply run the tape backwards and conclude that the initial-condition-space is dominated by universes that FAIL to inflate."
Carroll & Tam (2010) conclude that while inflation is not without its attractions (e.g. it may give a theory of initial conditions a slightly easier target to hit at the Planck scale)...
“inflation by itself cannot solve the horizon problem, in the sense of making the smooth early universe a natural outcome of a wide variety of initial conditions”.
Note that this argument also shows that inflation, in and of itself, cannot solve the entropy problem.
Inflation is a wonderful idea; in many ways it seems irresistible (Liddle, 1995). However, we do not have a physical model, and even we had such a model, “although inflationary models may alleviate the “fine tuning” in the choice of initial conditions, the models themselves create new “fine tuning” issues with regard to the properties of the scalar field” (Hollands & Wald, 2002b). To pretend that the mere mention of inflation makes a life-permitting universe “100 percent” inevitable [Foft 245] is NAIVE IN THE EXTREME...

Rees’ life-permitting range for Q (1999, pg. 115) implies a fine-tuning of the inflation potential of ∼ 10^−11 with respect to the Planck scale. Tegmark (2005) argues that on very general grounds we can conclude that life-permitting inflation potentials are HIGHLY UNNATURAL.
"Wherever physicists look, they see examples of fine tuning." - Sir Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal of Great Britain, Fellow of Trinity College and Emeritus Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics at the University of Cambridge

THE COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT & THE MULTIVERSE
From the WIKI on the multiverse (under the Anthropic Principle heading)...
The concept of other universes has been proposed to explain how our own universe appears to be fine-tuned for conscious life as we experience it.
Thus, while the probability might be extremely small that any particular universe would have the requisite conditions for life (as we understand life), those conditions do not require intelligent design as an explanation for the conditions in the Universe that promote our existence in it.
What requires an explanation is why the only universe we’ve ever observed is fine-tuned, and the postulation of other universes doesn’t account for this.
“Since the multiverse argument is often invoked as a way to abolish the need for divine providence, it is ironic that it provides the best scientific argument yet for the existence of a god!” - Paul Charles William Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life?

Firstly, the difficulty in ruling out multiverses speaks to their unfalsifiability, rather than their steadfastness in the face of cosmological data. There is very little evidence, one way or the other.
An appeal to the multiverse is motivated by and dependent on the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant. Those who defend the multiverse solution to the cosmological constant problem are quite clear that they do so because they have judged other solutions to have failed. Examples:
• There is not a single natural solution to the cosmological constant problem. ... [With the discovery that Λ > 0] The cosmological constant problem became suddenly harder, as one could no longer hope for a deep symmetry setting it to zero. (Arkani-Hamedet al., 2005)
• Throughout the years many people... have tried to explain why the cosmological constant is small or zero. The overwhelming consensus is that these attempts have not been successful. (Susskind, 2005, pg. 357)
• No concrete, viable theory predicting ρΛ = 0 was known by 1998 [when the acceleration of the universe was discovered] and none has been found since. (Bousso, 2008)
• There is no known symmetry to explains why the cosmological constant is either zero or of order the observed dark energy. (Hall & Nomura, 2008)
• As of now, the ONLY viable resolution of [the cosmological constant problem] is provided by the anthropic approach. (Vilenkin, 2010)
See also Peacock (2007) and Linde & Vanchurin (2010), quoted above, and Susskind (2003).

There are a number of excellent reviews of the cosmological constant in the scientific literature (Weinberg, 1989; Carroll, 2001; Vilenkin, 2003; Polchinski, 2006; Durrer & Maartens, 2007; Padmanabhan, 2007; Bousso, 2008). The calculations are known to be correct in other contexts and so are taken very seriously. Supersymmetry won’t help. The problem cannot be defined away. The most plausible small-vacuum-selecting mechanisms don’t work in a universe that contains matter. Particle physics is blind to the absolute value of the vacuum energy. The cosmological constant problem is not a problem only at the Planck scale and thus quantum gravity is unlikely to provide a solution. Quintessence and the inflation field are just more fields whose vacuum state must be sternly commanded not to gravitate, or else mutually balanced to an alarming degree.
The point is this: However many ways there are of producing a life-permitting universe, there are VASTLY many more ways of making a life-prohibiting one. By the time we discover how our universe solves the cosmological constant problem, we will have compiled a rather long list of ways to blow a universe to smithereens, or quickly crush it into oblivion. Amidst the possible universes, life-permitting ones are exceedingly RARE.

STARS & THE HOYLE RESONANCE
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics... and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." - Fred Hoyle, Astrophysicist and cosmologist, Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy at Cambridge
The existence of the 0+ level is not enough. It must have the right energy, and so we need to ask how the properties of the resonance level, and thus stellar nucleosynthesis, change as we alter the fundamental constants. Oberhummer et al. (2000a) have performed such calculations, combining the predictions of a microscopic 12-body, three-alpha cluster model of 12C (as alluded to by Weinberg) with a stellar nucleosynthesis code. They conclude that:
"Even with a change of 0.4% in the strength of [nucleon-nucleon] force, carbon-based life appears to be IMPOSSIBLE, since all the stars then would produce either almost solely carbon or oxygen, but could not produce both elements."
The main process by which carbon and oxygen are synthesised in our universe is drastically curtailed by a tiny change in the fundamental constants. Life would need to hope that sufficient carbon and oxygen are synthesized in other ways, such as supernovae. The ability of stars in our universe to produce both carbon and oxygen seems to be a RARE talent.
Carr & Ellis (2008) write:
"A multiverse is implied by some forms of inflation but not others. Inflation is not yet a well defined theory and chaotic inflation is just one variant of it. ... the key physics involved in chaotic inflation (Coleman-de Luccia tunnelling) is extrapolated from known and tested physics to quite different regimes; that extrapolation is unverified and indeed unverifiable. The physics is hypothetical rather than tested. We are being told that what we have is “known physics → multiverse”. But the REAL situation is “known physics → hypothetical physics → multiverse” and the first step involves a MAJOR extrapolation which may or may not be correct."
If some meta-law is proposed to physically generate a multiverse, then we need to postulate not just a.) that the meta-law holds in this universe, but b.) that it holds in some pre-existing metaspace beyond our universe. There is NO unambiguous evidence for a.) any multiverse, and b.) will surely forever hold the title of the MOST EXTREME EXTRAPOLATION IN ALL OF SCIENCE, if indeed it can be counted as part of science.
But isn’t there scientific evidence for a multiverse? Some physicists do indeed think there is a tentative empirical evidence for a kind of multiverse, that described by the hypothesis of eternal inflation. According to eternal inflation, there is a vast, exponentially expanding mega space in which certain regions slow down to form “bubble universes,” our universe being one such bubble universe. However, there is no empirical ground for thinking that the constants of physics — the strength of gravity, the mass of electrons, etc. — are different in these different bubble universes. And without such variation, the fine-tuning problem is even worse.
The reason some scientists take seriously the possibility of a multiverse in which the constants vary in different universes is that it seems to explain the fine-tuning. But on closer examination, the inference from fine-tuning to the multiverse proves to be instance of flawed reasoning.
Could a multiverse proposal ever be regarded as scientific? The history of science has repeatedly taught us that experimental testing is NOT an optional extra. The hypothesis that a multiverse actually exists will ALWAYS be untestable. The most optimistic scenario is where a physical theory, which has been well-tested in our universe, predicts a universe-generating mechanism. Even then, there would still be questions beyond the reach of observation, such as whether the necessary initial conditions for the generator hold in the metaspace, and whether there are modifications to the physical theory that arise at energy scales or on length scales relevant to the multiverse but beyond testing in our universe. Moreover, the process by which a new universe is spawned almost certainly CANNOT be observed.
Another argument against the multiverse is given by Penrose (2004, pg. 763ff). As with the Boltzmann multiverse, the problem is that this universe seems uncomfortably roomy.
"... do we really need the whole observable universe, in order that sentient life can come about? This seems unlikely. It is hard to imagine that even anything outside our galaxy would be needed... Let us be very generous and ask that a region of radius one tenth of the... observable universe must resemble the universe that we know, but we do not care about what happens outside that radius... Assuming that inflation acts in the same way on the small region [that inflated into the one-tenth smaller universe] as it would on the somewhat larger one [that inflated into ours], but producing a smaller inflated universe, in proportion, we can estimate how much more frequently the Creator comes across the smaller than the larger regions. The figure is no better than 10^10^123. You see what an incredible extravagance it was (in terms of probability) for the Creator to bother to produce this extra distant part of the universe, that we don’t actually need... for our existence."
In other words, if we live in a multiverse generated by a process like chaotic inflation, then for every observer who observes a universe of our size, there are 10^10^123 who observe a universe that is just 10 times smaller. This particular multiverse dies the same death as the Boltzmann multiverse. Penrose’s argument is based on the place of our universe in phase space, and is thus generic enough to apply to any multiverse proposal that creates more small universe domains than large ones. Most multiverse mechanisms seem to fall into this category.
“Multiverse” is not a magic word that will make all the fine-tuning go away.

A question posed to Leonard Susskind: If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?
Susskind's response...
"If, for some unforeseen reason, the [Multiverse] turns out to be inconsistent - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID."
INNEVITABILITY/NECESSITY?
If the claim is that the laws of nature are fixed by logical and mathematical necessity, then this is demonstrably WRONG — theoretical physicists find it rather easy to describe alternative universes that are free from logical contradiction (Davies, in Manson, 2003). The category of “physically possible” isn’t much help either, as the laws of nature tell us what is physically possible, but not which laws are possible.
It is not true that fine-tuning must eventually yield to the relentless march of science. Fine-tuning is not a typical scientific problem, that is, a phenomenon in our universe that cannot be explained by our current understanding of physical laws. It is NOT A GAP. Rather, we are concerned with the physical laws themselves. In particular, the anthropic coincidences are not like, say, the coincidence between inertial mass and gravitational mass in Newtonian gravity, which is a coincidence between two seemingly independent physical quantities. Anthropic coincidences, on the other hand, involve a happy consonance between a physical quantity and the requirements of complex, embodied intelligent life. The anthropic coincidences are so arresting because we are accustomed to thinking of physical laws and initial conditions as being unconcerned with how things turn out. Physical laws are material and efficient causes, not final causes. There is, then, NO reason to think that future progress in physics will render a life-permitting universe inevitable. When physics is finished, when the equation is written on the blackboard and fundamental physics has gone as deep as it can go, fine-tuning may remain, basic and irreducible.
Finally, it would be the ultimate anthropic coincidence if beauty and complexity in the mathematical principles of the fundamental theory of physics produced all the necessary low-energy conditions for intelligent life. This point has been made by a number of authors, e.g. Carr & Rees (1979) and Aguirre (2005). Here is Wilczek (2006b):
"It is logically possible that parameters determined uniquely by abstract theoretical principles just happen to exhibit all the apparent fine-tunings required to produce, by a lucky coincidence, a universe containing complex structures. But that, I think, really strains credulity."
CONCLUSION
The universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life. Of all the ways that the laws of nature, constants of physics and initial conditions of the universe could have been, only a very small subset permits the existence of intelligent life.
Will future progress in fundamental physics solve the problem of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life, without the need for a multiverse? There are a few ways that this could happen. We could discover that the set of life-permitting universes is much larger than previously thought. This is unlikely, since the physics relevant to life is low-energy physics, and thus well-understood. Physics at the Planck scale will not rewrite the standard model of particle physics. It is sometimes objected that we do not have an adequate definition of ‘an observer’, and we do not know all possible forms of life. This is reason for caution, but not a fatal flaw of fine-tuning. If the strong force were weaker, the periodic table would consist of only hydrogen. We do not need a rigorous definition of life to reasonably conclude that a universe with one chemical reaction (2H → H2) would not be able to create and sustain the complexity necessary for life.
STATEMENTS FROM OTHER SCIENTISTS ON THE ORDER OBSERVED IN THE UNIVERSE
Sir Joseph J. Thomson (Nobel, Physics 1906)
“As we conquer peak after peak we see in front of us regions full of interest and beauty, but we do not see our goal, we do not see the horizon; in the distance tower still higher peaks, which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects, and deepen the feeling, the truth of which is emphasized by every advance in science, that ‘Great are the Works of the Lord’.”
Max Planck (Nobel, Physics 1918)
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, the study of matter, I can tell you as the result of my research about atoms this much: 'There is no Matter as such!' All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a Force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This Mind is the matrix of all Matter." (Nobel Prize acceptance speech)
Robert Millikan (Nobel, Physics, 1923)
"Science began to show us a universe that behaves in a knowable and predictable way... in a word, a God who works through law."
Arthur Compton (Nobel, Physics 1927)
"For myself, faith begins with a realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence - an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered - 'In the beginning God.'"
Charles H. Townes (Nobel Prize Physics 1964, founder of laser science)
"I strongly believe in the existence of God, based on intuition, observation, logic, and also scientific knowledge."
"Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here."
Tony Hewish (Nobel, Physics 1974)
"I believe in God. It makes no sense to me to assume that the universe and our existence is just a cosmic accident, that life emerged due to random physical processes in an environment which simply happened to have the right properties. As a Christian I begin to comprehend what life is all about through belief in a Creator, some of whose nature was revealed by a man born about 2000 years ago."
Arno Penzias (Nobel, Physics 1978)
“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.”
"I think as Psalm 19, 'the heavens proclaim the glory of God,' that is, God reveals Himself in all there is. All reality, to a greater or lesser extent, reveals the purpose of God. There is some connection to the purpose and order of the world in all aspects of human experience."
Arthur L. Schawlow (Nobel, Physics 1981)
"It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious... I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."
Richard Smalley (Nobel, Chemistry 1996)
“Recently I have gone back to church regularly with a new focus to understand as best I can, what it is that makes Christianity so vital and powerful in the lives of billions of people today, even though almost 2000 years have passed since the death and resurrection of Christ. Although I suspect I will never fully understand, I now think the answer is very simple: it’s true. God did create the universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and of necessity has involved Himself with His creation ever since. The purpose of this universe is something that only God knows for sure, but it is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned to enable human life. We are somehow critically involved in His purpose. Our job is to sense that purpose as best we can, love one another, and help Him get that job done.” — (discovery of a new form of carbon, buckminsterfullerene or “buckyballs”).
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” - Isaac Newton, The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy
“Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.” - Isaac Newton
“To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power; to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful workings of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more grateful than knowledge.” – Nicolaus Copernicus
"The beginning of the universe seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural." - Sir Arthur Eddington, astrophysicist
"The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one... many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." - Edward R. Harrison (Masks of the Universe, PP. 252, 263), famous English cosmologist, fellow member of NASA and the well-known Royal Astronomical Society
"I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." - Allan Sandage (Sizing up the Cosmos p.b9), discovered Quasars and is considered one of the founders of modern astronomy
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe." - Galileo (as quoted in Beginning Algebra" by Margaret L. Lial, David Miller and E. John Hornsby, P. 2)
"We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it." - Alexander Polyakov, Soviet mathematician
“My opinion is that most people believe in intelligent design as a reasonable explanation of the universe, and this belief is entirely compatible with science. So it is unwise for scientists to make a big fight against the idea of intelligent design.” - Freeman Dyson, physicist (2007)
“A Creator must exist. The Big Bang ripples and subsequent scientific findings are clearly pointing to an ex nihilo creation consistent with the first few verses of the book of Genesis.” – Quantum chemist Henry F. Schaefer III, five time nominee for the Nobel Prize, as above.
“As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].” - Astrophysicist and mathematician Edward Milne (winner of the Royal Society’s Royal Medal, the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, and the Bruce Medal)
"We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures… If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.” – John O’Keefe (d. 2000), NASA astronomer, major leader in the American lunar program and the first to propose the idea of the scanning electron microscope.
"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." - Frank Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics
"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" - George Greenstein, astronomer
"Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." - George Ellis, British astrophysicist
"This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." - Drs. Zehavi and Dekel, cosmologists
"The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." - Vera Kistiakowsky, MIT physicist
“The vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science. And there is certainly no scientific reason why God cannot retain the same relevance in our modern world that He held before we began probing His creation with telescope, cyclotron, and space vehicles.” — Werner von Braun, founder of rocket science, chief scientist starting the US Space program
“What is the ultimate solution to the origin of the Universe? The answers provided by the astronomers are disconcerting and remarkable. Most remarkable of all is the fact that in science, as in the Bible, the world begins with an act of creation.” - Astronomer Robert Jastrow from Until the Sun Dies
“Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.” - Robert Jastrow
When responding to a question about the meaning of life and God, Michio Kaku surprised his interviewer when he revealed that MOST TOP PHYSICISTS do believe in a God because of how the universe is designed. Ours is a universe of order, beauty, elegance and simplicity.
He explained the universe didn’t have to be this way — it could have been ugly and chaotic. In short, the order we see in the universe is evidence of a Creator.
“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence,” the physicist said to Science World Report.
“Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore. To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”
The physicist explained that God is like a mathematician, which is similar to what Albert EINSTEIN believed. (emphasis added)

SOURCES:
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life (160+ references)
=AT1rjfd832zvYWWAQSh0yMaPbzagapnSt84M_Zigeejl4deDvEDBEyxWp82pSH8QSXh3laKbFmA0500hhi4uRM7Pt_JzUe5b9Fj9O0VCE18_6B-QZLhiB3j_4iry7M0v6IqJU4nPW8B1yaHQ40PZudmmtMzDCFbYaQnT2_d_ZeDXWfMJHCYu0o-YAetr65BT68zudwBRlWZJsP77aSPIejv6-XtI5F8I-wWMxxFhik59bi3o9oU]https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647v1.pdf...
Luke A. Barnes
Institute for Astronomy, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
Sydney Institute for Astronomy, School of Physics
University of Sydney, Australia
December 21, 2011

=AT1rjfd832zvYWWAQSh0yMaPbzagapnSt84M_Zigeejl4deDvEDBEyxWp82pSH8QSXh3laKbFmA0500hhi4uRM7Pt_JzUe5b9Fj9O0VCE18_6B-QZLhiB3j_4iry7M0v6IqJU4nPW8B1yaHQ40PZudmmtMzDCFbYaQnT2_d_ZeDXWfMJHCYu0o-YAetr65BT68zudwBRlWZJsP77aSPIejv6-XtI5F8I-wWMxxFhik59bi3o9oU]https://www.scientificamerican.com/.../our-improbable.../

https://www.newscientist.com/.../mg18825305-800-is.../
https://crev.info/.../choose_you_this_day_multiverse_or_id/

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

19Fine tuning of the Universe Empty Re: Fine tuning of the Universe Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:15 am

Otangelo


Admin

Ethan Siegel: The Universe Itself May Be Unnatural Jul 5, 2017

There are lots of examples of these fine-tuning problems in the Universe, including the facts that:

The Universe has similar amounts of dark matter and dark energy today, which is a coincidence problem.
The fact that the masses of the fundamental particles are ~1017-1023 orders of magnitude lower than the Planck mass, which is a hierarchy problem.
The fact that the spatial curvature of the Universe is indistinguishable from 0, which is a coincidence problem.
The fact that the strong interactions exhibit no CP-violation whereas the weak ones do, a hierarchy problem where a particular rate is suppressed by a factor of a billion or more from what's expected.
And the fact that the neutrino mass fraction, the normal matter mass fraction, and the dark matter mass fraction are all within 2 orders of magnitude, another coincidence problem.

It's true that all of these are simply facts about the Universe. The question, when it comes to naturalness, is whether these facts have explanations or not.

It's possible that these facts simply represent the way the Universe is, and that there is no physical explanation underlying it. That the laws and properties and constants of the Universe simply are what they are, and there isn't any deeper reason for it than that. This is possible, of course, and there's never any way to rule this out. On the other hand, it's the equivalent of giving up on science.

My comment: Why is giving up a naturalistic explanation giving up on science ? Why is positing a creator as the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe giving up science ? Its not. Science should be neutral in regards of philosophical inferences based on the evidence, and permit the evidence to lead wherever it is.

Accepting that this is the way the Universe is, with no further explanation, means a cessation to investigations, and an end to the attempt that science can make: to come up with a physical explanation for the physical Universe.

My comment: I disagree. It was precisely the curiosity to understand more about God's created order that the science fathers advanced scientific inquiry. Theological grounding of the existence of the universe was never a science stopper, but rather a promoter of it.

Fine tuning of the Universe Https_39
The Standard Model particles and their supersymmetric counterparts. This attempt to solve the hierarchy problem for particle masses predicts a whole new spectrum of particles, none of which have been detected.

What could have caused the Universe to wind up this way?

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

20Fine tuning of the Universe Empty Re: Fine tuning of the Universe Wed Aug 25, 2021 7:33 am

Otangelo


Admin

Ethan Siegel: The only "impressive" examples of fine-tuning that I know of are the hierarchy problem and the coincidence problem. That's it. The hierarchy problem basically says, "why are the planck scale and the mass/energy scale of what appears in the Universe so far apart?" The coincidence problem basically says, "why are the normal matter, dark matter, radiation, and dark energy densities, today, NOT so far apart from one another?" That's it. Those are the only tunings that cannot be derived from other tunings. The difference of gravity to electromagnetism is a restatement of the hierarchy problem. Why are these numbers so different from one another? We don't know.

Wikipedia: Hierarchy problem
In theoretical physics, the hierarchy problem is the problem concerning the large discrepancy between aspects of the weak force and gravity. There is no scientific consensus on why, for example, the weak force is 10^24 times stronger than gravity.

A simple example:

Suppose a physics model requires four parameters which allow it to produce a very high-quality working model, generating predictions of some aspect of our physical universe. Suppose we find through experiments that the parameters have values:

1.2
1.31
0.9 and
404,331,557,902,116,024,553,602,703,216.58 (roughly 4×10^29).

We might wonder how such figures arise. But in particular, we might be especially curious about a theory where three values are close to one, and the fourth is so different; in other words, the huge disproportion we seem to find between the first three parameters and the fourth. We might also wonder, if one force is so much weaker than the others that it needs a factor of 4×10^29 to allow it to be related to them in terms of effects, how did our universe come to be so exactly balanced when its forces emerged? In current particle physics, the differences between some parameters are much larger than this, so the question is even more noteworthy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_problem

Matt Strassler The Hierarchy Problem
What is the Hierarchy Problem?

An important feature of nature that puzzles scientists like myself is known as the hierarchy, meaning the vast discrepancy between aspects of the weak nuclear force and gravity. There are several different ways to describe this hierarchy, each emphasizing a different feature of it. Here is one:
The mass of the smallest possible black hole defines what is known as the Planck Mass. The masses of the W and Z particles, the force carriers of the weak nuclear force, are about 10,000,000,000,000,000 times smaller than the Planck Mass. Thus there is a huge hierarchy in the mass scales of weak nuclear forces and gravity.
When faced with such a large number as 10,000,000,000,000,000, ten quadrillions, the question that physicists are naturally led to ask is: where did that number come from? It might have some sort of interesting explanation.

But while trying to figure out a possible explanation, physicists in the 1970s realized there was actually a serious problem, even a paradox, behind this number. The issue, now called the hierarchy problem, has to do with the size of the non-zero Higgs field, which in turn determines the mass of the W and Z particles.

The non-zero Higgs field has a size of about 250 GeV, and that gives us the W and Z particles with masses of about 100 GeV. But it turns out that quantum mechanics would lead us to expect that this size of a Higgs field is unstable, something like (warning: imperfect analogy ahead) a vase balanced precariously on the edge of a table. With the physics we know about so far, the tendency of quantum mechanics to jostle — those quantum fluctuations I’ve mentioned elsewhere — would seem to imply that there are two natural values for the Higgs field — in analogy to the two natural places for the vase, firmly placed on the table or smashed on the floor. Naively, the Higgs field should either be zero, or it should be as big as the Planck Energy, 10,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than it is observed to be. Why is it at a value that is non-zero and tiny, a value that seems, at least naively, so unnatural?

This is the hierarchy problem.
https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-hierarchy-problem/

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

21Fine tuning of the Universe Empty Re: Fine tuning of the Universe Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:53 am

Otangelo


Admin

Luke A. Barnes The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life  June 11, 2012
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647.pdf

Luke A. Barnes: Fine-Tuning in the Context of Bayesian Theory Testing 13 Jul 2017
https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.03965

Philip Goff Did the universe design itself? 24 November 2018
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11153-018-9692-z

Luke A. Barnes: Fine-Tuning in the Context of Bayesian Theory Testing 13 Jul 2017
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.03965.pdf

John Gribbin and Martin Rees:  Cosmic coincidences : dark matter, mankind, and anthropic cosmology 1989
https://3lib.net/book/3714301/2c66a1

Barnes: A Fortunate Universe Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos 2016 page 274
https://3lib.net/book/3335826/1b6fa8

ROBIN COLLINS The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe 2009
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.696.63&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Dr. Walter L. Bradley: Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe 20 August 2010
https://web.archive.org/web/20110805203154/http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html#ref21

Codata lists about 360 different fine-tune constants, which have to be just right in order to have a life-permitting universe. 
Fundamental Physical Constants --- Complete Listing 2018 CODATA adjustment
https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/Table/allascii.txt?fbclid=IwAR1wllIggtvjUltZUyrNeLQO0c67keXqybFrDjwKZ5NFtuIW_bwm6YBf1RU

Jason Waller Cosmological Fine-Tuning Arguments 2020, page 107
https://3lib.net/book/5240658/bd3f0d

Leonard Susskind The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design 2006, page 100 
https://3lib.net/book/2472017/1d5be1

WH. McCrea: "Cosmology after Half a Century," Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297.
https://sci-hub.ren/10.1126/science.160.3834.1295

Paul Davies Superforce
https://3lib.net/book/14357613/6ebdf9

Paul Davies,The Goldilocks enigma: why is the universe just right for life? 2006
https://3lib.net/book/5903498/82353b

Paul Davies Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it 26 Jun 2007
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/jun/26/spaceexploration.comment

Luke A. Barnes: A Reasonable Little Question: A Formulation of the Fine-Tuning Argument No. 42, 2019–2020 
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/ergo/12405314.0006.042/--reasonable-little-question-a-formulation-of-the-fine-tuning?rgn=main;view=fulltext

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

22Fine tuning of the Universe Empty Re: Fine tuning of the Universe Tue Nov 16, 2021 7:45 am

Otangelo


Admin

1. Costante gravitazionale G: 1/10^60
2. Omega Ω, la densità della materia oscura: 1/10^62 o meno
3. Costante di Hubble H0: 1 parte in 10^60
4. Lambda: la costante cosmologica: 10^122
5. Fluttuazioni primordiali Q: 1/100.000
6. Simmetria materia-antimateria: 1 su 10.000.000.000
7. Lo stato di bassa entropia dell'universo: 1 su 10^10^123
8. L'universo richiederebbe 3 dimensioni di spazio e tempo per consentire la vita.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

A response to the Sabine Hossenfelder video:  Was the universe made for us? 16 de jan. de 2021

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1277-fine-tuning-of-the-universe#9063

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6DP5lgzmTA&t=247s

Claim: What’s wrong with the argument? What’s wrong is the claim that the values of the constants of nature that we observe are unlikely. There  is no way to ever quantify this probability
Response: Of course we can quantify the probability, and that is what physicists do all the time. For example:

Ratio of Electrons: Protons                         1:10^37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force: Gravity        1:10^40
Expansion Rate of Universe                        1:10^55
Mass Density of Universe1                         1:10^59
Cosmological Constant                               1:10^120

Here is the argument: 
The number of possible fine-tune parameters and constants is infinite
1. The values, constants, and parameters for a life-permitting universe must exist within a finite range for the existence of biological life to be possible. 
2. These constants and fine-tune parameters could have taken any of an infinite number of different values. 
3. The probability of it occurring by chance approaches close to 0, but is in practical terms, factually zero. 
4. The best explanation is an intelligent agent that had a goal in mind, that is to create contingent beings, designed our life-permitting universe.

Claim: because we will never measure a  constant of nature that has a value  other than the one it does have.
Response: That's not necessary. Particle physicists for example ask questions about: What if we change the coupling constant of x ? And the theoretical calculations permit an informed answer. And the answer is: Then life in the universe as we know it, would not exist.

Claim: There’s nothing quantifiably unlikely,  therefore, there’s nothing in need of explanation.
Response: This is denying scientifically widely established and acknowledged facts, and it is outright wrong. This is basically totally denying the fact that the universe is finely tuned. This could be hardly a more unscientific, and false claim.

Is the fine-tuning real?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1277-fine-tuning-of-the-universe#1779

Luke A. Barnes The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life  June 11, 2012
The parameters of the standard model remain some of the best understood and most impressive cases of fine-tuning.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647.pdf

Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow: The Grand Design (2012), (161–162)
The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being. . . . Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easy to explain, and raises the natural question of why it is that way.

Claim:  They just  postulate a particular probability distribution.   It’s this postulate that leads to their conclusion. This is one of the best-known logical fallacies, called “begging the question”  or “circular reasoning.” You assume what you need   to show. And instead of showing that a value is unlikely, they pick a specific probability distribution that makes it unlikely.
Response: There is no begging the question here. There are so many false claims in this video. 

Martin Rees is an atheist and a qualified astronomer. He wrote a book called “Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe”, (Basic Books: 2001). In it, he discusses 6 numbers that need to be fine-tuned in order to have a life-permitting universe. These six numbers constitute a ‘recipe’ for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator? There are some atheists who deny the fine-tuning, but these atheists are in firm opposition to the progress of science. The more science has progressed, the more constants, ratios and quantities we have discovered that need to be fine-tuned. 


1. The existence of a life-permitting universe is very improbable on naturalism and very likely on theism.
2. A universe formed by naturalistic unguided means would have its parameters set randomly, and with high probability, there would be no universe at all. ( The fine-tune parameters for the right expansion-rate of the universe would most likely not be met ) In short, a  randomly chosen universe is extraordinarily unlikely to have the right conditions for life.
3. A life-permitting universe is likely on theism, since a powerful, extraordinarily intelligent designer has the ability of foresight, and knowledge of what parameters, laws of physics, and finely-tuned conditions would permit a life-permitting universe.
4. Under bayesian terms, design is more likely rather than non-design. Therefore, the design inference is the best explanation for a finely tuned universe.

Claim: Even if you *could measure a  probability distribution for the constants of nature, which you can’t, then the idea that our particular combination of constants is necessary for life would *still be wrong. There are several examples in the scientific literature for laws of nature with constants nothing like our own that for all we can tell, allow for chemistry complex enough for life.
Response:  And I can give many examples, like for example the fine-tuning of the fundamental forces, where, if changing the values just a little-bit, we would not have stable atoms, and no life.

Nigel Warburton: Is the Universe a conscious mind? August 2019.
The strong nuclear force (the force that binds together the elements in the nucleus of an atom) has a value of 0.007. If that value had been 0.006 or less, the Universe would have contained nothing but hydrogen. If it had been 0.008 or higher, the hydrogen would have fused to make heavier elements. In either case, any kind of chemical complexity would have been physically impossible. And without chemical complexity there can be no life. 
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-explains-why-the-universe-is-fine-tuned-for-life

Claim: it’s completely different if you talk about changing constants that cannot be changed by any physical process.  
Response: Here, she makes another totally inaccurate assertion, which does not withstand scrutiny.

Is the universe finely tuned due to physical necessity ?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1847-is-the-universe-finely-tuned-due-to-physical-necessity

A universe where these fundamental constants have different values is just as mathematically and logically consistent as our own. They represent other universes among the set of possible universes. Accordingly, these constants are considered free parameters.

Of the 30 known fundamental physical constants, very few of them can change to any significant degree without leading to a barren universe. For instance, universes of only hydrogen, universes with no aggregations of matter, or universes of only black holes.
https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/

Paul Davies: God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science page 148–49, 2003
“There is not a shred of evidence that the Universe is logically necessary. Indeed, as a theoretical physicist I find it rather easy to imagine alternative universes that are logically consistent, and therefore equal contenders of reality” 
https://3lib.net/book/733035/b853a0

Claim: god and  the multiverse are not scientific ideas.
Response: Of course they aren't, and nobody has claimed they are. They are inferences to the best explanation.

This video is a parade of bad reasoning and bad arguments against the fine-tuning argument.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

24Fine tuning of the Universe Empty Re: Fine tuning of the Universe Sat Jan 29, 2022 9:10 am

Otangelo


Admin

The most surprising thing about our universe, ie. matter, energy, the cosmological constants and the laws of physics is not the fine tuning, but the fact that these characteristics exist at all. Why does gravity exist? Why should matter exhibit a force such as gravity at all? What causes this attraction of matter? It's more likely that in a random universe, matter would be unaffected by the presence of other matter and all the universe would be is a massive quantity of static matter. What is the probability that an unguided event would produce all the fundamental particles required to make neutrons, protons and electrons. What's the probability that these particles would combine to form atoms? What's the probability that gravity would colesse these atoms creating great pressure and temperature resulting in nuclear fusion? What's the probability that nuclear fusion would produce dozens of even more complex highly stable, highly individualistic atoms? The list goes on. It's obvious that matter, energy, cosmological constants and laws of physics are all specifically designed for purpose, individually and collectively. The sheer complexity and functionality of this reality could not be due to a fluke event.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

25Fine tuning of the Universe Empty Re: Fine tuning of the Universe Sun Jan 30, 2022 1:07 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Amante de Jessica Riskin Biology, uma breve história 01 Out 2020
J. B. S. Haldane "A teleologia é como uma amante para um biólogo: ele não pode viver sem ela, mas não quer ser visto com ela em público."
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03080188.2020.1794388?journalCode=yisr20

Christian de Duve Prêmio Nobel de Vida Evoluindo: Moléculas, Mente e Significado 2002
“A investigação científica baseia-se na noção de que todas as manifestações no universo são explicáveis em termos naturais, sem intervenção sobrenatural.
https://3lib.net/book/671683/43ba15


O número de possíveis parâmetros e constantes de ajuste fino é infinito
1. Os valores, constantes e parâmetros para um universo que permite a vida devem existir dentro de um intervalo finito para que a existência de vida biológica seja possível.
2. Essas constantes e parâmetros de ajuste fino podem ter recebido qualquer número infinito de valores diferentes.
3. A probabilidade de ocorrer por acaso se aproxima de 0, mas é em termos práticos, de fato zero.
4. A melhor explicação é um agente inteligente que tinha um objetivo em mente, que é criar seres contingentes, projetado nosso universo que permite a vida

Existem muitas constantes que não podem ser previstas, apenas medidas. Isso significa que os números específicos nas equações matemáticas que definem as leis da física não podem ser derivados de coisas mais fundamentais. Eles são apenas o que são, sem maiores explicações. Por que? Ninguém sabe. O que sabemos, no entanto, é que, se esses números nas equações fossem diferentes, não estaríamos aqui. Outro exemplo é a massa das partículas fundamentais, como as massas dos quarks que definem a massa dos prótons, nêutrons, etc. Haveria um número quase infinito de combinações possíveis de quarks, mas se os prótons tivessem outras combinações, não haveria átomos estáveis , e não estaríamos aqui.

As constantes da física são números fundamentais que, quando ligados às leis da física, determinam a estrutura básica do universo. Constantes cujo valor pode ser deduzido de outros fatos mais profundos sobre física e matemática são chamadas de constantes derivadas. Uma constante fundamental, muitas vezes chamada de parâmetro livre, é uma quantidade cujo valor numérico não pode ser determinado por nenhum cálculo. A este respeito, é o bloco de construção mais baixo das equações, pois essas quantidades devem ser determinadas experimentalmente. Quando falamos de ajuste fino, estamos falando de constantes que não podem ser derivadas de outras constantes e devem ser verificadas por experimento. Simplificando: não sabemos por que eles têm esse valor. O Modelo Padrão da física de partículas sozinho contém 26 desses parâmetros livres. Ele contém constantes de acoplamento e massas de partículas. Muitas das constantes físicas fundamentais, Deus poderia ter dado qualquer valor que Ele quisesse - são de fato ajustadas com muita precisão, ou afinadas, para produzir o único tipo de Universo que torna nossa existência possível. As leis e constantes bem afinadas do universo são um exemplo de complexidade especificada na natureza. Eles são complexos, pois seus valores e configurações são altamente improváveis. Eles são especificados na medida em que atendem aos requisitos específicos necessários para a vida. Não há restrições sobre os valores possíveis que qualquer uma das constantes pode assumir.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum