Fine Tuning, Arguments For and Against

[Coito ergo sum]

I agree that the expression "fine tuning" is part of the problem here, because it DOES give the impression that an intelligent tuner is implied. But I can't think of a better expression right now.

The universe exists, and all things that exist exist with certain attributes. If the universe did not have certain attributes, it would not exist. The universe has the attributes it has. Why it has them is at present unknown.

If you look at a human, you know it's not just the result of random occurrences.

Nobody said it was the result of purely random occurrences. Some things are up to chance, like "which sperm reaches the egg" and "which night your father is horny and decides not to pull out at the last minute." Other things, like natural selection, are not up to purely random chance. Natural selection is more like gravity - it operates in a predictable fashion.

It's too complicated for the atoms to fall that way, just by chance. Now we know what happened.

Right, it would be unthinkable for a few trillion atoms to all just come together into a human form at random. That would truly look like a miracle that some intelligent force conjured up.

It could well be the same with the Universe.

Well, yeah. Of course. So far, everything we see in the universe happens due to the operation of natural processes.

The fundamental constants seem to be far too finely BALANCED to be the result of chance.

What does that even mean? Nobody said it was the result of "chance."

To the religious, it implies a god. To me, it implies a process that brought it about.

It doesn't "imply" anything. It just is. The universe is the way it is, and has the fundamental constants that it has. We don't know, yet, how they came to be the way they are.

It could be that this Universe is the billionth that has existed, expanded, and then collapsed, and each time it's renewed, what's left is more and more "fine tuned",

Or, less and less. Or, exactly the same. Or, this was and is the only one ever. We do not know, and at the moment nobody has a damn bit of evidence.

or it could be that there are millions of parallel universes, all with different fundamental constants, so one like ours is not at all surprising.

Or, thousands, or two, or 99, or an infinity, or this might be the only one. We do not know, and at the moment nobody has a damn bit of evidence.

Four billion years of evolution produced me.
What did it take to produce the Universe? We haven't got a clue,

We have a lot of clues. We know solar systems and stars are formed through "nebular theory." We know a lot about what the matter in the universe was like right after the big bang, and we know a lot about how the universe acted over billions of years to form the galaxies and solar systems we see today. We don't have all the answers, but we do know a lot more than we did 500 years ago. We have got a clue.

but there is no reason why it had to be a "big bang from nothing".

Nobody said it had to be, did they?

I favour a big bang from something.
.

It makes no difference what you'd prefer. Nobody knows (unless you do, and in which case you need to go collect your Nobel Prize in Physics), yet. And, that's o.k.

[Coito ergo sum]

Compared to the age of the solar system, and the age of the galaxy, and the age of the universe, the time period that life has existed on Earth is infinitessimally small (and most of that time life was only microscopic).

I'm just going to be really pedantic and off-topic!

The universe is reckoned to be about 13.7 billion years old, and the solar system about 4.6 billion years old. Life likely started up around 4 billion years ago - the common ancestor is reckoned to date from about 3.5 billion years ago, but it was only a little over half a billion years ago that life went mad.

So in terms of the age of the universe, life has been around for between a quarter and a third of that. Complex life about 1/23rd of that.

Fair enough. I was contemplating "human" life at the time I wrote that - homo sapiens sapiens being here only about 250,000 years. But, the point is well taken.

Multicellular life occurred only about 640,000,000 years ago, and the first evidence of life on Earth at all - photosynthesizing cells was about 3.5 billion years ago.

But, the point is - if a universe was "fine tuned" for Life, why wouldn't it exist all over the place? And, not just in some places, sometimes?

If I was a fine tuner, I wouldn't worry much about vast swaths of empty space, nor would I create asteroids and comets to come and destroy the Life that I am tuning the universe for, nor would I create gamma ray bursts that from time to time would bombard the only places that can support Life. I would just create world conducive to life. Why would a fine tuner try to make it look natural?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I agree that the expression "fine tuning" is part of the problem here, because it DOES give the impression that an intelligent tuner is implied. But I can't think of a better expression right now. If you look at a human, you know it's not just the result of random occurrences. It's too complicated for the atoms to fall that way, just by chance. Now we know what happened.
It could well be the same with the Universe. The fundamental constants seem to be far too finely BALANCED to be the result of chance.
To the religious, it implies a god. To me, it implies a process that brought it about.
It could be that this Universe is the billionth that has existed, expanded, and then collapsed, and each time it's renewed, what's left is more and more "fine tuned", or it could be that there are millions of parallel universes, all with different fundamental constants, so one like ours is not at all surprising.
Four billion years of evolution produced me.
What did it take to produce the Universe? We haven't got a clue, but there is no reason why it had to be a "big bang from nothing".
I favour a big bang from something.
.

Mutation is chance. Natural selection is anything but! As soon as there was competition for nutrients in order to replicate, there was natural selection. NS is a natural consequence of a self-replicating molecule - down here, it just so happens to be DNA but it could be any molecule that can divide and multiply - in fact, early in the history of life on Earth, it almost certainly was something else - something simpler - RNA, or something like it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's too complicated for the atoms to fall that way, just by chance.

You just decided that, did you?

[mistermack]

It's too complicated for the atoms to fall that way, just by chance.

You just decided that, did you?

I did, yes. That was me.

Well, Charles Darwin helped a little bit, but I did the difficult stuff.
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's too complicated for the atoms to fall that way, just by chance.

You just decided that, did you?

I did, yes. That was me.

Well, Charles Darvin helped a little bit, but I did the difficult stuff.
.

*pat, pat, pat*


Still waiting for an explanation of defecation, btw.

[Trolldor]

Charles Darvin?

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&q=Charl ... 1aaf8ad656

[mistermack]

Coito, what I'm getting at is that, if the physical constants being balanced like they are is such an unlikely arrangement, then I'm arguing that it points at processes BEFORE the big bang.
After all, if there was a big bang, and a human being was ejected from it, you would reasonably say that something must have happened before the bang. A human is too complicated and unlikely thing to be made in a bang.
That's what I'm saying about the Universe. All the phsical constants came out of that bang, and haven't changed in 14.7 billion years. If they are as unlikely a balance as has been said, they must have come about in a PROCESS that happened before the big bang.
Nothing after the big bang is really relevant to the argument, as none of these constants have changed since.
I'm theorising that the constants were fine tuned, or perhaps finely balance is better, by a process that happened before the big bang.

All the stuff about god being the tuner is very easy to refute. Of course I agree with all the arguments about the Universe being not set up for humans. I said all that in my first post. It is just the apparent unlikely fine balance of the physical constants that was bugging me.

The pre-big bang process, or multiple parallel universes, is my best answer to that.

The physicists who were postulating that the big bang arose from nothing are the guilty parties really, because they had no evidence for that, and the religious lot have been making hay out of it ever since.
.

[mistermack]

Still waiting for an explanation of defecation, btw.

Gawdzilla, you do talk a load of shit at times.
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Still waiting for an explanation of defecation, btw.

Gawdzilla, you do talk a load of shit at times.
.

So you can't? Believers never can. I just wonder in a "fine tuned" universe why there is so much SHIT. Waste products, nothing more. (Some things have adapted to take advantage of that shit, but that's not an explanation of why it's there in the first place.)

[mistermack]

So you can't? Believers never can. I just wonder in a "fine tuned" universe why there is so much SHIT. Waste products, nothing more. (Some things have adapted to take advantage of that shit, but that's not an explanation of why it's there in the first place.)

It's nothing to do with this thread, though. I would start my own thread on shit, if I were you. You should be able to debate it with great authority.
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So you can't? Believers never can. I just wonder in a "fine tuned" universe why there is so much SHIT. Waste products, nothing more. (Some things have adapted to take advantage of that shit, but that's not an explanation of why it's there in the first place.)

It's nothing to do with this thread, though. I would start my own thread on shit, if I were you. You should be able to debate it with great authority.
.

Ooh, defensive are we? Bad start, my fine fundy, bad start.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, what I'm getting at is that, if the physical constants being balanced like they are is such an unlikely arrangement, then I'm arguing that it points at processes BEFORE the big bang.

One, there is no evidence that the physical constants are "balanced." They are what they are. And, two, there is no evidence that the way the physical constants are is "unlikely." We have just as much evidence (zero) to say that it's very likely that physical constants would be like they are.

And, we don't know what happened a split Planck's constant of time after the Big Bang, so we really really don't know if anything happened "before" the Big Bang.

After all, if there was a big bang, and a human being was ejected from it, you would reasonably say that something must have happened before the bang. A human is too complicated and unlikely thing to be made in a bang.

Nobody suggested that the some explosion happened and human beings were spit out whole from the explosion.

That's what I'm saying about the Universe. All the phsical constants came out of that bang, and haven't changed in 14.7 billion years. If they are as unlikely a balance as has been said,

Actually nobody said that the physical constants were "unlikely." And, they have changed. During the "Planck Epoch" of the early universe it is theorized that the four fundamental forces had the same strength, and may have been unified. After that, in the Grand Unification Epoch, gravity separates out and the forces change.

they must have come about in a PROCESS that happened before the big bang.

Or, the process known as the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory takes us back only until a period of time AFTER the Big Bang (the Planck Epoch), before which all theories are merely speculative. As of early 2010, no accelerator experiments probe energies of sufficient magnitude to provide any insight into the period. All proposed scenarios differ radically. Some examples are: the Hartle-Hawking initial state, string landscape, brane inflation, string gas cosmology, and the ekpyrotic universe. Some of these are mutually compatible, while others are not.

The point is, there is a period "after" the Big Bang that we don't know anything at all about, and likewise we know nothing about the Big Bang itself.

Nothing after the big bang is really relevant to the argument, as none of these constants have changed since.

That's not true. The constants are different now than they were during the Planck Epoch, for example.

I'm theorising that the constants were fine tuned, or perhaps finely balance is better, by a process that happened before the big bang.

Guessing or speculating. You can only "theorize" if you (a) have experimental evidence, which you don't, or (b) are confining yourself to theoretical physics and have some complex math to show us, which I doubt you do (since if anyone does, they'll win the Nobel Prize in Physics).

All the stuff about god being the tuner is very easy to refute. Of course I agree with all the arguments about the Universe being not set up for humans. I said all that in my first post. It is just the apparent unlikely fine balance of the physical constants that was bugging me.

Try to think about it this way: Things that exist, exist with certain attributes. Why? Because if they didn't have any attributes, how would they differ from nonexistence? They wouldn't - if something has no attributes, it is not a thing at all. It's axiomatic that things that exist must be a certain way. Like a sandy beach could form in 1,000,000,000,000,000 different ways, and it is extraordinarily unlikely that any arrangement of sand grains should be the one that actually happens, if the beach is going to exist it must exist in SOME way, no matter how unlikely that way is relative to any other way (and any other way has approximately equal probability). Likewise: the universe exists, and must therefore have certain attributes.

The pre-big bang process, or multiple parallel universes, is my best answer to that.

That's fine.

The physicists who were postulating that the big bang arose from nothing are the guilty parties really,

Nobody really postulates that. The idea is not that a singularity did not "appear in space," but rather space and time began in a singularity. Time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.

because they had no evidence for that, and the religious lot have been making hay out of it ever since.
.

It's just religious folk not understanding the theory and what it does (and doesn't) purport to explain.

[mistermack]

One, there is no evidence that the physical constants are "balanced." They are what they are. And, two, there is no evidence that the way the physical constants are is "unlikely." We have just as much evidence (zero) to say that it's very likely that physical constants would be like they are.

Ok, that's your opinion. As I pointed out, Stephen Hawking for one thinks differently, and was prepared to go on record to that effect.
That link feck gave for Richard Carrier shows him claiming that the universe is perfectly fine-tuned for black hole production, and he quoted doctor Lee Smolen who calculated that this universe it the "best possible universe you could ever design" for black hole production.
So there are some pretty good people there, all saying what I'm saying. It's not just me, it's highly qualified physicists saying this. I'm happy to go with them at the moment.

And, we don't know what happened a split Planck's constant of time after the Big Bang, so we really really don't know if anything happened "before" the Big Bang.

No we don't. That's the point I'm making too.

Nobody suggested that the some explosion happened and human beings were spit out whole from the explosion.

Of course not.

Actually nobody said that the physical constants were "unlikely." And, they have changed. During the "Planck Epoch" of the early universe it is theorized that the four fundamental forces had the same strength, and may have been unified. After that, in the Grand Unification Epoch, gravity separates out and the forces change.

Not quite the same thing.

Try to think about it this way: Things that exist, exist with certain attributes. Why? Because if they didn't have any attributes, how would they differ from nonexistence?

Not good enough. I don't think you understood my argument about a human being spat out from the big bang. Most people would agree that something as unlikely and 'fine tuned' like a human must be the result of a process.
I'm saying the same about the physical constants, and I'm quoting well qualified people who say the same.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

One, there is no evidence that the physical constants are "balanced." They are what they are. And, two, there is no evidence that the way the physical constants are is "unlikely." We have just as much evidence (zero) to say that it's very likely that physical constants would be like they are.

Ok, that's your opinion.

No, it's a fact. There is no evidence. You are speculating.

As I pointed out, Stephen Hawking for one thinks differently, and was prepared to go on record to that effect.

No, he doesn't. You mischaracterized what he wrote.

That link feck gave for Richard Carrier shows him claiming that the universe is perfectly fine-tuned for black hole production, and he quoted doctor Lee Smolen who calculated that this universe it the "best possible universe you could ever design" for black hole production.

Oh, come on. So what? That makes the point that the universe IS NOT "FINE TUNED." Don't you see that?

So there are some pretty good people there, all saying what I'm saying. It's not just me, it's highly qualified physicists saying this. I'm happy to go with them at the moment.

You are plainly not understanding what they are saying.

And, we don't know what happened a split Planck's constant of time after the Big Bang, so we really really don't know if anything happened "before" the Big Bang.

No we don't. That's the point I'm making too.

No. You made the point that you think you know what happened. You think there was a process "before," the Big Bang. You did not say that you didn't know.

Nobody suggested that the some explosion happened and human beings were spit out whole from the explosion.

Of course not.

That's the picture you painted, though.

Actually nobody said that the physical constants were "unlikely." And, they have changed. During the "Planck Epoch" of the early universe it is theorized that the four fundamental forces had the same strength, and may have been unified. After that, in the Grand Unification Epoch, gravity separates out and the forces change.

Not quite the same thing.

As what? You said the fundamental forces haven't changed since the Big Bang. They, in fact, have. You were wrong.

Try to think about it this way: Things that exist, exist with certain attributes. Why? Because if they didn't have any attributes, how would they differ from nonexistence?

Not good enough.

Not good enough for what?

I don't think you understood my argument about a human being spat out from the big bang.

I understand it fine. A human being was NOT spat out from the Big Bang.

Most people would agree that something as unlikely and 'fine tuned' like a human must be the result of a process.

Human beings are the result of a process. But t's not "because" they are likely or unlikely, or finely tuned. Humans are neither likely or unlikely, and are not "tuned."

I'm saying the same about the physical constants, and I'm quoting well qualified people who say the same.
.

You aren't quoting anyone who is saying anything like what you are saying. You're misquoting them.

Nobody in their right mind is saying that the origin of the universe is not a process. So what are you even on about? Of course it was a process.