Fine tuning question

[Wertbag]

I had a thought about the fine tuning argument of the universe and wanted to run it pass you guys to see if this makes sense...

If atoms, electrons and the other building blocks of matter exist and are constant in what they are and how they interact, then upon matter being created the natural forces (gravity, radiation, magnetism etc) all flow from there and follow the same pattern that we see.  Those forces would be set to a constant based on the mass of an atom.  So the many different fine tuned metrics (gravity, expansion, life existing, intelligent life and earth being as it is etc) would all flow naturally from atomic mass?  There would be no way to get a wrong constant as E=MC2.

The natural forces are all joining or breaking atoms, electron movement or combinations.  Is the only constant that actually matters the mass of an atom?

[sdelsolray]

I am not aware of any science which hypothesizes that the Higgs field and Higgs boson (responsible for mass) cause or limit/set the parameters of other particles, fields or forces.

[bornagainathiest]

17 hours ago, Wertbag said:

I had a thought about the fine tuning argument of the universe and wanted to run it pass you guys to see if this makes sense...

If atoms, electrons and the other building blocks of matter exist and are constant in what they are and how they interact, then upon matter being created the natural forces (gravity, radiation, magnetism etc) all flow from there and follow the same pattern that we see.  Those forces would be set to a constant based on the mass of an atom.  So the many different fine tuned metrics (gravity, expansion, life existing, intelligent life and earth being as it is etc) would all flow naturally from atomic mass?  There would be no way to get a wrong constant as E=MC2.

The natural forces are all joining or breaking atoms, electron movement or combinations.  Is the only constant that actually matters the mass of an atom?

 

The fine tuning argument rests upon a clever statistical sleight-of-hand by it's proponents, wertbag.

The only place they claim we can see evidence for this apparent fine-tuning is in our observable universe.  So their sample consists of only ONE example of a universe.  But a lone, isolated data point tells you nothing about anything and is statistically meaningless.  To say if a certain location is fine-tuned or not you need to sample many locations and carefully weigh the various factors to arrive at a meaningful conclusion.  A location can only really be fine-tuned if can be compared to other locations that are not fine-tuned.  The greater your sample, the more likely you are to make a proper judgement on the matter.  So how can we proceed to make a proper judgement, with a sample of one one - the observable universe we inhabit?

 

The answer to that question is to use the Copernican principle... properly.

This principle requires us NOT to assume that the observable universe is the entire cosmos.   When correctly factored into Inflationary theory, it requires us to assume that the observable universe is just a small part of a much, much larger domain and is one of many such domains.  It also requires us to take the Inflationary process to it's logical conclusion and NOT treat Inflation as a one-off event that happened long ago.   We see that Inflation ceased in our observable universe 13.72 billion years ago, but the underlying science of the Inflationary process requires it to still be happening, far beyond our visual horizon.  Also, since the principle requires us NOT to treat any part of the cosmos as special or privileged, we cannot and must not assume that it began here, in our particular domain.

 

Our small part of the cosmos could have been the 1st, the 2nd or the 9,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999th domain generated by Inflation.  

But there is no way for us to know.  Inflation could have been going for just a moment before our domain was generated, or it could have been going for a trillion eons before we came to be.  But there is no way for us to know this, either.  Inflation is an on-going, never-ending and exponentially accelerating process that doubles the number of domains it generates every trillion trillion trillionth of a second.  But there is no way for us to know how long it had been doing this before our domain was generated.

.

.

.

All of these vitally-important considerations are overlooked, sidelined, downplayed or simply not mentioned by supporters of the fine-tuned universe argument, wertbag.

They violate the Copernican principle by assuming that our observable universe is the entire cosmos.

They violate the Copernican principle by not taking Inflationary theory to it's logical conclusion.

They violate the Copernican principle by assuming that the Inflationary process began with our particular domain.

They violate the Copernican principle by assuming that Inflation couldn't have been running before our particular domain was generated.

They violate the Copernican principle by assuming that because Inflation stopped in our particular domain, it stopped everywhere.

They violate the Copernican principle by not treating every domain generated by Inflation on an equal basis - but treating OUR domain as special and privileged.

 

They need to put their house in order and come clean about Inflation and the Copernican principle.

When they do that, they'll find that their Fine-Tuned universe argument vanishes in a puff of honesty.  If there are millions upon billions of domains in the entire cosmos and our observable universe is just one of them, then it's hardly surprising that ours appears fine-tuned for life.  Many, many such domains will be equally or better-suited to life.  The correct application of the Copernican principle to Inflationary theory kills the fine-tuned universe argument stone dead.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 p.s.

JoshPantera, LogicalFallacy and I are chewing a related topic over in this thread...  http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/74813-attn-baa-beginning-of-the-universe-question/?page=1

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

2 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

The fine tuning argument rests upon a clever statistical sleight-of-hand by it's proponents, wertbag.

The only place they claim we can see evidence for this apparent fine-tuning is in our observable universe.  So their sample consists of only ONE example of a universe.  But a lone, isolated data point tells you nothing about anything and is statistically meaningless.  To say if a certain location is fine-tuned or not you need to sample many locations and carefully weigh the various factors to arrive at a meaningful conclusion.  A location can only really be fine-tuned if can be compared to other locations that are not fine-tuned.  The greater your sample, the more likely you are to make a proper judgement on the matter.  So how can we proceed to make a proper judgement, with a sample of one one - the observable universe we inhabit?

 

Exactly! Humanity finds itself on a habitable planet in a hostile ocean of space and assumes that planet is special. They also assume that because of the particular parameters and constants we can observe that it must have HAD to happen this way by some outside force. They won't admit that the only reason we are in the position to even consider whether were are special is because we are here!

 

BAA makes a great point - fine tuned compare to what? Again we are simply observing constants that allow us to exist, we can conclude that if they were different we would be here pondering it, but if they were different we wouldn't be here anyway, therefore in order for us to be here like we are they had to be this way.

 

(PS BAA, I'm re-running through the inflation link you put in your first reply to me in that thread so I can understand the concepts better as they come together.)

[Wertbag]

4 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

The only place they claim we can see evidence for this apparent fine-tuning is in our observable universe.  So their sample consists of only ONE example of a universe.  

 

 

Thanks for the in-depth reply, its a fascinating subject.  I guess the question is really are the laws of physics set?  If there are a multiverse of possibilities would we actually see a variety of physical constants or are we likely to see the same basic building blocks resulting in the same forces being applied and hence the same universe?

I'm thinking that if the constants are set by something unchanging like matter, then there is zero possibility of a universe that doesn't work.  It is not fine tuned so much as correct to the only way it can be. 

[Joshpantera]

Also, our discussion of the infinite replication paradox seems to apply. 

 

Everything that exists, does so because it's always existed and will always exist. Infinite replications of this planet will play out infinitely. Infinite replications of our discussion, thoughts, feelings and emotions playing out infinitely, but so far away from each other that they'll never come into observation or contact. Things may seem fine tuned if we're in a replication paradox. The repetition making it seem as if all of these circumstances had to come together in order for us to be here. In that event, the circumstances really couldn't be any other way as they infinitely repeat over and over.

 

So is a replication earth and cosmos essentially fine tuned, in that it's fine tuned to be a replication?  

[sdelsolray]

Weak anthropic principle.

 

"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

 

Douglas Adams - The Salmon of Doubt

[☆ pantheory ☆]

I

On 5/1/2017 at 5:56 PM, Wertbag said:

I had a thought about the fine tuning argument of the universe and wanted to run it pass you guys to see if this makes sense...

If atoms, electrons and the other building blocks of matter exist and are constant in what they are and how they interact, then upon matter being created the natural forces (gravity, radiation, magnetism etc) all flow from there and follow the same pattern that we see.  Those forces would be set to a constant based on the mass of an atom.  So the many different fine tuned metrics (gravity, expansion, life existing, intelligent life and earth being as it is etc) would all flow naturally from atomic mass?  There would be no way to get a wrong constant as E=MC2.

 

The natural forces are all joining or breaking atoms, electron movement or combinations.  Is the only constant that actually matters the mass of an atom?

 

I see nothing wrong with your argument. It makes sense to me as long as you realize that as far as one can tell, arguments can seem logical in every way, at least to the person considering it, and still be wrong -- but I also think that your argument is based upon good logic, but the word "mass" is not needed. Instead better wording might be an atom's "form and characteristics."

 

The fine tuning arguments of Christianity and other Abrahamic religions is almost a joke to many or most highly science educated people. The main idea is that fine-tuning requires a fine tuner, and the finely tuned and built organisms, bodies and organs of life seem so perfect -- so how could they have just come-about by chance? "There must have been a creator."  This is the religious argument.

 

But what many don't realize is that there is also a similar type fine tuning argument in science that goes like this. The universe could have been built in many different ways so that life could not have existed unless the universe was finely tuned in such a way that enabled the existence of human life. Many also believe in multiverses whereby many other universes do exist  which are not conducive to life.

 

I am a scientist primarily writing in the fields of Physics and Cosmology, often writing theory and papers contrary to the current beliefs/ theories in modern Physics -- meaning Physic's theories in the last 100 years of so.  In my view the scientific argument concerning fine tuning is no more correct than the Christian view. It is not based upon the primary requirements of science in that it is generally not believed to be observable, testable, or even a logical implication of foundation theory. 

 

In my own writings, book and scientific papers, there is only one universe and that is the one that we live in. It could not have begun or evolved in its observable form in any other way. Whether life as we know it had to evolve in the way that it did is debatable but in my related theory the universe could only have begun in only one way generally evolving into our atomic world of galaxies, clusters, and super-clusters. That for all things that ever existed, if they could not coexist with their environment, change and evolve as needed, their form of reality would perish. So in my view no so-called fine tuning argument of reality from religion or from  today's mainstream Physics holds water

 

 

 

 

[pratt]

The argument from fine tuning asserts that the conditions necessary to support life as it exists on Earthare so specific and narrowly defined, and the odds of such conditions emerging by random chance so remote, that the existence of a deliberate guiding force or creator may be shoehorned inferred

 

(from wikipedia)

 

i am wondering if earth's temperature were to be a little hotter or colder, we could have evolved differently, or if the air composition is different, we will propbably look different from our current state.

 

creatures evolved to adapt to environment, 

 

i don't exactly buy fine tuning.

[bornagainathiest]

13 hours ago, Wertbag said:

 

Thanks for the in-depth reply, its a fascinating subject.  I guess the question is really are the laws of physics set?  If there are a multiverse of possibilities would we actually see a variety of physical constants or are we likely to see the same basic building blocks resulting in the same forces being applied and hence the same universe?

I'm thinking that if the constants are set by something unchanging like matter, then there is zero possibility of a universe that doesn't work.  It is not fine tuned so much as correct to the only way it can be. 

 

Ok wertbag,

 

In reality we cannot 'see' a variety of constants, we can only see the constants that hold in our observable universe.  

Now, I know you didn't actually mean see to mean observe.  You meant it in a theoretical way, right?  Well, there is a body of theoretical work covering what kind of constants might hold in these other, far distant domains.  

 

Here is a paper that came to my attention.  https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.115020 

The authors posit the notion that some other domains won't possess a Weak Nuclear Force, yet they will still be life 'friendly'.  On the flip side, here's another paper that argues against the life 'friendliness' of such Weakless domains.  https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0609050  Since we cannot directly (or even indirectly) observe any other domain but the one we inhabit, we cannot confirm or rule out either of these propositions.  Thus we have a situation that many scientists are deeply uncomfortable with.  Specifically, theories that cannot be falsified by evidence.  This is a major epistemological problem, which has deeply divided the scientific community and I do not know how this problem can or will be resolved.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

12 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Also, our discussion of the infinite replication paradox seems to apply. 

 

Everything that exists, does so because it's always existed and will always exist. Infinite replications of this planet will play out infinitely. Infinite replications of our discussion, thoughts, feelings and emotions playing out infinitely, but so far away from each other that they'll never come into observation or contact. Things may seem fine tuned if we're in a replication paradox. The repetition making it seem as if all of these circumstances had to come together in order for us to be here. In that event, the circumstances really couldn't be any other way as they infinitely repeat over and over.

 

So is a replication earth and cosmos essentially fine tuned, in that it's fine tuned to be a replication?  

 

No, Josh.

 

The replication of Earth is purely a matter of statistics, with no input from an intelligent, finely-tuning agent.

 

Given infinite time and infinite opportunity, the exact arrangement of atoms that go to make up the planet Earth will be replicated not just once or twice, but an infinite number of times. 

 

This is just math.  Take any positive integer and multiply it by infinity and your result is always... infinity.

 

That is why the theory of Eternal Cosmic Inflation is deadly poison to the Fine-Tuned Universe argument.

 

Infinite possibility obliterates Fine-Tuning. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Wertbag]

I've also heard the counter argument that to say you need earth like conditions for life is ignoring just how robust life is. From desert wastelands to the arctic circle, huge pressures of the deepest ocean to living at volcanic vents. Life is everywhere and in the last century our knowledge of just how hardy has greatly increased.

[bornagainathiest]

31 minutes ago, Wertbag said:

I've also heard the counter argument that to say you need earth like conditions for life is ignoring just how robust life is. From desert wastelands to the arctic circle, huge pressures of the deepest ocean to living at volcanic vents. Life is everywhere and in the last century our knowledge of just how hardy has greatly increased.

 

Just so, wertbag!   

 

Those who employ the fine-tuned universe argument usually have an agenda that they're working to.

Rather than letting the evidence lead them to the conclusion that the universe is fine-tuned for life by an intelligent designer, their religious faith usually causes them to do the opposite.  Because they believe by faith that an intelligent designer (the god of the Bible) MUST exist, they go out looking for scientific evidence they can co-opt to support this preconceived conclusion.  So, even if they claim that there is scientific evidence to support this belief, the method of investigation they've used to gather this data is not grounded in science.  Proper scientific investigation doesn't begin with a conclusion and then root around looking for data to support it.  

 

No way!  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

I have an issue with one of the papers abstract that BAA linked:

 

" Since oxygen is an essential element in both water, the universal solvent needed for life, and in each of the four bases forming the DNA code for known living beings, we strongly question the hypothesis that a universe without weak interactions could generate life."

 

Is this what you mean by being uncomfortable with these theories? I ask because how on earth, heaven, under earth or in space are we to know whether water is a universal solvent needed for life? We only know its needed absolutely for life on earth.

 

However we know that microorganisms can survive the radiation in space https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bacteria-are-so-good-at-surviving-in-space-nasa-needs-a-new-way-to-kill-them 

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-08/bacteria-survive-553-day-exposure-exterior-iss

 

So we really don't know what other life forms are out there, how they are based, or what form their evolution took.

[bornagainathiest]

On 04/05/2017 at 11:53 AM, LogicalFallacy said:

I have an issue with one of the papers abstract that BAA linked:

 

" Since oxygen is an essential element in both water, the universal solvent needed for life, and in each of the four bases forming the DNA code for known living beings, we strongly question the hypothesis that a universe without weak interactions could generate life."

 

Is this what you mean by being uncomfortable with these theories? I ask because how on earth, heaven, under earth or in space are we to know whether water is a universal solvent needed for life? We only know its needed absolutely for life on earth.

 

No, LF.

The discomfort I mentioned is that felt by some scientists when it comes to theories that can never be falsified by new evidence.  The two papers in question fall into that category.  Nobody will ever be able to gather any data or evidence for or against them, because they discuss the conditions in other, completely separate universes.  As such, both papers are un-falsifiable and are considered by some scientists to be interesting works of speculation, rather than testable science.

 

Point of order!

Even though Inflationary theory predicts the existence of other, separate universe, it does so on the back of confirmed predictions made about observed phenomenon in this universe.  Therefore, it is different from the two papers cited above.  They postulate entirely unknown types of physics that have not been observed anywhere.  Oranges and apples!

 

Yes, we only know that water is needed for life on Earth.

But this fact is the bedrock upon which all searches for life in outer space MUST rest upon.  The logic of the argument runs like this.  

Q.  Do we spend our limited time, money and efforts using what we know to guide us or do we widen the parameters of searches to include what we don't know?

A.  We go with what we know, because it's impossible and impractical to search for what we don't know.  Not knowing what we're looking for, how would we know when we've found it?   Not knowing what to look for, how would we organize our searches?  Not knowing what to look for, what instruments would we put on our satellites and probes?  Not knowing what to look for, how do we justify the spending of government money on various space programs?  Governments want accountability, efficiency and results.  They won't get any of those if we don't even know what it is that we're looking for.  

 

Therefore, we have to use what we do know (that where there's water, there's also life) to guide our searches.  There is no other practical way forward.

 

On 04/05/2017 at 11:53 AM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

 

However we know that microorganisms can survive the radiation in space https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bacteria-are-so-good-at-surviving-in-space-nasa-needs-a-new-way-to-kill-them 

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-08/bacteria-survive-553-day-exposure-exterior-iss

 

So we really don't know what other life forms are out there, how they are based, or what form their evolution took.

 

Agreed.

But because of the above line of argument, we have to use what we do know about life on Earth to guide our searches elsewhere.  

 

And there is another persuasive point to take into account with this issue, LF.

Here is a list of molecules that have been detected in deep space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_interstellar_and_circumstellar_molecules  From this data we can infer that the same chemical reactions we find on Earth also happen elsewhere in the universe.  We've also detected chemical elements like carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, ozone, etc.  We now know that exoplanets are abundant and we are also very close to being able to discover what gases make up the atmospheres of some of them.  Given all of these factors, it's not such a big assumption to say that extraterrestrial life is likely to use the same chemical elements as those found on Earth, to make use of the same molecules as we have here and to exist in the same kind of environments as exist here.  That is, in oceans, in rivers, in the air, on the ground and underground.  

 

Given this point, going with what we know (that where there's water, there's also life) seems a reasonable strategy for our searches.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.