THE FINE-TUNING ARGUMENT
An Argument from Physics & Cosmology
WHAT IS BEING ARGUED FOR?
• Arguing as an inference to the best explanation (contra.
impossibility).
– What best explains the existence of life in the universe?
– Life: Anything that consumes/uses energy and reproduces itself
• Intelligent causation can be detected.
– Why intelligent causation?
• Design – Fine-Tuning distinction
• Compatible with Darwinism (theistic and naturalistic)
THE ARGUMENT
1.
2.
3.
Given the fine-tuning evidence, a life permitting universe/multiverse
(LPM) is very, very unlikely under the non-existence of a fine-tuner
(~FT): that is, P(LPM|~FT & k’) ≪ 1.
Given the fine-tuning evidence, LPM is not unlikely under FT (the finetuner hypothesis): that is, ~P(LPM|FT & k’) ≪ 1.
Therefore, LPM strongly supports FT over ~FT.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
• Plato (429-347 BC)
– Philebus in Book X, The Laws
• Cicero (106-43 BC)
– Book II, Chapters XXXVII, XLIV, XLVII in On the Nature of the Gods
(45 BC)
• William Paley (1743-1805)
– Natural Theology (revived argument, though on biological terms)
POSITIONS
• The Regularist
– The fundamental regularities are brute facts; they neither have nor
require an explanation.
• The Necessitarian
– There are metaphysical connections of “necessity” in the world that
ground and explain the most fundamental regularities. Those who
advocate this position usually use the word must to express this connection.
• The Theist
– The most fundamental regularities in the world are explained by the
creative and sustaining power of God: God either sustains these
regularities directly, or God has created the sort of fundamental
powers or necessities in nature that underlie these
fundamental regularities.
MAJOR PROPONENTS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Robin Collins
Jay Richards
Guillermo Gonzalez
William Lane Craig
William Dembski
Bruce Gordon
James Sinclair
MAJOR SKEPTICS
•
•
•
•
•
Stephen Hawking
Victor Stenger
Max Tegmark
Lawrence Krauss
Richard Dawkins
THE LOGIC OF THE ARGUMENT
• Abductive reasoning
• Augustinian science over Duhemian science
• Aristotle’s Four Causes
1.
2.
3.
4.
Material Cause, What is it made of ?
Formal Cause, What is its form or essence?
Efficient Cause, What produced it?
Final Cause, What purpose?
• William Whewell’s restriction of the word “science”
THE BOUNDS OF PROBABILITY
1080 x 1043 x 1025 = 10148
1080: Elementary particles in the universe
1043: Alterations in the states of matter per second (Hz, Planck time)
1025: Number in seconds the universe can maintain integrity
10148: Total number of state changes that all elementary particles in the
universe can undergo through its
duration.
THE FINE-TUNING OF THE
LAWS OF NATURE
• To say that the laws are fine-tuned means that the universe
must have precisely the right set of laws in order for life to
exist.
–
–
–
–
–
Gravity
Electromagnetism
Strong Nuclear Force
Weak Nuclear Force
Principle of Quantization
THE FINE-TUNING OF THE
LAWS OF NATURE
• Gravity
– No stars, no planets, no life!
– Example of star formation caused by gravitation attraction.
THE FINE-TUNING OF THE
LAWS OF NATURE
• Electromagnetic Force
– Different atomic bonds and thus complex molecules
needed for life could not form.
– No light, no life!
THE FINE-TUNING OF THE
LAWS OF NATURE
• Strong Nuclear Force
– The force that holds the atomic nucleus together. After all, protons
are positively charged and like charges repel each other. Thus,
shouldn’t the nucleus fly apart?
– If stronger, no hydrogen, an essential element of life.
– If weaker, only hydrogen.
THE FINE-TUNING OF THE
LAWS OF NATURE
• Weak Nuclear Force
– If stronger, insufficient helium to generate heavy elements in stars.
– If weaker, stars burn out too quickly and supernova explosions could
not scatter heavy elements across the universe.
THE FINE-TUNING OF THE
LAWS OF NATURE
• Principle of Quantization
– Proposed by Niels Bohr in 1910
– Without it, an electron would be sucked into the nucleus of an atom.
– No atoms, no life!
– Pauli Exclusion Principle (Wolfgang Pauli, 1925), all electrons would
fall into lowest orbital (no complex chemistry).
THE FINE-TUNING OF THE
CONSTANTS OF NATURE
• There are fundamental numbers that occur in the laws of
physics.
– Gravitational constant
– Strength of Electromagnetism
– Cosmological constant
THE FINE-TUNING OF THE
CONSTANTS OF NATURE
• Gravitational Constant
– Determines the strength of gravity via Newton’s Law of Gravity
m2
F = Gm1m2/r2
m1
r
• Actual value of G is 6.67 x 10-11 Nm2/kg2
THE FINE-TUNING OF THE
CONSTANTS OF NATURE
Q: How fine-tuned is the strength of gravity as given by G?
A: We must first look at the range of force strengths in nature.
THE FINE-TUNING OF THE
CONSTANTS OF NATURE
Strength of
Electromagnetism: 1037G0
G0 = Current
Strength of
Gravity
Strength of
Weak Force:
1031G0
Strength of
Strong Force:
1040G0
1040G0 = ten thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion
times the strength of gravity
THE FINE-TUNING OF THE
CONSTANTS OF NATURE
• So, how fine tuned is gravity?
• If it were increased then starts would get too hot and burn
out quickly.
– If gravity was increased by one part in 1034 of the range of force
strengths then:
• even single-celled organisms would be crushed, and only planets less
than 100 feet in diameter could sustain life with our brain size. Such
planets, however, could not contain an ecosystem to support life of our
level of intelligence.
• If it were decreased then stars would never burn heavy
elements.
THE FINE-TUNING OF THE
CONSTANTS OF NATURE
• The cosmological constant (Λ, lambda) is a term in
Einstein’s theory of gravity that influences the expansion
rate of empty space.
– It can be positive or negative. (Unless it is within an extremely
narrow range around zero, the universe will either collapse or expand
too rapidly for galaxies and stars to form).
1
Rmn - Rgmn + Lgmn = 8pGTmn
2
VARYING FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANTS
• Jordan-Brans-Dicke Theory
– The value of G becomes a dynamical value (contrary to GR)
• Varying Speed of Light (VSL)
– Attempts to solve horizon problem (contrary to inflation)
• Superstring Theory
• Eternal Inflation
THE FINE-TUNING OF THE
INITIAL CONDITIONS OF THE UNIVERSE
• Roger Penrose’s initial low entropy calculations
–
10123
10
• Cosmic landscape parameters
– Range of all possible universes given they be governed by the present
laws of nature
– 10500 possible universes, only 10120 given Λ
GOD AS AN EXPLANATORY
HYPOTHESIS?
• Best scientific evidence suggests that it did have a complex
fine-tuning.
• Remember, not arguing for God per se.
• Is Plantinga’s approach to explanation applicable?
WHO’S AFRAID OF THE
MULTIVERSE?
•
•
•
•
What is the multiverse?
Are there different versions?
Do I have a twin somewhere?
How many are there?
LEVEL 1 MULTIVERSE
• Features
– Same laws of physics, different initial
conditions
• Assumptions
– Infinite space, ergodic matter distribution
• Evidence
– CMB measurements point to flat, infinite
space, large-scale smoothness
– Simplest model
LEVEL 2 MULTIVERSE
• Features
– Same fundamental equations of physics, but perhaps
different constants, particles and dimensionality
• Assumptions
– Chaotic inflation occurred
• Evidence
– Inflation explains flat space, scale-invariant
fluctuations, solves horizon problem and monopole
problems and explains fine-tuned parameters
LEVEL 2 MULTIVERSE
Sources: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.1995, NASA W-Band 94 GHz
WMAP, ESA/LFI & HFI Consortia Planck one-year survey
LEVEL 3 MULTIVERSE
• Features
– Same as level 2
• Assumptions
– Physics unitary
• Evidence
– Experimental support for unitary physics
– AdS/CFT correspondence suggests that
even quantum gravity is unitary
– Decoherence experimentally verified
• Mathematically simplest model
LEVEL 3 MULTIVERSE—
QUANTUM WEIRDNESS
LEVEL 4 MULTIVERSE
• Features
– Different fundamental equations of physics
• Assumptions
– Mathematical existence = physical existence
• Evidence
– Unreasonable effectiveness of math in physics
– Answers Wheeler/Hawking question: “Why
these equations, not others?”
HOW MANY UNIVERSES?
• Stanford cosmologists Andre Linde and Vitally Vanchurin’s
paper “How Many Universes are in the Multiverse?” (April
2010)
– Universe is a result of quantum fluctuations in slow roll-inflation
(string cosmic landscape).
– Subject to change depending on definitions and parameters of
inflation cosmology
107
10
10
INTERPRETING THE
QUANTUM WORLD
•
Interpretation is methodological/philosophical, it seeks to explain the data.
1. Ensemble
2. Copenhagen
3. de Broglie-Bohm
4. von Neumann
5. Quantum Logic
6. Many-Worlds
7. Time-Symmetric
8. Stochastic
9. Many-Minds
10. Consistent
11. Objective Collapse
12. Transactional
13. Relational
INFLATIONARY-SUPERSTRING
MULTIVERSE
The inflationary/superstring multiverse generator can only
produce life-sustaining universe because it has the following
four components/mechanisms.
1. A mechanism to supply the energy needed for the bubble
universes. (Actual Mechanism: Inflation Field)
2. A mechanism to form the bubbles. (Actual Mechanism:
Einstein’s Equation + Inflation Field)
INFLATIONARY-SUPERSTRING
MULTIVERSE
3. A mechanism to convert the energy of inflation field to the
normal mass/energy we find in our universe. (Actual
Mechanism: E=mc2 + coupling between inflation field and
matter fields)
4. A mechanism that allows enough variation in constants of
physics among universes. (Actual Mechanism: Superstring
Theory)
IS THE MULTIVERSE
COMPATIBLE WITH THEISM?
• Yes, there’s nothing to suggest that it is not and it fits with
God’s creativity (as revealed) and the historical trend of
science.
• If God were to create, would he create an open system or
closed system?
WEAK & MINIMALISTIC
ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
• WAP—The universe we inhabit must have a life-permitting
structure appears to be enough to make the observer-relative
life-permitting fact unsurprising.
– Ultimately, the claim “this universe is life-permitting” is tautologous.
– Multiverse is a dissatisfactory explanation, irrelevant to the features
of our universe.
• MAP—When testing fundamental theories with observational data,
ignoring selection effects can give incorrect conclusions.
STANDARD MODEL
STANDARD [CREATION?] MODEL
INFORMATION
• The numerical values of laws and constants are arbitrary.
• Shannon Information: I=log2p
– The mathematical expression of information and the
amount of any information in any series of characters is
inversely related to the probability and uncertainty.
– Roll a die, lands on 5, more information is being relayed
because it eliminates other possibilities.
– Flip a coin, eliminate one possibility, less information
conveyed.
• More uncertainty eliminated, more information being related.
INFORMATION
• Complexity vs. Specified Complexity
– ffdfbb59^^MgdAShSEA^TTLEujjP:Ms6c1o4t6l7
a8n1dNDsd+//bwadu
– “Time and tide wait for no man.”
• According to Shannon, both display information.
• First string is extremely complex. The second string
has a specific order allowing it to perform a
function.
AESTHETICS EXCURSUS
• Reverse engineering
– From the very large aspects of the universe (i.e. big bang cosmology,
galactic and stellar evolution, etc.) to the very small (i.e. the fitness of
the chemical elements and the coding of DNA for life), the cosmos is
so readily and profitably reverse engineered by its human inhabitants
as to suggest that the whole shebang was engineered from the
beginning. See D. Halsmer et al., Int. J. of Design and Ecodynamics 4
no. 1 (2009), 47-65.
AESTHETICS EXCURSUS
•
•
•
•
Meaningfulness in meaninglessness
Elements of genius
Periodic table
Designed for discovery
NATURAL EVIL
Problem: How can the designer design such a physical reality
that causes such much evil? (i.e. earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.)
NATURAL EVIL
NATURAL EVIL
NATURAL EVIL
• Problem: How can the designer design such a physical
reality that causes such much evil? (i.e. earthquakes,
tsunamis, etc.)
• Nature is not evil, only moral agents are evil.
• The designer’s moral status is irrelevant.
WHAT SAY YOU GOOD SIR?
“The impression of design is overwhelming.” –
Paul Davies (The Cosmic Code, 203).
“A commonsense interpretation of the facts
suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed
with physics… and that there are no blind
forces in nature.” –Fred Hoyle
CONCLUSIONS
• The argument makes it only probable that there is design in
the universe.
• The argument does not demand perfection.
• The argument does not need to explain the problem of evil.
• There must be a cause for design in the universe.
• The designer must be extremely intelligent.