Debunking the Fine-Tuning argument…again

      So it has come to my attention that my previous post in which I debunked the fine-tuning argument was apparently not enough. The claim that was made is as follows: “You listed four fundamental forces, which there are, but there any tons of more constants and ratios that need to be perfectly in place for this universe to operate how it does. Here they are. 34 of them.” And the list can be found here. I suggest you read it because I will be making references to it quite a few times during this post.      But without further ado let’s get started. In case you do not know what the fine-tuning argument is, here is a brief summary. The physical constants of the universe (ie. the charge of an electron, the strength of gravity etc.) seem too finely tuned for life to exist that it is utterly improbable that they could just be the way they are by chance thus there MUST be an intelligent designer, a fine tuner, a God. This sounds somewhat compelling until you actually examine the true nature of things. The first point that I will make is that it is fallacious to assume that one constant can be changed whilst the others remain intact. Essentially what is being said is that we will keep all the others the same while only changing one. The problem with that is that they all balance each other and if you disrupt one while not changing the others of course there will be problems.

But let’s put that aside and assume that there can be any other random set of constants as this argument necessitates. The odd thing about our set of physical constants and their values is that this universe is the best possible one for making black holes as Richard Carrier says.1 With this in mind it begs the question, does God care about black holes just a little more?

Furthermore, if we still make the assumption that all the constants can be randomized life can still arise. With the randomization of the gravitational constant, the fine-structure constant and the nuclear reaction rate 25% of the time universes that can sustain life arise, a study by Fred Adams suggests.2 Again, all of this rests on
a) the assumption that the constants can be randomized and
b) the assumption that all life is similar to the life we find on Earth. But that is irrelevant as of now so let’s move on.

What was found when simulations were run by Roni Harnick and his colleagues, was that in a universe without weak interactions, one of the four fundamental forces of nature, stars can still form and life can still arise.3

But here is where we diverge from my previous post and jump into the unknown! Let us first take a moment to imagine something. What would we see in a universe that didn’t allow human life, or life in general for that matter, to exist? We would see nothing. Why? Because we would not exist. In a universe in which the constants of nature did not allow life to evolve we would not exist and thus not be pondering this question of fine-tuning at all. My friends, meet the anthropic principle. The simplest definition I can provide you with is as follows: “the cosmological theory that the presence of life in the universe limits the ways in which the very early universe could have evolved.”4 This is a simple way to rationalize the supposed fine-tuning of the physical constants seeing as they must have occurred this way by chance for us to even be pondering why they are the way they are. So here we can see that even if the constants are supposedly fine-tuned for life to exist use even being here shows that it could happen by chance. Another way to put is it is like this: even if we can accurately say the probability of the constants being the way they are, and even if that probability is exceedingly low, the fact that we are here means it must have happened at least once in the past thus nullifying god. This is the best explanation because it makes logical sense and if follows Occam’s razor perfectly. Here we are using probability and logic whereas the god hypothesis is supposing a creator that is more complex than his creation has always existed.

But putting that aside let us take a look at the actual constants themselves shall we? (I will not being going through the entire list of 34 but I will be pointing out some of the more outlandish ones) The first one we will be examining is the force of gravity, G. What is claimed regarding gravity is the following:

1. Gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form.
    Well, there are a few flaws and I intend to point them out. The first is that no mention is made as to how much larger or smaller the force could be, all that is said is larger or smaller. We will take them at their word, so if we change the gravitational constant ever so slightly to make it somewhat larger it is true that stars would burn more rapidly because there would be more pressure fusing hydrogen into helium and it is true they would be hotter but life could still exist. All stars regardless of their temperature have a habitable zone, an area in which liquid water can form and if they were hotter the habitable zone would just be further away, not non-existent. Conversely, if the force were smaller stars could still ignite (unless the force was very minuscule as to almost be non-existent) and thus still have a habitable zone, it would just be closer to the star itself.
2: Entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
     First off, again they make no mention of specific numbers but that is completely irrelevant in this instance because entropy is not a fixed number. Entropy is merely the tendency for things to get more disorganized. So saying that if the level or fixed number were larger or smaller makes no sense because there is no fixed number.
3. Age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
     This is the one that makes the least sense. First off there would most likely still be stable burning stars in the correct section of the galaxy seeing as there over 400 billion stars in our galaxy alone. But even if we ignore that and assume that if the universe were older there would be no stable stars in the correct part of the galaxy there are over 200 billion other galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars each. Saying that none of them would be in the right spot is just special pleading.
It is the same for most if not all of the 34. They either
a) give no specific increase/decrease amounts or are
b) so outlandish that just thinking for a moment about what is being said refutes them.
      But let’s ignore everything I have said and all the evidence I have presented and assume that the universe really is fine tuned for life which many physicists agree with one of which being Stephen Hawking in his new book The Grand Design. (Which might I add is fantastic) There is an alternative explanation. The multiverse. The multiverse theory basically says that there are many universes, up to an infinite amount, each with their own values for the constants of nature. What is the implication of this one may ask, simple. Each of these universe will have different values for all the fine tuned constants and this means that, regardless of how improbable our livable universe is, with an infinite number of universes there will always be one that we can live in. To put it another way, say our universe has a 1 in 1 million chance of being “just right”. According to the multiverse theory there will always be a universe that is just like ours. This does away with any need for fine tuning whatsoever. Here one would logically ask, what is the evidence for the multiverse? Well, if M-Theory turns out to be correct it means is a multivese out there. Also, if one looks at the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (the radiation left over from the big bang) a series of “statistically unlikely circular patterns” can be seen which, as proposed by Stephen Feeney et al, might be caused by other universes banging into ours!5 Another thing that has been found is that there appears to be something that is pulling at our universe from the outside which also suggests a multiverse of sorts.6
     So if we keep in mind that if 3 key constants were randomized, 25% of the time life would still arise AND if we keep in mind that without the weak nuclear force, one of the four fundamental forces of nature, life can still arise AND if we keep in mind what we know about the anthropic principle/the fact that our universe is the perfect universe for black holes, not humans, and the multiverse argument, God seems to be out of a job.
~~Peter
————————————————————————————————————-Videos:
What astrophysicist Neil Tyson has to say
CDK007’s take

Footnotes:
1: Gravitationalist., & Carrier, R. (n.d.). Fine-tuned universe? – YouTube . YouTube – Broadcast Yourself. . Retrieved August 11, 2011, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6FQdyHUXwc

2: Adams, F. (n.d.). Stars In Other Universes: Stellar structure with different fundamental constants.Common Sense Atheism . Retrieved August 11, 2011, from commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Adams-Stars-in-Other-Universes.pdf
3: Harnik, R., Kribs, G., & Perez, G. (n.d.). A Universe Without Weak Interactions. arXiv. Retrieved August 11, 2011, from arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0604/0604027v1.pdf
4: Anthropic Principle . (n.d.).dictionary.com. Retrieved August 11, 2011, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anthropic+principle
5: Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist. (n.d.). PhysOrg.com – Science News, Technology, Physics, Nanotechnology, Space Science, Earth Science, Medicine. Retrieved August 12, 2011, from http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-scientists-evidence-universes.html

6: New Proof Unknown “Structures” Tug at Our Universe. (n.d.). Daily Nature and Science News and Headlines | National Geographic News. Retrieved August 12, 2011, from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100322-dark-flow-matter-outside-universe-multiverse/

 

11 comments

  1. Not to mention my favorite fall back. If things Hadn’t worked out in that perfect way, we wouldn’t be around to worry about it anyway.

  2. Howdy, i just enrolled on the email list on some website marketing website and from now on I actually continue to keep finding so many
    email messages during my email address it essentially spoiled this specific e-mail address.
    Along with the unsubscbribe website link does not work properly sometimes.
    Do you like a digg recommend myself the direction
    to go, mainly because I’d personally appreciate to help keep the following email address.
    Have a look at my web-site ; Allergy relief

  3. It does seem clear that the universe is “finely tuned” for life, for lack of a better word, and I do find this remarkable. Whilst most of the universe is hostile to life as you correctly point out, an insanely high level of “fine tuning” is required for carbon based life to occur ANYWHERE in the universe. You refer to a study by Fred Adams which randomizes some natural constants with the result that the universe could still produce life 25% of the time. However, this truly makes no sense as Adams would have had to define arbitrary numerical parameters for the randomization of those constants, rather than choosing numbers randomly between zero and infinite. If the numbers associated with the fundamental forces of nature are random from the parameters zero to infinite, then the chance of a universe arising that would permit life is infinitely small. In that event, our universe could probably still occur in an infinite multiverse. Of course, the numbers associated with the fundamental forces of nature are not necessarily random, just because we don’t know why they are the way they are. What is perhaps even more strange and non-nonsensical is that the laws of physics, upon which everything is based, are the way they are and that they exist at all – the reasons for which humanity knows basically nothing about. One possible explanation for fine tuning and the nature of the laws of physics is the existence of an intelligent designer, but this raises the problem of the origin of the designer. Perhaps the designer arose in another universe that has different laws of physics beyond human comprehension. I would be inclined to think the designer might be some alien force, or possibly a computer matrix creator instead of a “god”. What kind of a god would make a universe like this and permit obvious evil on earth? If such a designer exists, there is no reason to assume it would share any characteristics with the christian conception of god, or provide an afterlife. To me, the multiverse, mind boggling and implausible as it sounds, appears to be the most likely explanation but I do not rule an intelligent designer.

    1. Does it? Not from my perspective. In fact, from my perspective the tiny piece of the Universe we have observed to be capable of bearing life is itself a death trap of hurricanes, tornadoes, famine, volcanoes, diseases, and literally millions of other natural hazards. The rest of the universe seems utterly inhospitable to life as we know it and even if we find life out there somewhere that would still leave continuous endless space that life really could not survive in very long.

      1. The universe doesn’t need to be a cozy place for the fine tuning argument to fall. The point is that the specific values that exist aren’t unique or even all that special. But I could be misreading your argument.

Comments are closed.