What is so improbable about a fine-tuned universe for life

[ryan]

It is the watchmaker argument again. Find a watch which have never seen before and you assume humans or something else made it, it looks unnatural. Same with scrabble tiles.

I do not know the specific logical fallacy.


I flip a switch and a light comes on. I see a lightning flash and I assume somewhere somebody or some guiding intelligence flipped a switch. I hear thunder and it is Thor tossing his hammer in the heavens. Thunder must have some intelligence behind it.

There must be something in the volcano, maybe if we toss in virgin women whatever it is will be appeased. A volcano can't just be a volcano, a natural phenomena.

This idea of fine tuner is just a modern version of mythology.

If you want a myology to sooth your thoughts there is plenty around that are well developed. Hinduism. Native American traditions.

What makes a rock a rock? The sprit that lives in it, animism.

The idea of a guided creation is a lot like animism, the unversed is alive.

What the hell are you talking about? Back to the OP: Why is a universe fine-tuned for life improbable? Scientists claim there is a coincidence, but I don't see why.

 

[ryan]

We are here by the very token that we live in a Universe that allows life to evolve. Otherwise we would not be here to talk about it. How this Universe came to be the way it is, probably determined in the first microseconds of the BB, is simply not understood.

I agree, but for some reason there is supposedly too much of a coincidence if the universe were fine-tuned for life. I really want to understand how they are interpreting the probabilities that makes this universe more improbable than any other.

It wouldn't be a coincidence.

It would just be the way the Universe is. Like somebody who unexpectedly gets ill, cancer, heart disease or whatever, asking the question ''Why Me''

It has to be someone.

In each and every instance it is that someone who happens to ask the question.

So you are stuck in my boat which apparently is the wrong boat to be in. Scientists claim that a finely tuned universe is improbable. I am trying to figure out why.

 

[ryan]

Let's reframe this in order to see it in a different light. We live because we find ourselves in a universe that allows for/produces life. It would, therefore, take an x shift in this universe's natural laws for this universe to be fine-tuned for not having life.

Right?

So, since we have life, what is the probability that an x shift in this universe's natural laws did not happen?

It seems like you agree with me in that there doesn't seem to be a coincidence. But scientists studying this issue claim that it's too improbable.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Let's reframe this in order to see it in a different light. We live because we find ourselves in a universe that allows for/produces life. It would, therefore, take an x shift in this universe's natural laws for this universe to be fine-tuned for not having life.

Right?

So, since we have life, what is the probability that an x shift in this universe's natural laws did not happen?

It seems like you agree with me in that there doesn't seem to be a coincidence.

Well, the point of my reframing it in that manner was meant to demonstrate that it's a nonsensical question to ask in the first place. Not sure if that came across (too much bourbon that night I'm afraid).

But scientists studying this issue claim that it's too improbable.

No legitimate scientist claims it's "too improbable." Or, rather, no one making such a claim is doing so because of science; they are doing so because of their religious beliefs that they are (typically) deliberately obfuscating in order to trick cult members into remaining in their cult.

All cult members are programmed to defend the cult at all costs. It's so deeply ingrained that most don't even know they're doing it. It's just like an autonomic function for most.

Those that are worth their salt will cop to it, but the majority just play out their programming like a computer.

But of course the fatal flaw in any such endeavor is that, most cult beliefs are founded on "religious faith" (i.e., accepting as true in spite of the evidence proving it is not true) as opposed to "scientific faith," (i.e., accepting as true based upon the strength of the evidence proving it to be true), so any time any cult member starts to try and use science or logic or any other form of formal reasoning on their purposefully irrational belief system, it can only mean one of two things: (1) they are fully aware of the fraud they are perpetrating and are inches away from finally deprogramming themselves, or (2) they are genuinely clueless due to their brainwashing.

Either way, it's a fundamental red flag to their beliefs, because the whole point is to have blind faith in spite of the evidence that exists to contradict it. So whenever any cult member starts talking about science (or logic) in any way, it's immediately a sign of a crisis in their faith, either consciously or subconsciously, and nothing else.

Iow, it's like the old buddhist saying, if you see the Buddha, kill him. The reason being that the Buddha can't be seen by humans and therefore whatever it would be you did see would necessarily be a deliberate fraud being perpetrated upon you and therefore worthy of death.

So, a little less gruesome in this scenario, but boils down to, whenever you see a cult member trying to appeal to science or logic, the takeaway is that they are having a crisis in their cult programming and that's it. You could conclude as well that they are presenting their issue to you because they are in need of help to fully deprogram, but that's the full extent of it. Nothing else is relevant.

 

[Learner]

I've come across individuals who have changed their minds from (too) improbable to plausible even to the point of belief (ID), delving deeply as they can go, in their respected fields of scientific knowledge.

I think we can put aside those who are (as you are saying) defending the cult at all costs. Even to me as a theist, these fellows are not worth my time or interest. Obviously lacking the credibility to be taken seriously.

 

[skepticalbip]

It wouldn't be a coincidence.

It would just be the way the Universe is. Like somebody who unexpectedly gets ill, cancer, heart disease or whatever, asking the question ''Why Me''

It has to be someone.

In each and every instance it is that someone who happens to ask the question.

So you are stuck in my boat which apparently is the wrong boat to be in. Scientists claim that a finely tuned universe is improbable. I am trying to figure out why.

That is awfully confusing. Are you attempting to create some sort of straw man? First, what "scientists" claim such a thing? Then what the hell is it supposed to mean?

The universe is what it is so the probability of it being what it is is 1. Could it be something else - could the laws of physics be different than they are? Maybe but then maybe not, we don't know so we have no way to assign any level of probability to the chance.

Certainly all sort of philosophical 'what if' games can be played. But they are 'what ifs', not reality. What if the charge of the proton were higher - no possibility of atoms forming, no chemistry? What if G were significantly lower - no stars or planets, asteroids, or comets - only a universe of dispersed hydrogen? What if Santa Claus were real - reindeer that can fly, a lump of coal in my stocking, and a sweat shop at the north pole where little people are forced to labor?

ETA:
Which makes me wonder, what if there was an anti-claus that lived at the South pole? Would he come in the night and steal toys from children?

 

[steve_bank]

It is the watchmaker argument again. Find a watch which have never seen before and you assume humans or something else made it, it looks unnatural. Same with scrabble tiles.

I do not know the specific logical fallacy.


I flip a switch and a light comes on. I see a lightning flash and I assume somewhere somebody or some guiding intelligence flipped a switch. I hear thunder and it is Thor tossing his hammer in the heavens. Thunder must have some intelligence behind it.

There must be something in the volcano, maybe if we toss in virgin women whatever it is will be appeased. A volcano can't just be a volcano, a natural phenomena.

This idea of fine tuner is just a modern version of mythology.

If you want a myology to sooth your thoughts there is plenty around that are well developed. Hinduism. Native American traditions.

What makes a rock a rock? The sprit that lives in it, animism.

The idea of a guided creation is a lot like animism, the unversed is alive.

What the hell are you talking about? Back to the OP: Why is a universe fine-tuned for life improbable? Scientists claim there is a coincidence, but I don't see why.

On many threads you never seem to grasp responses. Most of us here may differ in some things but we generally have the same view. The universe is what is. To me religion and philosophy in part is about finding meaning in a universe that has no specific meaning.

The perennial questions, Why am I here? Is there a reason I am here? What does the universe mean? Your OPs are usually more philosophic than scientific. You try to prove philosophical views with science and that is not possible.

Starting in the 60s a market developed for a mix of science and mystical traditions. The Dancing Wu Li Masters. Zen became a common word.

I never watch any of them, there are many videos by credentialed scientists that are more phantasmagorical as I put it. Extrapolation to the fantastic. Scifi of a sort.

Great entertainment value, but it leads nowhere.

As to your boat metaphor, your boat is leaking and you are furiously bailing water to stay afloat.

I can not say there is no guiding spirit or some such thing fie tuning the universe because I like to keep an objective open mind. That being said there are no possible probabilities assignable to your question. There is no possible proof to te conjecture.

Many worlds theory is a mathematical conjecture based on working QM theory. There are many such theories such as faster than light travel. Entertaining thought experiments that could someday lead somewhere, but not today.

 

[Learner]

We are here by the very token that we live in a Universe that allows life to evolve. Otherwise we would not be here to talk about it. How this Universe came to be the way it is, probably determined in the first microseconds of the BB, is simply not understood.

I agree, but for some reason there is supposedly too much of a coincidence if the universe were fine-tuned for life. I really want to understand how they are interpreting the probabilities that makes this universe more improbable than any other.

It wouldn't be a coincidence.

It would just be the way the Universe is. Like somebody who unexpectedly gets ill, cancer, heart disease or whatever, asking the question ''Why Me''

It has to be someone.

Besides the known obvious descriptions we understand with nature,as you post above. If I'm right, Ryan is highlighting the seemingly continous consistent "coincidences" that life, so fragile, needs, to exist. *Edit: or why it does not seem that way to you (anyone). You gave your answer at least in this regard, "It would just be the way the Universe is".

 

[Learner]

Which makes me wonder, what if there was an anti-claus that lived at the South pole? Would he come in the night and steal toys from children?

You could talk about Santa in the religious section (as its often mentioned there) but the OP is not about wishful thinking religion or cults, lets be fair. (applies to similar posts)

 

[DrZoidberg]

Isn't fine tuning one of the creationist arguments in line with Intelligent Design? Or a variation of the watchmaker argument for ID? It all fits together so well it must have been designed and could not have just happened.


There are credentialed creationist scientists who write books and make videos without bring explicitly religious.

Right now things point to a universe fine-tuned for life.

Yes, that's right.
Secular science is what has provided the evidence which suggests the existence of precision "laws of physics". All the scientific evidence for fine tuning can (if you wish) be seen thru the lens of a religiously neutral explanation for why the universe is the way it is.
A finely tuned universe need not entail any God/god.

You can be an atheist and still accept that there are transcendent laws of fine tuning (and mathematics) which exist, for some reason other than the fiat of a transcendent Law Maker.

Lol. I wasn't aware of a "religious science". BTW, pope pius II made a papal bull in the 60'ies deciding that doing science is a sacred act, because it's the activity to find the truth of God's creation. So if you're a catholic "secular science" is religious science... or just science in short. I'm sorry the pope ruined your argument and hurt our feelings

 

[lpetrich]

Our Universe does have some features that are rather convenient for us. Like three space dimensions and one time dimension.

• Fewer than three space dimensions means much less possible complexity.
• More than three space dimensions means no stable orbits possible.
• More than one time dimension means that closed loops in time are possible.

There are various other features that are convenient for us, like some Standard-Model parameter values.

In our Universe, dineutrons (nn) and diprotons (pp) are borderline unstable, while deuterons (pn) are borderline stable. If deuterons were unstable, then it would be *very* hard for nucleosynthesis to work. If dineutrons and/or diprotons were stable, then nucleosynthesis would have been very different. Stable dineutrons would make it easier for primordial nucleosynthesis to make elements heavier than helium, while stable diprotons would make the Universe mostly helium and heavier elements.

For that stability to change, the nucleon-nucleon interaction would have to have a different strength, and that would happen from the up and down quarks having different masses relative to the quantum-chromodynamics (QCD) mass scale. Lower quark masses means a longer-distance NN interaction, and stronger interaction, while higher quark masses means a shorter-distance NN interaction, and weaker interaction.

Another curiosity is that the mass of the up quark is less than the mass of the down quark, in contrast with the charm quark being more massive to than strange quark and the top quark being more massive than the bottom quark. This makes neutrons (udd) more massive than protons (uud). But if protons were more massive than neutrons, then the early Universe would produce more neutrons, and protons would decay into them. This would make the main hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium (pnn), and that would affect nucleosynthesis in stars.

 

[lpetrich]

I posted on the details of the Standard Model in "Brahman Particle" - not "God Particle", starting in post 18. It's rather nightmarishly complicated, and it's hard to consider it anything fundamental. But it has patterns in it that suggest some simpler underlying theory.

I'll summarize the Standard Model:

• Gauge (spin 1): 4
• Higgs (spin 0): 1
• Elementary fermions (spin 1/2, 3 generations): 4

"Gauge" fields are photonlike ones, and they include the photon, of course.

The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model adds:

• Extra Higgs (spin 0): 3
• Gauginos and higgsinos (spin 1/2): 3
• Sfermions (spin 0, 3 generations): 7

Electroweak symmetry is broken at all but the highest experimentally accessible energies. With that symmetry unbroken in the Standard Model,

• Gauge (spin 1): 3
• Higgs (spin 0): 1
• Elementary fermions (spin 1/2, 3 generations): 5

In the MSSM:

• Gauge (spin 1, 1/2): 3
• Higgs (spin 0, 1/2): 2
• Elementary fermions (spin 1/2, 0, 3 generations): 5

In the MSSM, elementary fermions and Higgs particles are both in "Wess-Zumino multiplets", a kind of combination of spin-0 and spin-1/2 fields. Such combinations are a result of supersymmetry.

 

[lpetrich]

This still looks rather complicated, and physicists have devised various Grand Unified Theories. In them, sets of Standard-Model particles are versions of the same particle, but made different by symmetry breaking.

Here are some:

SU(5) symmetry:

• Gauge (spin 1, 1/2): 1
• Higgs (spin 0, 1/2): 2
• Elementary fermions (spin 0, 1/2, 3 generations): 3 (mixtures of parts of quarks and leptons)

Each generation of charged leptons and down-like quarks have the same masses. Though they are different at low energies, the difference is from quantum-mechanical effects that accumulate as one goes from GUT to observation energy scales. Also, the gauge-field "charges" converge onto one value at GUT energies.

SO(10) symmetry:

• Gauge (spin 1, 1/2): 1
• Higgs (spin 0, 1/2): 1 (MSSM Higgs multiplets unified)
• Elementary fermions (spin 0, 1/2, 3 generations): 1 (all together)

All elementary fermions in the same generation have the same mass, and there are no cross-generation decays. Such decays must be added by symmetry breaking.

E6 symmetry joins the Higgs particles and the elementary fermions as parts of the same kinds of particle.

E8 symmetry (string theory, Garrett Lisi) joins *all* of the Standard Model's particles in one multiplet.

 

[ryan]

Our Universe does have some features that are rather convenient for us. Like three space dimensions and one time dimension.

• Fewer than three space dimensions means much less possible complexity.
• More than three space dimensions means no stable orbits possible.
• More than one time dimension means that closed loops in time are possible.

There are various other features that are convenient for us, like some Standard-Model parameter values.

In our Universe, dineutrons (nn) and diprotons (pp) are borderline unstable, while deuterons (pn) are borderline stable. If deuterons were unstable, then it would be *very* hard for nucleosynthesis to work. If dineutrons and/or diprotons were stable, then nucleosynthesis would have been very different. Stable dineutrons would make it easier for primordial nucleosynthesis to make elements heavier than helium, while stable diprotons would make the Universe mostly helium and heavier elements.

For that stability to change, the nucleon-nucleon interaction would have to have a different strength, and that would happen from the up and down quarks having different masses relative to the quantum-chromodynamics (QCD) mass scale. Lower quark masses means a longer-distance NN interaction, and stronger interaction, while higher quark masses means a shorter-distance NN interaction, and weaker interaction.

Another curiosity is that the mass of the up quark is less than the mass of the down quark, in contrast with the charm quark being more massive to than strange quark and the top quark being more massive than the bottom quark. This makes neutrons (udd) more massive than protons (uud). But if protons were more massive than neutrons, then the early Universe would produce more neutrons, and protons would decay into them. This would make the main hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium (pnn), and that would affect nucleosynthesis in stars.

Would you say that this universe is improbable if it were the only one? I have found some scientists claiming it is and that there needs to be a designer or multiverse, and I have found some scientists that think that there is no coincidence with no explanation needed.

 

[lpetrich]

Would you say that this universe is improbable if it were the only one? I have found some scientists claiming it is and that there needs to be a designer or multiverse, and I have found some scientists that think that there is no coincidence with no explanation needed.

Given the complexity of the Standard Model, it looks rather improbable on its surface. It would not be improbable if someone could show that the Standard Model is the unique low-energy limit of the only possible self-consistent quantum field theory, but nobody has come close to doing so.

In my previous post, I discussed Grand Unified Theories, and how they reduce the complexity of the Standard Model to some very simple theories. But they require symmetry breaking, and that has complexities of its own. The Standard Model includes electroweak symmetry breaking, and that involves the Higgs particle, a rather small addition to the other particles. GUT symmetry breaking involves larger multiplets, sometimes larger than the low-energy limits. Especially for the more "unified" of GUT's, like SO(10), E6, and E8.

String theory has a way out, by proposing that the Universe has 10 space-time dimensions, and that 6 of them are curled up into a teeny tiny ball. This "compactification" induces GUT symmetry breaking, reducing E8 to the Standard Model. However, the pattern of symmetry breaking depends on the compactification topology, and there are numerous possible such topologies. This means that string theory can have numerous possible low-energy limits, and I have yet to see anything that might indicate that the Standard Model is the only possible one.

Furthermore, multiple possible solutions fits very well into multiverse cosmology. So we would live in a "Universe bubble" that could allow us to exist, even if it is only one out of a large number of other "Universe bubbles".

 

[DBT]

It wouldn't be a coincidence.

It would just be the way the Universe is. Like somebody who unexpectedly gets ill, cancer, heart disease or whatever, asking the question ''Why Me''

It has to be someone.

In each and every instance it is that someone who happens to ask the question.

So you are stuck in my boat which apparently is the wrong boat to be in. Scientists claim that a finely tuned universe is improbable. I am trying to figure out why.

The mere existence of a Universe seems improbable, the existence of something rather than nothing seems astonishing, but our sense of improbability or astonishment doesn't establish any degree of likelihood or probability. Our condition says more about us than anything about the universe.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I've come across individuals who have changed their minds from (too) improbable to plausible even to the point of belief (ID), delving deeply as they can go, in their respected fields of scientific knowledge.

Doubtful. Again, science would be of no use in a fallacy like this one, so any alleged deep dive would just be a misperception as to what is actually going on for that individual. At best, the only "science" being applied in any way to any of these ID theories would be probability theory, but that doesn't get you anywhere near any kind of valid conclusion.

Everything about ID/Anthropic Principle, whatever you want to call it, absolutely hinges on the non-existent link between framing something in an improbable light and then saying, "Dude, come on. It's so improbable that it therefore must have been designed/created/willful/etc."

Iow, ultimately, it's all essentially a combination of post hoc, ergo propter hoc and a great big argument from incredulity.

It doesn't matter how many times its reframed, it will always only be a fallacy.

I think we can put aside those who are (as you are saying) defending the cult at all costs.

This is central to every attempt to appeal to science--to the rational--to try to bolster faith (i.e., the irrational). Whether its done by a Bishop or just someone raised in a cult like Christianity--no matter how casually--whose programming gets triggered later in life by some tragic event or otherwise difficult period. The "no atheists in a foxhole" cliche that nevertheless is true for a lot of dormant cult members, shall we say.

Even to me as a theist, these fellows are not worth my time or interest. Obviously lacking the credibility to be taken seriously.

Interesting if true, considering that, as a theist you necessarily must just accept that magic is real, so why would an argument from incredulity phase you in any way? It, too, is the basis of all cult programming and passes for "evidence" in all cult beliefs. Indeed, its foundational. Without the "Divine fallacy," there would be no Christianity; no theism period.

 

[lpetrich]

As to how habitable our Universe is, in some ways it is borderline habitable. We don't live in some "terrarium Universe", like the Universe according to many prescientific cosmologies.

I'll start with our home planet, the Earth. We as a species emerged in Africa, and much of that continent is very easily inhabited by us in low-tech fashion. Meaning that our ideal habitat is humid and maybe also semiarid tropical and subtropical areas. Central and South America, southern and southeastern Asia, northern Australia, the East Indies and New Guinea, and some other places are also good by this standard.

But much of the Earth's land surface is not so conveniently habitable. As one goes farther and farther from the Equator, one experiences a longer and longer cold season, until it is the entire year. But humanity successfully moved into very cold regions using only Paleolithic technology, and predecessor species like the Neanderthals and Homo erectus had some success in doing so.

There are even worse land areas, like mountains and deserts and glaciers. Our planet's surface is also 71% covered with liquid water, and living in water full-time is impractical for us. As with cold weather, we use technology to live there, starting with small boats made with Paleolithic technology.

The Earth's interior is not very habitable. Anything more than a few kilometers down is too hot for us. The deepest mines have to be cooled by sending ice water down into them.

High elevations are not very habitable either. More than a few kilometers up is unsafe for us without an oxygen supply.

None of the rest of the Solar System is habitable by us, and the same is true for almost all of the rest of the Universe.

If the Universe was created for our benefit, then one would expect to find a "terrarium Universe", not some huge Universe where just about all of it is inhospitable to us.

 

[Gun Nut]

Indeed, if the starting assumption is that the universal constants could have any value then our universe as it currently is would have been highly improbable. But, since it does exist, it is. Sorta like the chance of being dealt any specific poker hand is highly improbable but, once dealt, whatever hand you were dealt is, regardless of the odds of it happening.

OTOH, if the starting assumption is that the universal constants can only have the value that they do have then our current universe is a certainty. Sorta like the chance of being dealt five aces in a poker game if all 52 cards in the deck are ace of spades.

But isn't any outcome ultimately an extremely improbable outcome? They would all be unlikely. I am missing something here.

Timeliness... of your "guess". What are the chances you would have predicted the form of the universe as it is today, prior to the big bang? Zero. What is the chance if you were asked today what the universe currently looks like that you would get it right? 100%

How can the chance of the universe looking like it does today be BOTH 0% AND 100%? The answer is relative... relative to the time of the observer.

 

[steve_bank]

It is improbable that a giant redwood tree can grow from a small seed without a guiding spirit.

It is improbable that a thinking feeling human can grow from egg and sperm without a guiding force.