The Fine-Tuning Argument

The Fine-Tuning Argument
An Argument from Physics & Cosmology Much data deriving from Collins, Robin. “The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Eds. William Lane Craig and James Porter Moreland. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Graphic from from Illinois artist Alfred J. Smuskiewicz. Mr. Smuskiewicz retains full ownership and copyright of this graphic.

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 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 fine-tuner hypothesis): that is, ~P(LPM|FT & k’) ≪ 1. Therefore, LPM strongly supports FT over ~FT. If it rains, the streets will get wet. The streets are wet. Therefore, it rained. The use of abductive reasoning may seem fallacious at first take. This syllogism commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. One cannot deduce from the data, that the streets are wet, that it rained because there are many other explanations for why the streets are wet.

Historical Development
Plato ( bc) Philebus in Book X, The Laws Cicero ( bc) Book II, Chapters XXXVII, XLIV, XLVII in On the Nature of the Gods (45 bc) William Paley ( ) Natural Theology (revived argument, though on biological terms)

Positions The Regularist The Necessitarian The Theist
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. Regularist The fundamental regularities are brute facts; they neither have nor require an explanation. For instance, assuming that Einstein’s equation of general relativity expresses a fundamental regularity, the regularist would claim that it is simply a brute fact that mass is related to the curvature of space-time in the way specified by Einstein’s equation. Necessitarian For instance, necessitarians would claim that any two objects that have the same charge must repel each other; it is not the case that they merely do repel each other (as a regularist would claim). Theist

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 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 goal of Duhemian science: to be able to do science by stripping science of metaphysical imports b. Augustinian: carries open metaphysical presuppositions with science The warfare or conflict thesis was largely a product of Enlightenment rationalism and two major books: o History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science, John Draper 1875 o A History of the Warfare of Science and Theology in Christendom, Andrew White 1895 • “Some people, in order to discover God, read books. But there is a great book: the very appearance of created things. Look above you! Look below you! Note it. Read it. God, whom you want to discover, never wrote that book with ink. Instead He set before your eyes the things that He had made. Can you ask for a louder voice than that?” Augustine • “I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that wherever you go, the least plant may bring you a clear remembrance of the Creator… One blade of grass or one speck of dust is enough to occupy your entire mind in beholding the art with which it has been made.” Basil the Great • “Any error about creation also leads to an error about God.” Aquinas • Classical definition o Aristotle’s four causes  First cause, material cause  What is it made of?  Second cause, formal cause  What is its form or essence?  Third cause, efficient cause  What produced it?  Fourth cause, final cause  For what purpose? • Bacon/Descartes o Formal and final causation • Newton o Everything was mechanistic, denial of Bacon/Descartes • William Whewell o First person to restrict the word “science” to natural science • Darwin o Provided a plausible material mechanism for the appearance of design o By definition excluded teleological explanation  Interestingly, his arguments assumes this

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 unit 1080 is a number representing the number of elementary particles in the universe. Elementary particles are believed to have no substructure, this would include: quarks, leptons, and bosons. The unit 1043 is measured in hertz, which represents alterations in the states of matter per second. The properties of matter are such that transitions from one physical state to another cannot occur at a rate faster than 1045 times per second. This universal bound on transitions between physical states is based on the Planck time, which constitutes the smallest physically meaningful unit of time. The unit 1025 is in seconds. This is a generous, upper bound on the number of seconds that the universe can maintain its integrity [before expanding forever or collapsing back in on itself in a “big crunch”]. This number is according to the Standard Model (the big bang). The product, 10148, is the total number of state changes that all the elementary particles in the universe can undergo throughout 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

Gravity No stars, no planets, no life! Example of star formation caused by gravitation attraction.

Electromagnetic Force Different atomic bonds and thus complex molecules needed for life could not form. No light, no life!

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.

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.

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). Illustration from , University of Birmingham.

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

Gravitational Constant Determines the strength of gravity via Newton’s Law of Gravity F = Gm1m2/r2 Actual value of G is 6.67 x Nm2/kg2 m2 r m1

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.

Strength of Electromagnetism: 1037G0 G0 = Current Strength of Gravity Strength of Weak Force: 1031G0 Strength of Strong Force: 1040G0 Say there’s a ruler that stretches across the universe, gravity would be a trillionth of an inch and the strong force would be 15 billion light years away 1040G0 = ten thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion times the strength of gravity

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 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). Gmn=Metric Tensor, Tmn=momentum tensor Left hand side: curvature, Right hand side: energy momentum strong nuclear force constant if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry weak nuclear force constant if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible 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 electromagnetic force constant if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements ratio of electron to proton mass if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry if smaller: same as above ratio of number of protons to number of electrons if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation if smaller: same as above expansion rate of the universe if larger: no galaxies would form if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed entropy level of the universe if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form mass density of the universe if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements velocity of light if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support 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 initial uniformity of radiation if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space average distance between galaxies if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit density of galaxy cluster if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material average distance between stars if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun decay rate of protons if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life ground state energy level for 4He if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life if smaller: same as above decay rate of 8Be if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry ratio of neutron mass to proton mass if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation polarity of the water molecule if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result supernovae eruptions if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form white dwarf binaries if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form if smaller: no galaxies would form number of effective dimensions in the early universe if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible if smaller: same result number of effective dimensions in the present universe if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable if larger: same result mass of the neutrino if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense big bang ripples if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form size of the relativistic dilation factor if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly if larger: same result uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable cosmological constant if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

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 Horizon Problem The idea being that in the early universe causal interactions over large distances are made possible by the speed of light being much greater.

The Fine-Tuning of the Initial Conditions of the Universe
Roger Penrose’s initial low entropy calculations Cosmic landscape parameters Range of all possible universes given they be governed by the present laws of nature 10500 possible universes, only given Λ Penrose calculates that the odds of the special low entropy condition having arisen by chance in the absence of any constraining principles is at least as small as about one part in 10^10^123 in order for our universe to exist the mass-energy distribution of the initial conditions of the universe was actually maximally simple: for example, a uniform distribution of mass-energy and hence a state with a uniform gravitational field. This proposal would have the further virtue of explaining the small initial entropy of the universe, since according to some proposals – e.g., Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004), pp a uniform gravitational field implies very low entropy. The fine-tuning of the cosmological constant must be 10^120 to get a flat universe Craig, Reasonable Faith ed. 3, Craig shares an illustration to understand how small this region really is. If only one universe out of has the life-permitting value of the cosmological constant, then, given possible universes, the number of universes with the life-permitting value will be only ÷ = To the novice this may sound as if most of the worlds are then life- permitting, when in fact is an inconceivably small fraction of 10500, so that almost all the possible universes will be life-prohibiting. To see the point, imagine that we have a million possible universes and the odds of a life-permitting universe are one out of a hundred. So the total number of life-permitting universes will be 1,000,000 ÷ 100 = 10,000. So the total number of life-permitting universes is 106 ÷ 102 = One sees that 104 is a tiny fraction of 106, for only 10,000 out of the one million worlds are life- permitting, while a whopping 990,000 are life-prohibiting!

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? God of the gaps?

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 Assumptions Evidence
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 Imagine a two-dimensional universe with space for four particles. Such a universe has 2^4, or 16, possible arrangements of matter. If more than 16 of these universes exist, they must begin to repeat. In this example, the distance to the nearest duplicate is roughly four times the diameter of each universe. Our universe: The same argument applies to our universe, which has space for about 10^118 subatomic particles. The number of possible arrangements is therefore 2 to the 10^118, or approximately 10 to the 10^118. Multiplying by the diameter of the universe gives an average distance to the nearest duplicate of 10 to the 10^118 meters.

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 Image Source:

Level 2 Multiverse The signatures of a bubble collision at various stages in the analysis pipeline. A collision (top left) induces a temperature modulation in the CMB temperature map (top right). The “blob” associated with the collision is identified by a large needlet (having to do with isotropy/anisotropy) response (bottom left), and the presence of an edge is determined by a large response from the edge detection algorithm (bottom right). Authors Caption Sources: NASA W-Band 94 GHz WMAP, ESA/LFI & HFI Consortia Planck one-year survey

Level 3 Multiverse Features Assumptions Evidence Same as level 2
Physics unitary Evidence Experimental support for unitary physics AdS/CFT correspondence suggests that even quantum gravity is unitary Decoherence experimentally verified Mathematically simplest model anti-de Sitter space/ Conformal Field Theory (the equivalence between string theory and gravity)

Level 3 Multiverse— Quantum Weirdness

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 Paper:

Interpreting The Quantum World
Interpretation is methodological/philosophical, it seeks to explain the data. Ensemble Copenhagen de Broglie-Bohm von Neumann Quantum Logic Many-Worlds Time-Symmetric Stochastic Many-Minds Consistent Objective Collapse Transactional Relational Paper:

Inflationary-Superstring Multiverse
The inflationary/superstring multiverse generator can only produce life-sustaining universe because it has the following four components/mechanisms. A mechanism to supply the energy needed for the bubble universes. (Actual Mechanism: Inflation Field) A mechanism to form the bubbles. (Actual Mechanism: Einstein’s Equation + Inflation Field) 1. If inflation is not complete or efficient then the remaining energy density within the bubble must be fine-tuned to give the correct value distribution. Attempts to circumvent fine-tuning concerning the inflation field have focused primarily on describing what occurs posterior to the moment of bubble inflation. A. de la Macorra, “Dark Matter from the Inflation Field,” arXiv: v1 (Jan. 2012): 1. Ibid., Boris E. Meierovich, “To the Theory of the Universe Evolution,” arXiv: v1 (Jan. 2012). 2. The inflation field that gives empty space a positive energy density is needed to achieve mechanisms Without either factor, there would neither be regions of space that inflate nor would those regions have the mass-energy necessary for a universe to exist. If, for example, the universe obeyed Newton’s theory of gravity instead of Einstein’s, the vacuum energy of the inflation field would at best simply create gravitational attraction causing space to contract, not to expand. Collins, “The Teleological Argument, 264.

Inflationary-Superstring Multiverse
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) A mechanism that allows enough variation in constants of physics among universes. (Actual Mechanism: Superstring Theory) 3. Although some of the laws of physics can vary from universe to universe in M-theory, these fundamental laws and principles underlie M-theory and therefore cannot be explained as a multiverse selection effect. Further, since the variation among universes would consist of variation of the masses, and types of particles and the form of the forces between them, complex structures would almost certainly not resemble the energy and matter structures we observe in our universe. Thus, the said fundamental laws seems necessary for there to be life in any of the many universes, not merely in a universe with our specific types of particles and forces. What is more is that these four mechanisms are not independent from one another. The fine-tuning of M-theory or superstring theory itself must be fine-tuned in order to have the other three mechanisms to function and bring about any functioning universe or LPU. Collins, “The Teleological Argument,”

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? A clear indicator of this is that Cicero1 and Aetius2 tell us that Anaximander referred to his universes as “gods.” So what is crucial here is his reasoning for plural – actually innumerable – universes. What there is, is the apeiron, the unbounded, that is both the eternal material source, and the eternal efficient cause of motion, and so its effect must likewise be complete, full, all-encompassing. Call this piece of reasoning the Plenitude Argument (PA): The initiating and actualizing factors for reality are unlimited, eternal, unbounded. An individual universe is a single and limited set of possible space/time existents. Therefore, it is both plausible and likely that there are multiple universes together representing the full range of possibles as actualized by an unlimited source. Put briefly, PA states that all possible states of affairs will be instantiated as a result of unlimited resources in a finite uniform process. There is an expectation, perhaps a demand, for fullness or completeness: plenitude. This doctrine, and its supporting argument, can be found in the Pythagoreans who thought there were 183 worlds arranged in a perfect triangle. Origen offered a theistic concept of modal realism, or the multiverse, in which God still acts in creation. Origen states, And now I do not understand by what proofs they can maintain their position, who assert that worlds sometimes come into existence which are not dissimilar to each other, but in all respects equal. For if there is said to be a world similar in all respects (to the present), then it will come to pass that Adam and Eve will do the same things, which they did before. There will be a second time the same deluge, and the same Moses will again lead a nation numbering nearly six hundred thousand out of Egypt… and everything, which has been done in life, will be repeated… But what may be the number or measures of this I confess myself ignorant, although, if anyone can tell it, I would gladly learn. De Principiis Origen also discusses Christological issues raised by modal realism. He argues that no matter what the “age” or referent world is, Christ’s atonement will be efficacious. But this world, which is itself called an age, is said to be the conclusion of many ages. Now the holy apostle teaches that in that age which preceded this, Christ did not suffer, nor even in the age which preceded that again; and I know not that I am able to enumerate the number of anterior ages in which He did not suffer. I will show, however, from what statements of Paul I have arrived at this understanding. He says, “But now once in the consummation of ages, He was manifested to take away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” For He says that He was once made a victim, and in the consummation of ages was manifested to take away sin. Now that after this age, which is said to be formed for the consummation of other ages, there will be other ages again to follow, we have clearly learned from Paul himself, who says, “That in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness towards us.” [There will be a time when] all things are no longer in an age but when God is in all. De Principiis

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. *Strong AP: Life needed to exist With regard to the indexical LP fact, some philosophers claim that we cannot make a purely indexical reference to our universe but can only refer to our universe via an implicit description. Thus, for instance, one could claim that “this universe” is reducible to “the universe we inhabit,” where the “we” is in turn reducible to some other description such as “conscious observers with characteristics X,” where X refers to some set of purely qualitative properties. If this analysis is correct, then the claim that “this universe is life-permitting” would be a tautology… The multiverse hypothesis does not itself explain or render probable this indexical LP fact, since whether or not other universes exist is irrelevant to the features our universe might have. Collins, “Teleological Argument,” 257. There is actually a thir teleological d anthropic principle, the Final Anthropic Principle (FAP): Intelligent, information-processinginformation processing must come into existence in the universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out. If scientists and mathematicians could ever have a sense of humor, the polymath Martin Gardner referred to FAP as the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle (CRAP). Martin Gardner, “Wap, Sap, Pap, and Fap,” New York Review of Books 23, no. 8 (May 8, 1986):

Standard Model

Standard [Creation?] Model
We know the universe began 13.7 billion years ago in an immensely hot dense state much smaller than a single atom. It began to expand about a million billion billion billion billionth of a second after the big bang. Gravity separated away from the other forces. The universe then underwent an exponential expansion called inflation. In about the first billionth of a second or so, the Higgs field kicked in, and the quarks, the gluons, the electrons that make us up got mass. The universe continued to expand and cool. After about a few minutes there was hydrogen and helium in the universe. That’s all. The universe was about 75% hydrogen, 25% helium. It still is today. It continued to expand about 300 million years. Then light was big enough to travel through the universe. It was big enough to be transparent to light, and that’s what we see in the cosmic microwave background. After about 400 million years, the first stars formed and that hydrogen, that helium, then began to cook into heavier elements… Stars were cooked up, exploded, and then re-collapsed into another generation of stars and planets. And on some of those planets in that first generation of stars could fuse with hydrogen to form water, liquid water on the surface… The laws of physics, the right laws of physics, they’re beautifully balanced. They couldn’t have been different. If the weak force were different then carbon and oxygen wouldn’t be stable in the hearts of stars and there would be none of that in the universe. And I think that’s a wonderful and significant story. (Brian Cox, TED2008, March 2008) George Smoot “It’s like looking back at the face of God”

Information Shannon Information: I=log2p
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:Ms6c1o4t6l7a8n1dNDsd+//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. Time and tide wait for no man- Geoffrey Chaucer

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),

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 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.

The Fine-Tuning Argument

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "The Fine-Tuning Argument"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

The Fine-Tuning Argument

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "The Fine-Tuning Argument"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback