Presentation on theme: "T HE F INE -T UNING A RGUMENT An Argument from Physics & Cosmology."— Presentation transcript:
T HE F INE -T UNING A RGUMENT An Argument from Physics & Cosmology
W HAT IS B EING A RGUED F OR ? 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)
T HE A RGUMENT 1.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. 2.Given the fine-tuning evidence, LPM is not unlikely under FT (the fine- tuner hypothesis): that is, ~P(LPM|FT & k ) 1. 3.Therefore, LPM strongly supports FT over ~FT.
H ISTORICAL D EVELOPMENT 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)
P OSITIONS 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.
M AJOR P ROPONENTS Robin Collins Jay Richards Guillermo Gonzalez William Lane Craig William Dembski Bruce Gordon James Sinclair
M AJOR S KEPTICS Stephen Hawking Victor Stenger Max Tegmark Lawrence Krauss Richard Dawkins
T HE L OGIC OF THE A RGUMENT Abductive reasoning Augustinian science over Duhemian science Aristotles Four Causes 1.Material Cause, What is it made of? 2.Formal Cause, What is its form or essence? 3.Efficient Cause, What produced it? 4.Final Cause, What purpose? William Whewells restriction of the word science
T HE B OUNDS OF P ROBABILITY 10 80 x 10 43 x 10 25 = 10 148 10 80 : Elementary particles in the universe 10 43 : Alterations in the states of matter per second (Hz, Planck time) 10 25 : Number in seconds the universe can maintain integrity 10 148 : Total number of state changes that all elementary particles in the universe can undergo through its duration.
T HE F INE -T UNING OF THE L AWS OF N ATURE 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
T HE F INE -T UNING OF THE L AWS OF N ATURE Gravity – No stars, no planets, no life! – Example of star formation caused by gravitation attraction.
T HE F INE -T UNING OF THE L AWS OF N ATURE Electromagnetic Force – Different atomic bonds and thus complex molecules needed for life could not form. – No light, no life!
T HE F INE -T UNING OF THE L AWS OF N ATURE Strong Nuclear Force – The force that holds the atomic nucleus together. After all, protons are positively charged and like charges repel each other. Thus, shouldnt the nucleus fly apart? – If stronger, no hydrogen, an essential element of life. – If weaker, only hydrogen.
T HE F INE -T UNING OF THE L AWS OF N ATURE 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.
T HE F INE -T UNING OF THE L AWS OF N ATURE 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).
T HE F INE -T UNING OF THE C ONSTANTS OF N ATURE There are fundamental numbers that occur in the laws of physics. – Gravitational constant – Strength of Electromagnetism – Cosmological constant
T HE F INE -T UNING OF THE C ONSTANTS OF N ATURE Gravitational Constant – Determines the strength of gravity via Newtons Law of Gravity F = Gm 1 m 2 /r 2 Actual value of G is 6.67 x 10 -11 Nm 2 /kg 2 m1m1 m2m2 r
T HE F INE -T UNING OF THE C ONSTANTS OF N ATURE 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.
T HE F INE -T UNING OF THE C ONSTANTS OF N ATURE G 0 = Current Strength of Gravity Strength of Weak Force: 10 31 G 0 Strength of Electromagnetism: 10 37 G 0 Strength of Strong Force: 10 40 G 0 10 40 G 0 = ten thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion times the strength of gravity
T HE F INE -T UNING OF THE C ONSTANTS OF N ATURE 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 10 34 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.
T HE F INE -T UNING OF THE C ONSTANTS OF N ATURE The cosmological constant ( Λ, lambda) is a term in Einsteins 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).
V ARYING F UNDAMENTAL C ONSTANTS 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
T HE F INE -T UNING OF THE I NITIAL C ONDITIONS OF THE U NIVERSE Roger Penroses initial low entropy calculations – Cosmic landscape parameters – Range of all possible universes given they be governed by the present laws of nature – 10 500 possible universes, only 10 120 given Λ
G OD AS AN E XPLANATORY H YPOTHESIS ? Best scientific evidence suggests that it did have a complex fine-tuning. Remember, not arguing for God per se. Is Plantingas approach to explanation applicable?
W HO S A FRAID OF THE M ULTIVERSE ? What is the multiverse? Are there different versions? Do I have a twin somewhere? How many are there?
L EVEL 1 M ULTIVERSE 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
L EVEL 2 M ULTIVERSE 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
L EVEL 2 M ULTIVERSE Sources: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.1995, NASA W-Band 94 GHz WMAP, ESA/LFI & HFI Consortia Planck one-year survey
L EVEL 3 M ULTIVERSE 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
L EVEL 4 M ULTIVERSE 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?
H OW M ANY U NIVERSES ? Stanford cosmologists Andre Linde and Vitally Vanchurins 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
I NTERPRETING T HE Q UANTUM W ORLD 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
I NFLATIONARY -S UPERSTRING M ULTIVERSE 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: Einsteins Equation + Inflation Field)
I NFLATIONARY -S UPERSTRING M ULTIVERSE 3.A mechanism to convert the energy of inflation field to the normal mass/energy we find in our universe. (Actual Mechanism: E=mc 2 + coupling between inflation field and matter fields) 4.A mechanism that allows enough variation in constants of physics among universes. (Actual Mechanism: Superstring Theory)
I S THE M ULTIVERSE C OMPATIBLE WITH T HEISM ? Yes, theres nothing to suggest that it is not and it fits with Gods creativity (as revealed) and the historical trend of science. If God were to create, would he create an open system or closed system?
W EAK & M INIMALISTIC A NTHROPIC P RINCIPLE WAPThe 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. MAPWhen testing fundamental theories with observational data, ignoring selection effects can give incorrect conclusions. *Strong AP: Life needed to exist
I NFORMATION The numerical values of laws and constants are arbitrary. Shannon Information: I =log 2 p – 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.
I NFORMATION 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.
A ESTHETICS E XCURSUS 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.
A ESTHETICS E XCURSUS Meaningfulness in meaninglessness Elements of genius Periodic table Designed for discovery
N ATURAL E VIL Problem: How can the designer design such a physical reality that causes such much evil? (i.e. earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.)
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 designers moral status is irrelevant.
W HAT S AY Y OU G OOD S IR ? 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
C ONCLUSIONS 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.