Presentation on theme: "Fine Tuning Argument Why is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life?"— Presentation transcript:
Fine Tuning Argument Why is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life?
Ancient Perspectives - Plato Plato (429-347 BC) inferred God from the order of the motion of the stars, and of all things under the dominion of the Mind which ordered the universe (Laws 12.966e)
Aristotle (384-322 BC) Imagine a race of men who lived underground and never beheld the sky: When thus they would suddenly gain sight of the earth, the seas and the sky; when they should come to know the grandeur of the clouds and the might of the winds; when they should behold the sun and should learn its beauty and grandeur as well as its power to cause the day by shedding light over the sky; and again, when the night had darkened the lands and they should behold the whole of the sky spangled and adorned with stars; and when they should see the changing lights of the moon as it waxes and wanes, and the risings and settings of all these celestial bodies, their courses fixed and changeless throughout all eternity; when they should behold all these things, most certainly they would have judged both that there exists gods and that all these marvellous works are the handiwork of the gods. (On Philosophy)
Biblical Perspective Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in what He has made (Romans 1: 20)
Teleological Argument In 1802 William Paley published Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Watchmaker analogy: – Imagine you found a watch in a field. Would you conclude that the watch was due to chance or design? – Paley provided many examples of design in nature, such as the human eye.
Teleological Argument Charles Darwin (1809-1882) published On the Origin of Species in 1859 Many believed that this provided an explanation of how the appearance of design was due to chance
Fine-Tuning Argument (FTA) FTA is a form of the Teleological Argument Based on physics Bypasses the emotive and complicated subject of biological evolution
Rebirth of Design in Modern Times Scientists used to believe evolution of life was inevitable Discoveries in last 40 years have shown this to be wrong Initial conditions of universe and physical constants are extraordinarily finely tuned to enable any possible form of life
Two Forms of Fine Tuning Physical constants – G, gs, gw, ε 0, Me, Mp, α, c, h, k Physical conditions – Entropy in early universe The above are finely tuned to allow any form of life Uncontroversial (some dissenters, eg Victor Stenger) Highly technical
Examples of Numbers The universe is claimed to be 10 17 seconds old There are 10 80 atoms in known universe Alteration of weak force constant (gw) by 1 in 10 100 would prevent life Alteration of cosmological constant (Λ) by 1 in 10 120 would prevent life Probability of low entropy beginning of universe is 1 in W. W is Penrose number = 1 followed by 10 123 zeros.
Formation of elements Atomic nuclei consist of protons and neutrons Protons repel each other Strong nuclear force (gs) binds nuclei If gs 2% stronger, no hydrogen – No water, no hydrocarbons, no life If gs 2% weaker, only hydrogen – No other elements, no life
Fine Tuning Argument 1.The fine tuning of universe is due to Physical Necessity, Chance or Design 2.The fine tuning is not due to Physical Necessity or Chance 3.Therefore it is due to design
Premise 1 The fine tuning of universe is due to Physical Necessity, Chance or Design Lists 3 alternatives Anyone is welcome to add to list for consideration
Premise 2 – Physical Necessity Physical Necessity means constants could not be otherwise Not determined by laws of nature Theory Of Everything (TOE) is a misnomer M-theory predicts 10 500 possibilities Initial conditions are not necessary
Premise 2 - Chance Chance only makes sense when conjoined with the Many Worlds Hypothesis (MWH) Only objection that should be taken seriously Multiple (or infinite number of) universes with different values means some may be life permitting Makes WAP feasible
Many World Hypotheses It is natural for science to seek explanations Many different models proposed At most one can be right Back-handed compliment to FTA and KCA Many worlds now almost treated as a fact. Used to be treated as science fiction.
Some Models Quantum Divergence (Hawking and DeWitt) – Every time a quantum decision is made, a new universe is generated Lindes Chaotic Inflationary Multiverse String Theory Landscape – Requires fine tuning – Low energy – not anthropic
Alternate Models Steady State: Creation of Helium, Background radiation Oscillating: Disorder is carried over between oscillations, when matter nears collapse point it most probably causes a singularity, Observations show that the current universe will not collapse but expand forever. Bubble Universes: our universe is just a bubble in a much larger multiverse of bubble universes. BVG theorem says that the multiverse as a whole must have a beginning. Baby Universes: Black holes are tunnels through to new baby universes. The battery running down still applies and in addition Hawking radiation shows that the hypothesis is incorrect.
Extra models Vacuum Fluctuation: Given an infinite past all possibilities would have occurred, hence we should be observing an infinitely old universe. Quantum Gravity: Still has a beginning String Scenarios: Given an infinite past all possibilities would occurred, hence we should be observing an infinitely old universe. BVG theorem extended to higher dimension cosmology
Many World Hypothesis A plausible mechanism is required for generating the many worlds If the mechanism is finely tuned then the problem does not go away E.g. M-theory requires 11 dimensions No way of verifying other worlds It is far more like our universe should be much smaller Boltzmann brain far more probable. You are all that exists and are under an illusion
Objections Dawkins - Cosmic Designer remains unexplained No fine tuning Different values would allow different forms of life Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) Multiverse Theories Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principles (CRAP)
Explaining the Designer This is Dawkins central argument in The God Delusion Who designed the designer? The designer must be more complicated than the design. Responses: – It is wrong to demand an explanation of an explanation. Eg discovery of arrow heads. Infinite regress. Nothing could be explained – The designer does not necessarily need to be more complicated – Simplest answer is not always best. Explanatory power.
Different Values Objection Different values would allow different forms of life Answer : Not True – Different values would prevent any form of life – No form of life is possible without the possibility of atomic table, large molecules, collapsing universe etc.
Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) We should not be surprised that the universe is finely tuned as it is the only universe we can observe. Answer: Firing Squad analogy
Current Status Current state of play: – The universe was designed by a Designer, or – There are an infinite number of universes with random physical laws and we happen to live in a lucky one Multiple universes cannot be observed or tested Multi-verse must be finely tuned We can only observe and test 1 universe Which option is more plausible?
The Duck Test Dawkins refers to the illusion of design, but... If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then perhaps it is a duck.