The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life

[Techne]

I found this interesting article from the wiki discussion page about the concept of Fine-tuning.

Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life

Abstract

The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life has received a great deal of attention in recent years, both in the philosophical and scientific literature. The claim is that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits the evolution of intelligent life is very small. I present here a review of the scientific literature, outlining cases of fine-tuning in the classic works of Carter, Carr and Rees, and Barrow and Tipler, as well as more recent work. To sharpen the discussion, the role of the antagonist will be played by Victor Stenger’s recent book The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed for Us. Stenger claims that all known fine-tuning cases can be explained without the need for a multiverse. Many of Stenger’s claims will be found to be highly problematic. We will touch on such issues as the logical necessity of the laws of nature; objectivity, invariance and symmetry; theoretical physics and possible universes; entropy in cosmology; cosmic inflation and initial conditions; galaxy formation; the cosmological constant; stars and their formation; the properties of elementary particles and their effect on chemistry and the macroscopic world; the origin of mass; grand unified theories; and the dimensionality of space and time. I also provide an assessment of the multiverse, noting the significant challenges that it must face. I do not attempt to defend any conclusion based on the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. This paper can be viewed as a critique of Stenger’s book, or read independently.

The evidence appear to point to a universe that falls within a very narrow range for parameters that can support the life we observe. From a scientific point of view this is interesting and discussions related to scientific observations are welcome. No discussions about ID or the philosophical implications of these observations please.

 

[SaiyanZ]

I wouldn't say it's fine tuned for life. More like the opposite. Life has only been found, so far, within a 20km band on the surface of the earth. Intelligent life exists in an even smaller band. Compared to the size of the earth and the solar system, the area suitable for intelligent life is almost negligible.

 

[Jab]

The evidence appear to point to a universe that falls within a very narrow range for parameters that can support the life we observe.

How did they determine the possible range of parameters to be able to claim that they "falls within a very narrow range"?

 

[deweyzeph]

Marvelling at how the universe is fine-tuned for life is like marvelling at how amazing it is that mountains and rivers have formed at exactly the same place where international borders between countries are. :erm:

 

[RiaX]

Interesting discussion. There must be other life. Its possible we are the only life in the milkyway but how many more galaxies are there?

Life could be extremely rare but the shear size of the universe makes it statiscally impossible we alone. Most nay all people cannot comprehend the sheer size of the universe.

It could be that we are the first form of complex life or conversely the last. We could seed life on other planets in the distant future or disappear with our parent star and the universe will never know. We look at stars and say "no this star is too weak or too powerful" but sometime in its billion year history it would have been just right and civilizations might have bee and gone we will never know.

 

[dabean]

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

-- Douglas Adams

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

I think empirex and I covered this pretty well in the other thread.

We cannot see further than our observable universe, and therefore making a claim that this universe we live in is unique is unsubstantiated and cannot be answered at present. If our universe is not unique the claim that ours is fine tuned falls flat.

 

[Unhappy438]

Why is this in the Science section?

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0407213

 

[AlphaJohn]

I have a book for you: http://www.amazon.com/Fallacy-Fine-Tuning-Why-Universe-Designed/dp/1616144432

A number of authors have noted that if some physical parameters were slightly changed, the universe could no longer support life, as we know it. This implies that life depends sensitively on the physics of our universe. Does this "fine-tuning" of the universe also suggest that a creator god intentionally calibrated the initial conditions of the universe such that life on earth and the evolution of humanity would eventually emerge? Some influential scientists, such as National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, think so. Others go even further, asserting that science "has found God."

In this in-depth, lucid discussion of this fascinating and controversial topic, physicist Victor J. Stenger looks at the same evidence and comes to the opposite conclusion. He states at the outset that as a physicist he will go wherever the data takes him, even if it leads him to God. But after many years of research in particle physics and thinking about its implications, he finds that the observations of science and our naked senses not only show no evidence for God, they provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist.

Stenger argues that many of the claims by theists are based on their misunderstanding of the science. He looks at the specific parameters and shows that plausible reasons can be found for the values they have within the existing standard models of physics and cosmology. These models are introduced in detail so that the reader has the background needed to understand the role of the parameters claimed to be fine-tuned and judge the veracity of the arguments.

He also discusses related issues such as whether or not the universe had a beginning, what quantum mechanics implies about the involvement of human consciousness in affecting reality, and whether evidence can be found in nature for a divine plan.

Although Stenger has touched on the subject of fine-tuning in other books, this is his most thorough exploration of a topic that continues to intrigue scientists and the lay public alike.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Why is this in the Science section?

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0407213

Why do you think?

 

[w1z4rd]

By, "fine tuned" you mean 99.99999999999% of the universe is hostile to life and will kill life as we know it. Yeah... super fine tuned

 

[AlphaJohn]

By, "fine tuned" you mean 99.99999999999% of the universe is hostile to life and will kill life as we know it. Yeah... super fine tuned

That reminded me of this talk with Neil Tyson, esp the stupid design section.

 

[porchrat]

First the microtubules thing and now this. Someone has been reading PD and trying to find ways to get those discussions into NS

 

[AthenianOwl]

Marvelling at how the universe is fine-tuned for life is like marvelling at how amazing it is that mountains and rivers have formed at exactly the same place where international borders between countries are. :erm:

Hahaha Good one!

 

[Techne]

I wouldn't say it's fine tuned for life. More like the opposite. Life has only been found, so far, within a 20km band on the surface of the earth. Intelligent life exists in an even smaller band. Compared to the size of the earth and the solar system, the area suitable for intelligent life is almost negligible.

I think the abundance of life is irrelevant to he argument. AFAIU, the argument is that the parameters are finely-tuned for intelligent life to exist no matter how abundant.

How did they determine the possible range of parameters to be able to claim that they "falls within a very narrow range"?

From the article:

Cases of Fine-Tuning
What is the evidence that FT is true? We would like to have meticulously examined every possible universe and determined whether any form of life evolves. Sadly, this is currently beyond our abilities. Instead, we rely on simplified models and more general arguments to step out into possible-physics-space. If the set of life-permitting universes is small amongst the universes that we have been able to explore, then we can reasonably infer that it is unlikely that the trend will be miraculously reversed just beyond the horizon of our knowledge.

Marvelling at how the universe is fine-tuned for life is like marvelling at how amazing it is that mountains and rivers have formed at exactly the same place where international borders between countries are. :erm:

-- Douglas Adams

I think the nature of the problem related to fine-tuning is more interesting than a puddle or a beautiful river and mountain. One can find something interesting without marveling at at of course.

Interesting discussion. There must be other life. Its possible we are the only life in the milkyway but how many more galaxies are there?

Life could be extremely rare but the shear size of the universe makes it statiscally impossible we alone. Most nay all people cannot comprehend the sheer size of the universe.

It could be that we are the first form of complex life or conversely the last. We could seed life on other planets in the distant future or disappear with our parent star and the universe will never know. We look at stars and say "no this star is too weak or too powerful" but sometime in its billion year history it would have been just right and civilizations might have bee and gone we will never know.

It is possible that we are the only intelligent life in the universe as well. I don't think a particularly strong case can be made either way though. It would be great if there is other intelligent life out there of course.

I think empirex and I covered this pretty well in the other thread.

We cannot see further than our observable universe, and therefore making a claim that this universe we live in is unique is unsubstantiated and cannot be answered at present. If our universe is not unique the claim that ours is fine tuned falls flat.

Fine-tuned does not imply unique and unique does not imply fine-tuned. I think, based on our current knowledge, that a good case is made that the universe is indeed fine-tuned.

I have a book for you: http://www.amazon.com/Fallacy-Fine-Tuning-Why-Universe-Designed/dp/1616144432

If you read the OP you will notice that the article directly addresses the claims made in this book .

 

[rwenzori]

By, "fine tuned" you mean 99.99999999999% of the universe is hostile to life and will kill life as we know it. Yeah... super fine tuned

Yes. Universe Creation Scorecard for Yahweh: E- Could have done better; needs to try harder next term.

 

[zippy]

How did they determine the possible range of parameters to be able to claim that they "falls within a very narrow range"?

They should clarify that their definition of life is "Life as we know it"

It's life, Jim, but not as we know it

 

[Techne]

They should clarify that their definition of life is "Life as we know it"

Probably pretty standard stuff...
Metabolically active.
Homeostasis.
Potential to self-replicate or propagate its genes/hereditary material.
Water dependent... etc.

 

[killadoob]

By, "fine tuned" you mean 99.99999999999% of the universe is hostile to life and will kill life as we know it. Yeah... super fine tuned

Wait have we explored 150 billion light years of universe? That is estimated because we honestly don't have a fking clue.

How can you say that 99% of the universe does not support life, we cannot even get a manned mission to land on mars yet stupid humans act like we know about the universe.

99% of the universe bwhahahahahahaha, all we have done is put a man on the moon, that is how advanced we are, we can barely see 1% of the universe and that is thumb sucking yet you can claim 99% of the universe cannot contain life.

Geezuz the ignorance of the human species is mind boggling. You sound like the flat earth people ghoti.

We are the flat earth people of our time, making claims and talking shyte because we don't know any better.

 

[AlphaJohn]

Wait have we explored 150 billion light years of universe? That is estimated because we honestly don't have a fking clue.

How can you say that 99% of the universe does not support life, we cannot even get a manned mission to land on mars yet stupid humans act like we know about the universe.

99% of the universe bwhahahahahahaha, all we have done is put a man on the moon, that is how advanced we are, we can barely see 1% of the universe and that is thumb sucking yet you can claim 99% of the universe cannot contain life.

Geezuz the ignorance of the human species is mind boggling. You sound like the flat earth people ghoti.

We are the flat earth people of our time, making claims and talking shyte because we don't know any better.

Well, I guess he means that 99% of the universe is empty space, kinda hard to stay alive in that if you ask me. the Other 0.999999999% will be the stars and 0.00000000099999 would be gass giants

The biggest problem with space is that there is a ****load of it