The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life

[AlphaJohn]

K I thumb sucked the numbers above but here is a cool pie graph (That needs to be updated as Dark energy take up 74% not 70% but you get the idea.

Source : LSST

 

[w1z4rd]

How can you say that 99% of the universe does not support life,

I have a brain. I can open my eyes and see that the majority of the universe is interstellar medium and dark matter. When you find a way to breath in the interstellar medium, let us know.

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

Sure, nice insult. Completely groundless. Your view seems to lag behind reality

 

[Techne]

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.

Sure, there is still a lot to be discovered. However,
whether there is other life in the universe or not won't detract or take away the observation of fine-tuning as we understand it now.

 

[AlphaJohn]

Only problem I have with fine-tuneing is the fact that computer simulations pointed out that its not exactly as fine as it could have been (There is a 25% parameter space that you can play with and still get a universe to exist, sure not one we know but one with working stars long enough for life to form) Not to even mention this is not the best optimal formula either. Fiddling around with G, α and C could in fact get you a optimally biophilic universe(One teaming with life)

Also fine-tuning totally ignores the Multi-verse and other dimensions. Its claim is that something made this universe for US, and nothing else. Its almost as bad, actually wait its worse than claiming, the universe rotate around the earth.

I'll go with old Tyson here:

[video=youtube;Ti3mtDC2fQo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo[/video]

The moment people invoke intelligent design, its their way of saying "I do not know" instead of looking for answers and as such they should simply stand aside so that real science can continue its work. If this was the PD thread I would argue differently but seeing that we talking natural science here that is my final answer.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

As me and alloytoo stated in the other thread, we don't know the 'tune' of the universe. We know it exists and it supports one kind of life, that's it. We don't know if universes always come out this way, or what kind of universe a different combination of the fundamental forces would produce. There's no standard for universes that we can compare ours against to see if it is indeed 'fine-tuned'.

 

[Techne]

Only problem I have with fine-tuneing is the fact that computer simulations pointed out that its not exactly as fine as it could have been (There is a 25% parameter space that you can play with and still get a universe to exist, sure not one we know but one with working stars long enough for life to form).

If you read the article in the OP you will notice that Stenger's claim is based on Fred Adams's claim which appears to an instance of the "cheap-binoculars fallacy" (as explained n the article). E.g. in section 2.7.1 Stellar stability:

Adams combines these constraints in (G, a, C) parameter space, holding all other parameters constant, as shown in Figure 5. Below the solid line, stable stars are possible. The dashed (dotted) line shows the corresponding constraint for universes in which C is increased (decreased) by a factor of 100. Adams remarks that‘within the parameter space shown, which spans 10 orders of magnitude in both a and G, about one-fourth of the space supports the existence of stars’. Stenger (FOFT 243) cites Adams’ result, but crucially omits the modifier shown. Adams makes no attempt to justify the limits of parameter space as he has shown them. Further, there is no justification of the use of logarithmic axes, which significantly affects the estimate of the probability23. The figure of ‘one-fourth’ is almost meaningless—given any life-permitting region, one can make it equal one-fourth of parameter space by chopping and changing said space. This is a perfect example of the cheap-binoculars fallacy. If one allows G to increase until gravity is as strong as the strong force (aGEasE1), and uses linear rather than logarithmic axes, the stablestar- permitting region occupies ,1038 of parameter space. Even with logarithmic axes, fine-tuning cannot be avoided—zero is a possible value ofG, and thus is part of parameter space. However, such a universe is not lifepermitting, and so there is a minimum life-permitting value of G. A logarithmic axis, by placing G¼0 at negative infinity, puts an infinitely large region of parameter space outside of the life-permitting region. Stable stars would then require infinite fine-tuning. Note further that the fact that our universe (the triangle in Figure 5) isn’t particularly close to the life-permitting boundary is irrelevant to fine-tuning as we have defined it. We conclude that the existence of stable stars is indeed a fine-tuned property of our universe.

Figure 5: The parameter space (G, a), shown relative to their values in our universe (G0, a0). The triangle shows our universe. Below the solid line, stable stars are possible. The dashed (dotted) line shows the corresponding constraint for universes in which C is increased (decreased) by a factor of 100. Note that the axes are logarithmic and span 10 orders of magnitude. Figure from Adams (2008), reproduced with permission of IOP Publishing Ltd.

Not to even mention this is not the best optimal formula either. Fiddling around with G, α and C could in fact get you a optimally biophilic universe(One teaming with life)

Fine-tuning does not imply most optimal. Finding more optimal ones does not imply that our present one is not finely-tuned, it would just show that there can exist other finely-tuned universes as well.

Also fine-tuning totally ignores the Multi-verse and other dimensions.

It is an interesting idea and also discussed in the paper. To quote:

A multiverse generated by a simple underlying mechanism is a remarkably seductive idea. The mechanism would be an extrapolation of known physics, that is, physics with an impressive record of explaining observations from our universe. The extrapolation would be natural, almost inevitable. The universe as we know it would be a very small part of a much larger whole. Cosmology would explore the possibilities of particle physics; what we know as particle physics would be mere by-laws in an unimaginably vast and variegated cosmos. The multiverse would predict what we expect to observe by predicting what conditions hold in universes able to support observers.

Sadly, most of this scenario is still hypothetical. The goal of this section has been to demonstrate the mountain that the multiverse is yet to climb, the challenges that it must face openly and honestly. The multiverse may yet solve the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life, but it will not be an easy solution. ‘Multiverse’ is not a magic word that will make all the fine-tuning go away. For a popular discussion of these issues, see Ellis (2011).

Its claim is that something made this universe for US, and nothing else. Its almost as bad, actually wait its worse than claiming, the universe rotate around the earth.

I don't think such a claim was made. Perhaps in ID literature, but that is irrelevant to the present discussion IMO.

 

[Techne]

As me and alloytoo stated in the other thread, we don't know the 'tune' of the universe. We know it exists and it supports one kind of life, that's it. We don't know if universes always come out this way, or what kind of universe a different combination of the fundamental forces would produce. There's no standard for universes that we can compare ours against to see if it is indeed 'fine-tuned'.

The present universe is used as a standard and then simulations are run whereby constants or combinations of forces are altered. It is based on this and the sensitivity of any changes in constants etc. that scientists can say this universe is finely tuned.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

The present universe is used as a standard and then simulations are run whereby constants or combinations of forces are altered. It is based on this and the sensitivity of any changes in constants etc. that scientists can say this universe is finely tuned.

Simulations aren't necessarily accurate, and how would they simulate things like dark matter, or dark energy? There's a lot we don't understand about the universe at large.

 

[RiaX]

I think its not 99% of the universe but 99% of the OBSERVABLE universe. Big difference.

Our reach is only to the moon. We haven't even explored earth fully. You can't say there is no life on a planet until you go there. We can say there is no advanced life due to the lack information traveling (radiowaves for example) but that won't rule out unicellular organisms. For all we know there can be life in the void of space. Certain bacteria can put themselves in statis close to 0 kelvin temperatures. How are we suppose to know there isn't a single bacterium in statis orbiting in the asteroid belts? We will never know the universe is huge and bateria are extremely small.

Also our search goes according to how life exists on earth, that maybe not the only route chemistry can go to create life, its extremely arrogant.

Life exists (us) therefore it must exist elsewhere because there are countless of stars like the sun. Also we are limited to the speed of light. If an advanced civilisation 1 billion light years away looks at earth they would find nothing because they are looking into the past. So from their point of view earth would be lifeless

 

[Techne]

Simulations aren't necessarily accurate, and how would they simulate things like dark matter, or dark energy? There's a lot we don't understand about the universe at large.

Dark energy and dark matter are taken into consideration.
From the article:

In reply, fine-tuning isn’t about what the parameters and laws are in a particular universe. Given some other set of laws, we ask: if a universe were chosen at random from the set of universes with those laws, what is the probability that it would support intelligent life? If that probability is robustly small, then we conclude that that region of possible-physics-space contributes negligibly to the total life-permitting subset. It is easy to find examples of such claims.

A universe governed by Maxwell’s Laws ‘all the way down’ (i.e. with no quantum regime at small scales) would not have stable atoms — electrons radiate their kinetic energy and spiral rapidly into the nucleus — and hence no chemistry (Barrow & Tipler 1986, p. 303). We don’t need to know what the parameters are to know that life in such a universe is plausibly impossible.

If electrons were bosons, rather than fermions, then they would not obey the Pauli exclusion principle. There would be no chemistry.

If gravity were repulsive rather than attractive, then matter wouldn’t clump into complex structures. Remember: your density, thank gravity, is 1030 times greater than the average density of the universe.

If the strong force were a long rather than short-range force, then there would be no atoms. Any structures that formed would be uniform, spherical, undifferentiated lumps, of arbitrary size and incapable of complexity.

If, in electromagnetism, like charges attracted and opposites repelled, then there would be no atoms. As above, we would just have undifferentiated lumps of matter.

The electromagnetic force allows matter to cool into galaxies, stars, and planets. Without such interactions, all matter would be like dark matter, which can only form into large, diffuse, roughly spherical haloes of matter whose only internal structure consists of smaller, diffuse, roughly spherical subhaloes.

We should be cautious, however. Whatever the problems of defining the possible range of a given parameter, we are in a significantly more nebulous realm when we consider the set of all possible physical laws. It is not clear how such a fine-tuning case could be formalised, whatever its intuitive appeal.

From the conclusion:

Will future progress in fundamental physics solve the problem of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life, without the need for a multiverse? There are a few ways that this could happen. We could discover that the set of life-permitting universes is much larger than previously thought. This is unlikely, since the physics relevant to life is low-energy physics, and thus well-understood. Physics at the Planck scale will not rewrite the standard model of particle physics. It is sometimes objected that we do not have an adequate definition of ‘an observer’, and we do not know all possible forms of life. This is reason for caution, but not a fatal flaw of fine-tuning. If the strong force were weaker, the periodic table would consist of only hydrogen. We do not need a rigorous definition of life to reasonably conclude that a universe with one chemical reaction (2H → H2) would not be able to create and sustain the complexity necessary for life.

Alternatively, we could discover that the set of possible universes is much smaller than we thought. This scenario is much more interesting. What if, when we really understand the laws of nature, we will realise that they could not have been different? We must be clear about the claim being made. If the claim is that the laws of nature are fixed by logical and mathematical necessity, then this is demonstrably wrong — theoretical physicists find it rather easy to describe alternative universes that are free from logical contradiction (Davies, in Davies 2003). The category of ‘physically possible’ isn’t much help either, as the laws of nature tell us what is physically possible, but not which laws are possible.

So given what we know, the universe appears finely-tuned for life to exist (from the conclusion "Of all the ways that the laws of nature, constants of physics and initial conditions of the universe could have been, only a very small subset permits the existence of intelligent life."). Whether future discoveries may change this is an open question.

 

[AlphaJohn]

I think its not 99% of the universe but 99% of the OBSERVABLE universe. Big difference.

Our reach is only to the moon. We haven't even explored earth fully. You can't say there is no life on a planet until you go there. We can say there is no advanced life due to the lack information traveling (radiowaves for example) but that won't rule out unicellular organisms. For all we know there can be life in the void of space. Certain bacteria can put themselves in statis close to 0 kelvin temperatures. How are we suppose to know there isn't a single bacterium in statis orbiting in the asteroid belts? We will never know the universe is huge and bateria are extremely small.

Also our search goes according to how life exists on earth, that maybe not the only route chemistry can go to create life, its extremely arrogant.

Life exists (us) therefore it must exist elsewhere because there are countless of stars like the sun. Also we are limited to the speed of light. If an advanced civilisation 1 billion light years away looks at earth they would find nothing because they are looking into the past. So from their point of view earth would be lifeless

We not talking about carbon based life in this debate, its about the planets stars and matter to form, something completely different to looking for carbon based life or intelligent life as such. The argument if I understand correctly is that gravity is just right so that helium can form and fusion can take place. But even then I would argue this is still about life as we know it in a universe as we see it. There might be others filled with a fluid that does not need stars or time might flow ina totally different direction.

Any case as far as I can tell from Techne's response is that this universe is perfect for the life in this universe so I have no clue why we even debating it as he himself claimed:

I don't think such a claim was made. Perhaps in ID literature, but that is irrelevant to the present discussion IMO.

So if no one did it and we not ruling out multiverses then I do not get the debate.

 

[Techne]

Any case as far as I can tell from Techne's response is that this universe is perfect for the life in this universe so I have no clue why we even debating it as he himself claimed:

So if no one did it and we not ruling out multiverses then I do not get the debate.

I was responding to the claim that "Its claim is that something made this universe for US,". This may be the case in some ID circles (hence irrelevant to the present discussion) but it is different (IMO) from the observation that the universe is finely-tuned.

The first provides an explanation for the fine-tuning, this thread is to discuss the interesting cases of fine-tuning itself and the scientific reasons for why the claim is made i.e. the sensitivity of the the laws of nature, constants of physics and initial conditions of the universe to allow life to exist.

 

[RiaX]

Again what we see of those planets and stars is their ancient past because they simply to far away so even if you get data from the photons they emit it doesn't matter. Life could be an extremely short lived anomaly. That's the issue I have with the "finding life" research.

 

[SaiyanZ]

If electrons were bosons, rather than fermions, then they would not obey the Pauli exclusion principle. There would be no chemistry.

If gravity were repulsive rather than attractive, then matter wouldn’t clump into complex structures. Remember: your density, thank gravity, is 1030 times greater than the average density of the universe.

If the strong force were a long rather than short-range force, then there would be no atoms. Any structures that formed would be uniform, spherical, undifferentiated lumps, of arbitrary size and incapable of complexity.

If, in electromagnetism, like charges attracted and opposites repelled, then there would be no atoms. As above, we would just have undifferentiated lumps of matter.

So many ifs. If any of those were true then the universe would have never reached a relatively stable state as it has now. It would probably keep imploding on itself and then exploding again until a stable universe formed, thus allowing intelligent life to develop billions of years later. This is assuming of course that the laws if physics are maybe different in each possible universe. If the laws are always the same then there is no point to this discussion. Life would be inevitable given the right ingredients and time.

 

[AlphaJohn]

So many ifs. If any of those were true then the universe would have never reached a relatively stable state as it has now. It would probably keep imploding on itself and then exploding again until a stable universe formed, thus allowing intelligent life to develop billions of years later. This is assuming of course that the laws if physics are maybe different in each possible universe. If the laws are always the same then there is no point to this discussion. Life would be inevitable given the right ingredients and time.

Reminds me of the age old recipe on how to create anything and everything all you need is:

Incredients:
Large amount of Hydrogen
Time(Couple of billions of years will do)
Container

Instructions:
Place hydrogen into container, and wait.

 

[Techne]

So many ifs. If any of those were true then the universe would have never reached a relatively stable state as it has now. It would probably keep imploding on itself and then exploding again until a stable universe formed, thus allowing intelligent life to develop billions of years later. This is assuming of course that the laws if physics are maybe different in each possible universe. If the laws are always the same then there is no point to this discussion. Life would be inevitable given the right ingredients and time.

That is exactly what is argued won't happen given small variations in the various constants.

Re the laws of nature... it's a fascinating topic. What they are exactly (prescriptive or descriptive), are they necessary (ontologically speaking) or not etc. but that is a discussion for another topic,

Reminds me of the age old recipe on how to create anything and everything all you need is:

Incredients:
Large amount of Hydrogen
Time(Couple of billions of years will do)
Container

Instructions:
Place hydrogen into container, and wait.

sure, given the current fine-tuned constants, that is exactly what is being pointed out. The other side is that if there are changes other than the fine-tuned constants then this will never happen no matter how long you wait.

 

[SaiyanZ]

So basically they're saying, if things were different then.... things will be different. Something that is obvious.

The universe is not fine-tuned for us. It is the other way around. Life has evolved and adapted to the local conditions so in a sense life has become more fine-tuned to suit its environment. For example, a 100 million years ago their were no birds or large flying life forms. Yet the conditions on the earth were similar to what it is now. Birds have evolved since then to take advantage of the skies. i.e. they have become fine-tuned over millions of years through evolution. So lets travel back in time 100 million years. One would then look at the earth/skies and say, wow, it is fine-tuned for birds. Only thing is, there weren't any birds as yet so how could one say such a thing without knowing about a life form such as a bird.

 

[Techne]

So basically they're saying, if things were different then.... things will be different. Something that is obvious.

I think they are saying more than that. More in the lines of "even small changes implies no biological evolution, hence finely-tuned for life and biological evolution as we know it".

The universe is not fine-tuned for us. It is the other way around. Life has evolved and adapted to the local conditions so in a sense life has become more fine-tuned to suit its environment. For example, a 100 million years ago their were no birds or large flying life forms. Yet the conditions on the earth were similar to what it is now. Birds have evolved since then to take advantage of the skies. i.e. they have become fine-tuned over millions of years through evolution. So lets travel back in time 100 million years. One would then look at the earth/skies and say, wow, it is fine-tuned for birds. Only thing is, there weren't any birds as yet so how could one say such a thing without knowing about a life form such as a bird.

Finely-tuned so that evolution can take place in the first place and give life, never mind intelligent life, a chance to begin to exist.

 

[SaiyanZ]

Finely-tuned so that evolution can take place in the first place and give life, never mind intelligent life, a chance to begin to exist.

That's just the thing. Finely-tuned from our perspective.

Maybe in another universe the conditions would only allow for simple life like bacteria to develop. That universe would be finely-tuned for bacteria. Maybe the conditions in another universe would not allow any life to develop. That universe would also be finely-tuned, not for life but for something else.

Also, who knows if our universe is really finely-tuned. Maybe it could be much more finely-tuned so that intelligent life could evolve faster and be more abundant. Maybe a universe could give rise to more than intelligent life as we know it. So, I say, since we don't know these things, we should not just make assumptions that the universe's purpose is to give rise to life as we know it.

 

[cyghost]

That's just the thing. Finely-tuned from our perspective.

The Puddle is well pleased.