Pages

Sunday, September 11, 2022

Anthropic Argument (Fine Tuning)

1 Argument from Religious experiece (codetermenate)
2 Argumemt from Transcendental signifiers(You are here)
3 The Cosmological argumemt
4 The Fine tuning argumemt (You are here)
5 Hartshorne's Modal argument


The fine tuning argument says that there are so many enstances which had things been slightly different life would not have emerged, that we must conclude that the game is fxed; there is a creative mind guiding the evolutionary development of the universe.

Our best current theories of fundamental physics are the Standard Model of elementary particle physics and the theory of general relativity. The Standard Model accounts for three of the known four fundamental forces of nature—the strong, the weak, and the electromagnetic force—while general relativity accounts for the fourth—gravity. Arguments according to which our universe is fine-tuned for life are aimed at showing that life could not have existed for the vast majority of other forms of the laws of nature, other values of the constants of nature, and other conditions in the very early universe.[1]
Examples

The following is an—incomplete—list of suggested instances of fine-tuning for life. (For popular overviews see Leslie 1989: ch. 2, Rees 2000, Davies 2006, and Lewis & Barnes 2016; for more technical ones see Hogan 2000, Uzan 2011, Barnes 2012, Adams 2019 and the contributions to Sloan et al. 2020.)[2]

The strength of gravity, when measured against the strength of electromagnetism, seems fine-tuned for life (Rees 2000: ch. 3; Uzan 2011: sect. 4; Lewis & Barnes 2016: ch. 4). If gravity had been absent or substantially weaker, galaxies, stars and planets would not have formed in the first place. Had it been only slightly weaker (and/or electromagnetism slightly stronger), main sequence stars such as the sun would have been significantly colder and would not explode in supernovae, which are the main source of many heavier elements (Carr & Rees 1979). If, in contrast, gravity had been slightly stronger, stars would have formed from smaller amounts of material, which would have meant that, inasmuch as still stable, they would have been much smaller and more short-lived (Adams 2008; Barnes 2012: sect. 4.7.1).

The strength of the strong nuclear force, when measured against that of electromagnetism, seems fine-tuned for life (Rees 2000: ch. 4; Lewis & Barnes 2016: ch. 4). Had it been stronger by more than about 50% almost all hydrogen would have been burned in the very early universe (MacDonald & Mullan 2009). Had it been weaker by a similar amount, stellar nucleosynthesis would have been much less efficient and few, if any, elements beyond hydrogen would have formed. For the production of appreciable amounts of both carbon and oxygen in stars, even much smaller deviations of the strength of the strong force from its actual value would be fatal (Hoyle et al. 1953; Barrow & Tipler 1986: 252–253; Oberhummer et al. 2000; Barnes 2012: sect. 4.7.2). The difference between the masses of the two lightest quarks—the up- and down-quark—seems fine-tuned for life (Carr & Rees 1979; Hogan 2000: sect. 4; Hogan 2007; Adams 2019: sect. 2.25). Partly, the fine-tuning of these two masses obtains relative to the strength of the weak force (Barr & Khan 2007). Changes in the difference between them have the potential to affect the stability properties of the proton and neutron, which are bound states of these quarks, or lead to a much simpler and less complex universe where bound states of quarks other than the proton and neutron dominate. Similar effects would occur if the mass of the electron, which is roughly ten times smaller than the mass difference between the down- and up-quark, would be somewhat larger in relation to that difference. There are also absolute constraints on the masses of the two lightest quarks (Adams 2019: fig. 5).
The strength of the weak force seems to be fine-tuned for life (Carr & Rees 1979). The cosmological constant characterizes the energy density of the vacuum. On theoretical grounds, outlined in Section 5 of this article, one would expect it to be larger than its actual value by an immense number of magnitudes.[3]

Many more

a source that makes the God argument based upon fine tuning, This soirce has top scientifijc credentials. (biologos--Fracis Collins):

Scientists of all worldviews agree that the physical constants of our universe and the conditions of the early universe are exquisitely fine-tuned for life. Multiple theories in physics predict that our universe may be one of very many, an idea known as the multiverse. Some Christians argue that fine-tuning is proof of God’s existence, while some atheists argue that the multiverse replaces God. Neither conclusion can be reached on the basis of science alone, because the existence of God is not a scientific question. Yet our fruitful cosmos resonates with the Christian understanding of God as the creator of a world fit for life.[4]
Answers on Multiverse The Multiverse is the idea that there is an infinite number of parallel universes. Because there is an infinite number it is not so improbable to find a life bearing universe. The more universes the greater the odds of fiding life thus this argumet is looked upon as thye defeater to the FT argument.I have 10 reasons why this is not the disproof of FT.I'll just go into a couple of them here.

I.We can never know if other universes exist or not.

One might be tempted to think that doesn't matter because the statistics indicate there must be lots of life bearing planets out there. Yet the important point is the atheists are the one's saying don't believe without empirical proof. They will challenge the believer to show "just one" fact supporting God. Yet they believe this with no empirical proof!

"yes there could be other universes out there, but they would be unobservable no matter how old our universe became...even infinitely old!! So, such universes have no meaning to science because there is no experiment we can perform to detect them." (astronomy café) [5]

Robert Koon's, philosopher Univ. Texas said,"Note how the situation has changed. Originally, atheists prided themselves on being no-nonsense empiricists, who limited their beliefs to what could be seen and measured. Now, we find ourselves in a situation in which the only alternative to belief in God is belief in an infinite number of unobservable parallel universes! You've come along way, baby!

II. Multiverse Requires Fine Tuning

Futhermore, the best mechanism for multiverses that last, actually requires fine-tuning itself. The chaotic inflationary model - which seeks to avoid fine-tuning by positing that the initial conditions vary at random over the superspace of the Higgs fields - also fine-tunes its parameters, as Earman has pointed out: "The inflationary model can succeed only by fine-tuning its parameters, and even then, relative to some natural measures on initial conditions, it may also have to fine-tune its initial conditions for inflation to work."[6]

co-author in inflationary theoryPhysicist Paul Steinhardt agrees: “The whole point of inflation was to get rid of fine-tuning – to explain features of the original big bang model that must be fine-tuned to match observations. The fact that we had to introduce one fine-tuning to remove another was worrisome. This problem has never been resolved.``[see fn for more][7] It is true they were not talking about answering the FTA for God but using FT of a sort in builig inflationary theory.  But the application it has here is that the theory of MV requires inflation, and if that theory itself requires fine tuning they can hardly balk at the concept of fine tuning. But they have no mechanism  to tune things. This puts inflationary theory in question and thus MV.

extended quote from the article:

 
Horgan: You were one of the originators of inflation theory. When and why did you start having doubts about it? Steinhardt: From the very beginning, even as I was writing my first paper on inflation in 1982, I was concerned that the inflationary picture only works if you finely tune the constants that control the inflationary period. Andy Albrecht and I (and, independently, Andrei Linde) had just discovered the way of having an extended period of inflation end in a graceful exit to a universe filled with hot matter and radiation, the paradigm for all inflationary models since. But the exit came at a cost -- fine-tuning. The whole point of inflation was to get rid of fine-tuning – to explain features of the original big bang model that must be fine-tuned to match observations. The fact that we had to introduce one fine-tuning to remove another was worrisome. This problem has never been resolved.... But my concerns really grew when I discovered that, due to quantum fluctuation effects, inflation is generically eternal and (as others soon emphasized) this would lead to a multiverse. Inflation was introduced to produce a universe that looks smooth and flat everywhere and that has features everywhere that agree with what we observe. Instead, it turns out that, due to quantum effects, inflation produces a multitude of patches (universes) that span every physically conceivable outcome (flat and curved, smooth and not smooth, isotropic and not isotropic, scale-invariant spectra and not, etc.). Our observable universe would be just one possibility out of a continuous spectrum of outcomes. So, we have not explained any feature of the universe by introducing inflation after all. We have just shifted the problem of the original big bang model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities that could emerge from the big bang?) to the inflationary model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities could emerge in a multiverse?).... I have to admit that I did not take the multiverse problem seriously at first even though I had been involved in uncovering it. I thought someone would figure out a resolution once the problem was revealed. That was 1983. I was wrong. Unfortunately, what has happened since is that all attempts to resolve the multiverse problem have failed and, in the process, it has become clear that the problem is much stickier than originally imagined. In fact, at this point, some proponents of inflation have suggested that there can be no solution. We should cease bothering to look for one. Instead, we should simply take inflation and the multiverse as fact and accept the notion that the features of the observable universe are accidental: consequences of living in this particular region of the multiverse rather than another.

To me, the accidental universe idea is scientifically meaningless because it explains nothing and predicts nothing. Also, it misses the most salient fact we have learned about large-scale structure of the universe: its extraordinary simplicity when averaged over large scales. In order to explain the one simple universe we can see, the inflationary multiverse and accidental universe hypotheses posit an infinite variety of universes with arbitrary amounts of complexity that we cannot see. Variations on the accidental universe, such as those employing the anthropic principle, do nothing to help the situation. Scientific ideas should be simple, explanatory, and predictive. The inflationary multiverse as currently understood appears to have none of those properties.[8]
My entire argumemt on religious a priori (3 pages).



Notes


[1]Simon Friederich, "Fine-Tuning", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .

[2]Ibid

[3]Ibid

[4]"What Do Fine Tuning and Multiverse say about God?" Biologos,2019 https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-do-fine-tuning-and-the-multiverse-say-about-god?gclid=Cj0KCQjw6_CYBhDjARIsABnuSzqxKBGOsLkJJ9hDYRz4aRnjFXCnilhoOu9rKwZDRa6t_LIT5CWHzh8aAqMhEALw_wcB

"BioLogos was founded by one of the top biologists in the world, Francis Collins. He led the Human Genome Project and now directs the National Institutes of Health. In 2006, he wrote the best-selling book The Language of God in which he tells his journey from atheism to Christian belief, showing that science is not in conflict with the Bible, but actually enhances faith. The outpouring of response to the book showed the need for virtual and actual meeting places to ask questions, discuss issues, and learn from the top Christian minds in the sciences and theology."

[5]Sten Odenwald, (Raytheon STX) for the NASA IMAGE/POETRY Education and Public Outreach program http://sirius-c.ncat.edu/space/Space-Weather/poetry/ask/a11215.html (accessed Jine 8.2019)

[6]John Earman. Bangs, Crunches, Wimpers, and Shrieks: Singularities and Acausalities in Relativistic Spacetimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995., p. 156) So rather than avoid fine-tuning, the multiverse pushes it up a level.

[7]John Horgan, “Physicist slams Cosmic Theory he Helped Conceive,” Scientific American Blogs, December 1, 2014. on line, URL http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/ accessed 10/5/15. Horgan interviews Steinhardt.

[8]Ibid.



13 comments:

  1. Apparently the skeptics are afraid to read the argumet or to comment on the blog. So here's comment on facebook. with my answer.


    Cody Kratzmeier
    The fine tuning argument is easily defused via the weak anthropic principle. A variant of the fine tuning argument cannot be:
    Why should any combination of physical constants or properties whatsoever be capable of possibly leading to the origination of intelligent life in any universe, rather than none?
    Reply6h


    Joe Hinman
    life must have certain conditions to thrive. Those conditions are extremely improbable. When you say weak anthropic principle what that means is life is improbable because it's so hard to find. That's what the argument says. So you actually agree with the premise. You just don't understand enough about argumemt.


    ReplyDelete
  2. again from face book

    Cody Kratzmeier
    Joe Hinman Weak anthropic principle essentially cancels out the probability argument by saying that all possible universes incapable of sustaining life effectively count as not existing in the first place. All universes worth speaking of would have to support intelligent life capable of speaking of them. Thus is doesn't make a strong point to say such universes are unlikely compared to a probability space containing many effectively irrelevant combinations of physical constants.
    I accept what the fine tuning argument is getting at but I strengthened it against this valid objection by restating it terms of possibility rather than probability. Then it's not a gambler's fallacy.
    Reply29m
    Joe Hinman
    yes it makes perfect sense to say that since there are hundreds of conditions each one extremely improbable tis the skeptic who must show a propensity to life in other universes. Since we do not have any proof of others even existing that will not be forth coming. That is not my only argument on that point, I have 10.
    Reply2m
    Joe Hinman
    "... by restating it terms of possibility rather than probability. Then it's not a gambler's fallacy." possibility means nothing, we cant even prove that, probability is the issue and possibility does not cover it.
    Reply1m

    ReplyDelete
  3. My book club read Collins' book on the genome a few years ago. It was fascinating!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anyway, here's the thing. I have these experiences, as I've described on your other posts, which go in scale anywhere from "There's Someone Else in this room" to deep feelings of Presence, peace and joy, to one full-on mystical experience. In that experience I felt myself being lifted above the earth and received a sense of the universe as a whole and the entire human experience being moved confidently towards a final, perfect conclusion.

    Then these questions arise about where the laws of physics came from, why there seem to be organizing principles that give order and coherence to the universe and enable it to be understood rationally. Then there's this question of why the universe seems fine-tuned for life. It makes perfect sense to me to apply my experiences to these questions and to say, "This idea - that there is a divine intelligence behind it all - seems to fit all the facts, including the fact that I feel I have experienced repeated contact with the divine intelligence." But just because this idea cannot be verified using the physical data obtainable through science, it is considered irrationality and wishful thinking for me to give credence to it. And yet a multiverse is postulated that might fit the facts, and although THIS idea can't be verified using the physical data obtainable through science, it is rational and respectable to give credence to it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. After all, since I have no personal empirical experience of a multiverse, but I have substantial empirical experience of what seems to be a divine intelligence, which one is more reasonable for me to lean towards believing?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I love this entire thought, thank you, well said.

    But look the feelings yo talk about are verified by science.

    The M scale is scientific. It establishes a control so the feelings can be studied. That is science, It doesn't prove God is making the feelings in you but it gives us enough verification that we can reasonably conclude that it's God.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes, I think it's well supported by science. But the whole reason we're having this discussion is that it can't be verified, which I define as demonstrated conclusively But then it seems to me that the divine intelligence has no intention of being able to be demonstrated conclusively, for reasons we have also discussed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. the effects of the experience are varied. then it's a matter of beating their alternate causes.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous9:23 AM

    There's not much to say about Hinman's books. It's more garbage attempts to find the supernatural in people's subjective experiences.

    It's also really badly written. Here are a couple of excerpts for your giggling pleasure:

    "Imagine a terrorist attack; 9/11 for example. Would the experience of 9/11 be like the experience of a stroll in the park? Should we expect it to be?"

    "The supernatural is about ontology, but it is also the power of God to vivify human nature and raise it to a higher level. These experiences do exactly what the supernatural is supposed to do. Since they are actually mystical experience itself, and that was the original conceit of the supernatural, they are literally the supernatural, no question about it. They are it."

    His work would make for excellent science fiction, however.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Troll. He's just here to cause trouble and hasn't addressed the topic.

    ReplyDelete
  11. yes It's pretty funny this illiterate idiot showing off his stupidity which takes for his own cleverness. He's just showing how stupid he is then he's real proud. Like Jethro on they Beverly Hillbillies. He probably doesn't know what that is.

    Like Jethroe bragging about his 6th grad education. He think he's well educated and erudite because at age 17 he was in the 6th grade, twice.

    ReplyDelete
  12. why does little Mr big man attack my ego? Because I showed the world how stupid he is? I beat his alleged arguments and demonstrated he's an idiot. That blew the one and only accomplishment; getting other uneducated atavistic louts to think him cleaver.

    ReplyDelete
  13. So the parameters of the known universe are a,b,c and d.
    The conditions of the universe are such that it's possible for Life to arise. Therefore those parameters were set specifically in order to enable life to exist.
    Is that the argument or am I missing something?
    It sounds like accidentally doing something spectacular and claiming you meant to do it all along.

    ReplyDelete