No, I'm sorry. I still don't think you properly understand what it means to say that one option is that the fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity. For example, in the formula for the gravitational pull between two objects F=G(mm/R2), physical necessity would mean that the value of G is 6.674×10−11 N⋅m2/kg2 and could not be anything else, in any universe.
Another example is the proton-electron mass ratio which is = 1836.152470(76). If that ratio was a physical necessity, then it could not be anything else, in any universe.
This is essentially what I said. Set G to
6.600×10−11 N⋅m2/kg2 and you now have 2 ways to
theoretically combine these constants and their values: one at
6.674 (and all other constants the same) and one at
6.600 (and all other constants the same). Set to G to
6.210 ... and you have a third way. Do this with all other values and eventually you have N (in fact an infinite number of) ways, but only one is ours,
and physical necessity says that only our settings will result in a viable universe. I do not see how this differs from what I said. It is a number of possible events (settings for the constants) but only one has a specific outcome (viable universe).
But what we find is that theoretically, we could alter some of these constants a little bit and still produce a life-permitting universe model. We could also alter some a little bit more and we would still get a universe but no life. A little bit more on certain constants, and then no universe. So there doesn't seem to be any hard and fast rule that many of the constants had to have the values they do.
This is just the refutation I wanted us to ignore for a minute. I'm discussing the sensibleness of what the argument is claiming first. I'm not beginning to refute it yet.
So when we are considering the physical necessity option, what we are doing is asking, did things have to be this way?
You seem to be missing my point about this. Again, the above asks if the universe (
U) was dependent upon the constants being set to these values (
C). That is, did the constants
have to be this way for the universe to exist. It says
This means you could not have
U without
C. But your argument asks why
C in the first place! That is:
In other words you could not have
C without
what? Did we arrive at
C by chance, or did someone
design it in that fine-tuned state? Physical necessity only presents the universe as the unavoidable
result of the existence of
C in the fine-tuned state that it is. Read your second premise again, carefully:
"The fine-tuning of the universe is due to..."
How many different ways can I state this?
Look. What is "fine-tuning" except to say that if
Cx is the values of the constants in
our universe, then:
- For all theoretical constant settings in the set {C1, C2, C3, ... Cn} for an infinitely large number n the total number of constant settings for which Ci can sustain a universe is extremely small and the set contains or is exactly Cx.
The very
definition of "fine-tuned" means you have a large bandwidth of possibilities but the one or ones you need to "tune" into to create and/or sustain a universe like ours lies within a very narrow bandwidth -- it was "
fine-tuned". The definition already acknowledges that there may be only and exactly one such tuning: "If
U then
Cx". This is physical necessity as you keep describing it.
The definition of "fined-tuned" already acknowledges this. It says that
Cx was at least
sufficient if not
necessary among very few ("fine-tuned") such possibilities for
C that could have made a universe. THAT is exactly what makes it appear fine-tuned to us!
But then the argument goes on to ask what
caused this fine-tuning to exist in the first place. You can't answer that it simply
had to be this way. Really? What
forced it to be these settings? What rule? That's like answering how the ingredients got measured to 1 cup of this and 1 tablespoon of that by saying because they
had to be that way to make a chocolate cake! The question is how did they get so meticulously measured like that in the first place so that you could even
get a cake?
Read my last paragraph again:
With physical necessity you are creating a dependency relationship, saying that the universe is a "result of" or is "due to" these settings. But that is not the argument's question. We are asking what made the constants and their values as they are in the first place; specifically, your argument asks how and why they are in this state of being fine-tuned. It is not asking what was required to make the universe possible. So even if the universe is the direct and unavoidable result of these constants and settings (physical necessity), while chance and design attempt to explain how those settings came to be in the first place, physical necessity does not. It only speaks about the unavoidability of the universe as the outcome of their existence.
And it seems like they didn't. If things had to be this way, then chance does not come into play.
If I
have to roll a five in order to win the stuffed animal, and I roll a five, are you telling me that chance did not come into play? That makes no sense. If I
have to roll the constants so that G=6.674×10−11 N⋅m2/kg2 (and all the other constants equal their current numbers) in order to get a universe, and I roll those constants, you are telling me that chance did not come into play?
That doesn't add up. And even so you are
still talking about what caused the constants to arrive at those numbers in the first place, not whether
once they are set they must result in a universe.
Here's another way to look at it.
Try stating each option:
- The fine-tuning of the universe is due to mere chance.
- The fine-tuning of the universe is due to the fact that someone designed it specifically.
- The fine-tuning of the universe is due to the fact that you cannot have a universe without the constants set exactly as they are ... because it is fine-tuned ... very fine-tuned ... in fact the fine-tuning of the universe is due to the fact that it is so fine-tuned that there is only one way to tune the constants so that you get a universe.
That last statement doesn't make any sense because it is just restating part of the definition of being fine-tuned in the first place. It is not trying to explain what this fine-tuning is
due to. It is not attempting to explain what
caused it to be fine-tuned in the first place.
Is my side of this point getting any clearer?