A fined tuned universe

[webboffin]

http://www.2001principle.net/2005.htm

I posted the above link as an example description of how fined tuned the universe is [Note: This subject is often touted on Christian sites but I have chosen I think a non-Christian site to debate this]
Would it logically require a grand designer [God] to of create such a fine tuned universe we live in? Or could the Big Bang events by itself create the conditions that utlimately would allow life to exist. 
I have asked this question in the past but not had much deep input.

My thoughts are lent on that the probabilities of all the univeral constants being correctly tuned seem to out-weigh the possibilty of just happening by accident. Even the constants required to have stars possible rely on preciseness never mind life itself.

Please don't judge so much the content of the site. It is more of a demonstration for the topic.

 

 

[DNAunion]

Webboffin: Would it logically require a grand designer [God] to of create such a fine tuned universe we live in?

DNAunion: No.

It is a fact that our Universe is finely tuned for life: this conclusion is expressed by mainstream scientists based on numerous highly improbable "anthropic coincidences". The fine tuning should cause surprise and does require an explanation: it shouldn't just be brushed off as luck. One possible explanation (though not a scientific explanation) is that God created the Universe with the intent that it would produce and sustain life.

However, that is not the only possibility. There is a scientific alternative that relies upon there being (or having been) an ensemble of worlds (a slew of universes -ours wouldn't be the only one). This potential explanation would, like the religious one, explain the fine tuning we observe.

The assumption is that the many various "constants of nature" - particle masses, force strengths, number of dimensions not compactified, etc. - could have each taken on any of a multitude of different values, with the existence of life needing each one to have "exactly" the value we observe. Getting this winning combination by luck in a single trial - just one Universe - would be a "miracle". But given "trillions" of trials - that is, "trillions" of different universes - things change. Some would expand too rapidly for galaxies to condense; some would collapse too quickly for life to arise; some would have a weak force that was too strong and so stable stars could not exist; and so on. But, with so many trials, it becomes likely that at least one of them could have just happened upon the right combination needed for life. And of course, the fact that we are alive means that it must be the case that we find ourselves in that one (or one of a few) that has just the right values: it could not be otherwise.

A subcategory of this multiple universes theory holds that perhaps there is just our one Universe, but that it is divided into many domains, each having differing values for the various constants of nature. Of course, it must be the case that we find ourselves living in one of the few domains that can support life.

These are the two main attempts at explaining the fine tuning (another is that the values of the "constants of nature" must have the values that we observe: that it is impossible for them to take on other values, even if there were a trillion universes; or that perhaps there are only a small number of values some of them could have taken, so that the overall probability of all of them having the correct value needed for life is not that small).

PS: IIRC, there is a brand new book out or coming out, I think it is titled "The Constants of Nature", that addresses the fine tuning for life our Universe exhibits. The author's position is that the coincidences are explained by there being (or having been) a multitude universes.

 

[notto]

The other thing to consider in this type of discussion is that a "different" universe does not mean that it is "unsuccessful".

The constants we know, describe the universe we have. A different universe, with different constants, would look different but so what?

In order for this argument to be one of requiring a designer, you would need to show that there are not alternative solutions to the constants you address that would lead to a successful universe, even if it was different. We only have one solution, and only have a sample of one to judge, so this argument really doesn't have any data to propel it.

 

[Tenek]

Multitude of universes indeed.

Everybody who dismisses the idea of coincidence... if it weren't so, we wouldn't be here talking about it. I don't see anything impossible in multiple universes. Sorta like a bunch of people playing Russian Roulette by themselves. If everybody who surives writes down the chamber the bullet was in, it'll never end up #1. That doesn't mean that it never was, but that no measurement would be taken if it was.

 

[seebs]

If things were different, perhaps life forms entirely unlike us would be arguing that their different universe was the only one that could support "life as we know it".

 

[webboffin]

But from a scientific perspective, is implying the existance of multiple universes about as useful as science putting God into the equation?

 

[Tenek]

Originally posted by webboffin
But from a scientific perspective, is implying the existance of multiple universes about as useful as science putting God into the equation?

???

Where did that come from? It's saying that once again, we're not special. You could throw the Bang Crunch Bang Crunch Bang theory in and add an extra step before "we don't know" but that's hardly saying that God exists.

 

[DNAunion]

Webboffin: But from a scientific perspective is implying the existance of multiple universes about as useful as science putting God into the equation?

DNAunion: Well, currently, other universes cannot be observed with our senses, or the instruments we use to extend our senses; they also cannot be subjected to controlled experiments that produce repeatable results. In short, there is no empirical evidence for other universes. So in that sense, there isn't much difference between adding God to the equation or adding multiple universes.

But multiple universes "fall out" naturally of some models that attempt to explain the origin of our Universe. For example, the one based on our Universe being a vacuum fluctuation. That vacuum fluctuation would have occurred in a larger, preexisting "superspace". If one vacuum fluctuation occurred that spawned a universe, what would prevent two from occurring; or ten; or a billion; or....

So there is at least some actual theoretical basis for accepting that multiple universes may exist: they are not just an ad hoc addition used to counter the religious alternative, whether that is how they originated or not (I don't know the reason for their original introduction).

 

[Orihalcon]

wow. fallacies galore...

anyway. who's to say different universes don't exist that have different constants, properties, etc. etc.? this universe could have been one out of several quadrillion universes. can we detect the others? i don't think we've found any yet... and it'll be pretty hard to do it. we might.

isn't it amazing that our universe seems to have been made for life to exist? same way that it's amazing the ground seems to be there for things to fall on. wow, just imagine, if there was a hole there, an object would fall to the center of the earth! someone must have designed the ground so that things could fall on it and stop... right.

life sprang up after the whole universe came into existence. i don't think anyone's gonna dispute that. the fact that we are like we are, working through physical and chemical reactions in our body is because life sprang up from what it had to work with. you're not going to see any life forms that DEPEND on the chemical reaction between two metal ions because it just doesn't happen.

life could have sprung up from some place other than this universe, it just won't be like life on earth.

 

[webboffin]

So any alternative idea no matter what, is better than a God?
There is nothing to suggest multiple universes exist. We could never know.

 

[DNAunion]

Webboffin: So any alternative idea no matter what, is better than a God?

DNAunion: Basically, yes, assuming two conditions are met.

(1) The idea is meant to be a scientific explanation.

(2) Any God that might exist continues to refuse to allow himself to be subjected to direct scientific examination (His being subjected to scientific scrutiny would take Him from being a religious idea to being scientific reality)

 

[webboffin]

We do know that there is one universe. This one. And science has come to the conclusion of there being a Big Bang. And small adjustments in the laws of physics would even have consequences at the atomic level as well as chemical level. Stars, galaxies may not of formed or DNA impossible should the laws of nature been different. Are the laws of this universe the only way maybe that laws can exist?

 

[webboffin]

Originally posted by DNAunion
DNAunion: Basically, yes, assuming two conditions are met.

(1) The idea is meant to be a scientific explanation.

(2) Any God that might exist continues to refuse to allow himself to be subjected to direct scientific examination (His being subjected to scientific scrutiny would take Him from being a religious idea to being scientific reality)

I do see your point. It is a fundimental scientific premise. But can science really answer everything we want to know? Maybe humans will be forced to accept the possiblities of God being as trustworthy as scienctific explanation can be.

 

[webboffin]

It's gone 4am so I better get some shut eye. Nocturnal as I am.

 

[DNAunion]

Orihalcon: life could have sprung up from some place other than this universe, it just won't be like life on earth.

DNAunion: Uhm, pure speculation there.

First, we don't know that there is any place other than our own universe.

Second, we don't know that life other than the kind we know can exist.

Third, if there is a place other than our own universe, we don't know that it could generate that other form of life.

 

[DNAunion]

webboffin: But can science really answer everything we want to know?

DNAunion: Assuming you are including the future, I'd say we don't know.

Right now, We KNOW that science cannot answer several really tough questions. That's pretty obvious, so that is why I assume you are taking into account the future of science too.

Since there are tough questions science can't answer, perhaps it never will. Perhaps, metaphorically speaking, we are asking the wrong party to answer our tough questions - like asking a MD to answer a mathematical question on superstring theory. On the other hand, perhaps scientific advancement will continue to progress without end, answering all questions eventually.

Two things are for sure: (1) it is impossible to "prove" that science never will answer the currently unanswered questions - that's trying to prove a negative; and (2) it is also impossible to "prove" that science will solve all the riddles.

I think we are stuck with each person's individual opinion.

 

[Orihalcon]

Originally posted by DNAunion
DNAunion: Uhm, pure speculation there.

First, we don't know that there is any place other than our own universe.

Second, we don't know that life other than the kind we know can exist.

Third, if there is a place other than our own universe, we don't know that it could generate that other form of life.

of course it's pure speculation.  as much speculation as the article in the first post, saying that the universe must have been intelligently designed to support life because of the way it works.

 

[David Gould]

Altering constants is always fun, but people often forget that all the constants are interdepenent. Electromagnetism and the weak force are the same thing at different energy levels, for example. And it is likely that the strong force slots in there, too, and possibly gravity.

If all the constants derive from one source - if in fact there is only one constant - it may be that altering it in any direction cannot be done or that whichever way you do that it alters all the other constants in a way that balances out. 

 

[webboffin]

Yes, science maybe in in some future time may have some answers to tough questions. But physics do find it remarkable that all the laws are tuned for the universe we exist in today. I remember watching a science program some time ago where physists were discussing and they put the odds at millions and millions to 1 that universal constants should be like they are, which started my interest in this. I like reading on multiple and parallel universes too but I myself do accept a God does exist so I am constrained in acceptance. But yeah, debating the concept should be okay at least as an intellectual exercise. A MU (multiple universe) theory would go some way towards explaining how constants ended up as they were for this universe. But I imagine Trillions of life failed universes and just didn't work out universes somewhere outside our own.

 

[David Gould]

It is possible that there is infinite energy. It is also possible that there is a finite amount of energy that is simply converted into different forms over time.