Vote: what is the best argument against fine tuning

[LaraLara]

Some of the physics of this universe seems to be preprogrammed to create life. What is your favourite argument against such a line of thought? You can mention several arguments of course but I would like to know which one you prefere.

 

[durangodawood]

Some of the physics of this universe seems to be preprogrammed to create life. What is your favourite argument against such a line of thought? You can mention several arguments of course but I would like to know which one you prefere.

My favorite argument asks for evidence to back up your initial premise.

Its that simple.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't really have favourite arguments, but simple arguments are good for forum discussions, so:

1. You can't make statistical inferences from a sample of 1.
2. The Weak Anthropic Principle - life will inevitably only exist in a universe that can support life; so any observers, whatever the parameters of the universe they observe, will note that they are 'tuned' to support life. Quelle surprise.

 

[LaraLara]

My favorite argument asks for evidence to back up your initial premise.

Its that simple.

As I understand it the likelyhood that the higgs bosom has the properties it has by chance alone is very low, and complex matter that allows life not be possible without that properties.

 

[LaraLara]

2. The Weak Anthropic Principle - life will inevitably only exist in a universe that can support life; so any observers, whatever the parameters of the universe they observe, will note that they are 'tuned' to support life. Quelle surprise.

That is still different from claiming you need to have multiple universes or is it connected? Sorry I just want to be sure I get things straight.

 

[lesliedellow]

Some of the physics of this universe seems to be preprogrammed to create life. What is your favourite argument against such a line of thought? You can mention several arguments of course but I would like to know which one you prefere.

It seems to be preprogrammed to exist at all; if gravity was one part in 10^15 stronger or weaker, either it would have collapsed back in on itself, or it would have expanded too quickly for stars to form. Either way, not good.

Paul Davies: Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

If Paul Davies' suggestion is right, that the laws of nature do vary over time, I can think of one creationist on here who would rejoice greatly. Scientists, and astronomers in particular, should be careful about playing with that idea.

 

[LaraLara]

It seems to be preprogrammed to exist at all.
.

I think that it is heading in the same direction, as what I said in another discussion when I said that it is a bit unlikely that the universe creates complexity (of which life would be the most complex thing). One can already start to wonder at an earlier point.

 

[durangodawood]

As I understand it the likelyhood that the higgs bosom has the properties it has by chance alone is very low, and complex matter that allows life not be possible without that properties.

If theres a boson, it has to have some physical properties, right?
I dont see how any particular property is evidence of intent.
Can you show me?

 

[LaraLara]

Can you show me?

I can not show you anymore because the article that explained was part of my three treats deleted. If someone with roughly the name Habl would show up here, which I hope he can explain it better.

 

[LaraLara]

Can you show me?

Now from wikipedia which is not one of the best sources:
The Standard Model leaves the mass of the Higgs boson as a parameter to be measured, rather than a value to be calculated. This is seen as theoretically unsatisfactory, particularly as quantum corrections (related to interactions with virtual particles) should apparently cause the Higgs particle to have a mass immensely higher than that observed, but at the same time the Standard Model requires a mass of the order of 100 to 1000 GeV to ensure unitarity (in this case, to unitarise longitudinal vector boson scattering).[107] Reconciling these points appears to require explaining why there is an almost-perfect cancellation resulting in the visible mass of ~ 125 GeV, and it is not clear how to do this. Because the weak force is about 1032 times stronger than gravity, and (linked to this) the Higgs boson's mass is so much less than the Planck mass or the grand unification energy, it appears that either there is some underlying connection or reason for these observations which is unknown and not described by the Standard Model, or some unexplained and extremely precise fine-tuning of parameters – however at present neither of these explanations is proven.

As I understand it the higgs bosom problem is not about life but the pre-requirements existing such as matter as we now it.

 

[LaraLara]

Sorry but due to my illness I just have a too strong humor:
Can it be said that the higgs bosom is fine tuned to fix some possible contradictions in physics?

 

[LaraLara]

2. The Weak Anthropic Principle - life will inevitably only exist in a universe that can support life; so any observers, whatever the parameters of the universe they observe, will note that they are 'tuned' to support life. Quelle surprise.

This does not make you wrong, but I just saw Dawkins rejecting the weak anthropic principle.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That is still different from claiming you need to have multiple universes or is it connected? Sorry I just want to be sure I get things straight.

It says no more about multiple universes than the claim to fine-tuning does.

 

[LaraLara]

It says no more about multiple universes than the claim to fine-tuning does.

Agreed. I just wanted to be sure I don't mix it up.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This does not make you wrong, but I just saw Dawkins rejecting the weak anthropic principle.

That's the thing with arguments - some people propose them and some people reject them. I just suggested it as a simple argument for discussion.

The weak anthropic principle is a tautology - it can't be rejected as such, but arguments based on it can. Perhaps you'd like to summarise Dawkin's objections, or provide a link or reference? otherwise you're telling me nothing useful.

 

[VirOptimus]

As I understand it the likelyhood that the higgs bosom has the properties it has by chance alone is very low, and complex matter that allows life not be possible without that properties.

You cant use chance and probability in this way.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As I understand it the likelyhood that the higgs bosom has the properties it has by chance alone is very low, and complex matter that allows life not be possible without that properties.

It's the 'Higgs boson'. Higgs is the name of the man it's named after, so it should be capitalised; boson is the kind of particle it is. A bosom is a woman's chest or breasts, so Higgs didn't have a bosom.

 

[LaraLara]

You cant use chance and probability in this way.

If it is not too dificult in mathematical terms I will try to understand your argument better but you need to give more information.

 

[LaraLara]

It's the 'Higgs boson'. Higgs is the name of the man it's named after, so it should be capitalised; boson is the kind of particle it is. A bosom is a woman's chest or breasts, so Higgs didn't have a bosom.

But I am a woman I find a Higgs bosom more apealing than some dead and cold matter particle A Higgs bosom you after all can hug while I am still not sure about what the Higgs boson is good for.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As I understand it the likelyhood that the higgs bosom has the properties it has by chance alone is very low, and complex matter that allows life not be possible without that properties.

The properties of the Higgs boson were predicted from theory over 50 years ago. Wouldn't that suggest that the opposite is true?