Our Universe: one of many or specially designed?

[QED]

Design amounts to a process of selection. Human designers design things by making intelligent selections. Our Universe has a number of critical parameters that have no apparent reason for their values, but if these values were even slightly different, we wouldn't exist. This suggests to some that the values were carefully selected by a sentient being who had the intelligence to know the exact values required for our existence.

I've illustrated this scenario in the following picture:



Here our Universe, with it's critical values, is all that exists -- besides its sentient, designer-creator.

However, other forms of selection are possible. The simple act of observation can create its own selection Effect. In the illustration that follows I have drawn our Universe surrounded by numerous other universes. Within this ensemble the vast majority could be expected to have parameters that would not support life (at least in a form that would be recognizable to us). But a tiny number might. We could, therefore, have selected our own Universe as one from many, simply as a consequence of it having a favorable set of parameters for our existence.



If we are only considering the empirical evidence furnished by scientific observations then both scenarios would seem to be functionally equivalent. How then can we claim that the apparent fine-tuning implies a designer-creator when we can see this potential for ambiguity?

[Furrowed Brow]

I would side with QED on this, "the apparent fine-tuning of our constants begs an explanation."

And so it does. But an answer that is neither circular, nor introduces semantically slippery concepts, and that comes to a valid conclusion without overstepping the logical limits of its conceptual framework or methodology. And as long as we got an answer like that then I'd stop being all irascible.

[Furrowed Brow]

FYI to anyone that is interested... I keep an open challenge...

http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/ ... ciple.html

on my blog...

http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com

...to the common false assertion that the universe is not observed to be strongly anthropically constrained...

...until and unless somebody definitively proves otherwise by showing that the multiverse is necessary to a valid ToE, or via a theory that explains the structure of our universe from first principles that prove that we are simply a consequence of the physics, rather than the reason for it that is *most apparently* indicated.

Seems to me by that reasoning that the most "apparent reason" for the universe to exist is for there to be loads of vacuum, with a smooth distribution of radiation over the large scale. By any quantifiable frame of reference these are far more apparent than carbon based life.

[acamp1]

Ok Ive never been a fan of multi verses so lets chuck that idea out.

Personally, I see no reason to chuck out the multiverse scenario.

But forgetting for the moment about multiverses, we're talking about a really, really big universe, with lots and lots of permutations of conditions within it. That some (or one) of these permutations might be conducive to life hardly strikes me as evidence of design. In fact, taken as a whole, the universe seems far more conducive to the absence of life.

[otseng]

But an answer that is neither circular, nor introduces semantically slippery concepts, and that comes to a valid conclusion without overstepping the logical limits of its conceptual framework or methodology.

I would say the "specially designed" explanation certainly fulfills this.

There is no circularity. There are no slippery concepts. And it's a valid conclusion.

The only point where it could overstep a limit is if one presumes that nothing exists outside this universe. But, judging from the fact that many here are willing to accept universes outside our own, this limitation does not seem to be in effect.

[otseng]

But forgetting for the moment about multiverses, we're talking about a really, really big universe, with lots and lots of permutations of conditions within it. That some (or one) of these permutations might be conducive to life hardly strikes me as evidence of design.

What are these "permutations of conditions" that you are referring to?

[acamp1]

What are these "permutations of conditions" that you are referring to?

I don't understand your question. Are you suggesting the universe in uniform? That all planets are made of the same stuff, sharing the same conditions? In our solar system alone only one world appears to support life. There is a huge range of conditions on the planets orbiting our sun. I believe we can extend that premise beyond our galactic neighborhood.

Unless you're suggesting there *are* no other planetary systems?

Please elaborate.

[acamp1]

It may well be that the "random" spread of stars and planets (indeed of universes) must, statistically speaking, yield life in some cases.

Like seeds, some fallen on stony ground, some on good.

If that's how the system was "designed" on earth, why shouldn't the same principle apply on a universal scale?

[otseng]

What are these "permutations of conditions" that you are referring to?

I don't understand your question. Are you suggesting the universe in uniform? That all planets are made of the same stuff, sharing the same conditions?

This is not what the OP is referring to. Rather, it is the physical constants of the universe that require explaning. It is these constants that if changed would not allow for life to exist in the universe.

The premise of the fine-tuned universe assertion is that any small change in the approximately 26 dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the universe radically different: if, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e. if the constant representing its strength were 2% larger), diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium. This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably prevent the universe from developing life as it is currently observed on the earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

[Cathar1950]

I seems to me that if it was any other way this would cause the universe not to exist then it is that way because the universe exists.
We would not be here to ask these questions had it came out any other way.
It almost seems self-explanatory.

[otseng]

I have a story of two inspectors arriving at a crime scene.

Inspector Tom: What do you make of the victim?
Inspector Bob: He's dead. Of course.
Inspector Tom: I know he's dead. The question is what happened?
Inspector Bob: It just is. There's no need for an explanation.
Inspector Tom: Yeah, but how did he die?
Inspector Bob: If he wasn't dead, then we wouldn't be here. If he was alive, do you think we would be here?
Inspector Tom: I think he got shot. Look at the hole in his head.
Inspector Bob: Yeah, but his twin brother is still alive.
Inspector Tom: How do you know he has a twin?
Inspector Bob: Because we just happened to come across the dead one.
Inspector Tom: Maybe the other is dead too.
Inspector Bob: I actually believe that there are a bunch of brothers, one of them is alive.
Inspector Tom: I think someone intentionally killed him. There's just one shot into the base of the neck.
Inspector Bob: Yeah, but who killed the killer?
Inspector Tom: It doesn't matter who killed the killer. We just know that there is a killer.
Inspector Bob: I'm sorry, but if you don't know who killed the killer, then you are obviously committing the tortoise logical fallacy.
Inspector Tom: Look, it's a small calibre bullet. The killer knew what he was doing.
Inspector Bob: Yeah, but do you see the killer? Look around. I don't see him.
Inspector Tom: I don't need to actually see the killer to know about the killer.
Inspector Bob: Do you know his name? Is it Joe, Bill, Don?
Inspector Tom: No, I don't know the killer's name. Let's just call him Kil for now.
Inspector Bob: How can you test your idea though? You can't kill him again.
Inspector Tom: We don't need to test the idea to determine he was intentionally killed. We just look at the clues left to determine what happened.
Inspector Bob: Thank God his brother is still alive.