Is The Universe Fine Tuned for Human Life?

[We_Are_VENOM]

.

I say yes.

This thread was created in order to discuss/debate what is called the argument from design (teleological argument), which is a classical argument for the existence of God.

For more on what fine tuning is as it pertains to the argument, please read this wikipedia article..

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

Now, it is well known and established in science, that the constants and values which govern our universe is mathematically precise.

How precise?

Well, please see this article by Dr. Hugh Ross...

https://wng.org/roundups/a-fine-tuned-u ... 1617224984

Excerpt...

"More than a hundred different parameters for the universe must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for physical life of any conceivable kind to exist." (see above article for list of parameters).

Or..(in wiki article above, on fine tuning)..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tune ... e#Examples

When you read the articles, you will find that there isn't much room for error.

If you start with a highly chaotic, random, disordered big bang, the odds are astronomically AGAINST the manifestation of sentient, human life.

How disordered was the big bang at the onset of the expansion...well, physicist Roger Penrose calculated that the chances of life originating via random chance, was 1 chance in 10^10^123 ( The Emperor’s New Mind, pg. 341-344.....according to..

https://mathscholar.org/2017/04/is-the- ... 20universe.

That is a double exponent with 123 as the double!!

The only way to account for the fine tuning of our universe..there are only 3 possibilities..

1. Random chance: Well, we just addressed this option..and to say not likely is the biggest understatement in the history of understatements.

If you have 1 chance in 10^10^123 to accomplish something, it is safe to say IT AIN'T HAPPENING.

2. Necessity: This option is a no-go..because the constants and parameters could have been any values..in other words, it wasn't necessary for the parameters to have those specific values at the onset of the big bang.

3. Design: Bingo. First off, since the first two options are negated, then #3 wins by default...and no explanation is even needed, as it logically follows that #3 wins (whether we like it or not). However, I will provide a little insight.

You see, the constants and values which govern our universe had to have been set, as an INITIAL CONDITION of the big bang. By "set", I mean selectively chosen.

It is impossible for mother nature to have pre-selected anything, because nature is exactly what came in to being at the moment of the big bang.

So, not only (if intelligent design is negated) do we have a singularity sitting around for eons and expanding for reasons which cannot be determined (which is part of the absurdity), but we also have this singularity expanding with very low entropy (10^10^!23), which completely defies everything we know about entropy, to a degree which has never been duplicated since.

So, we have a positive reasons to believe in intelligent design...an intelligent design...a Cosmic Creator/Engineer...

We have positive reasons to believe in a God of the universe.

In closing...

1. No need to downplay fine tuning, because in the wiki article, you will see the fact that scientists are scrambling to try to find an explanation for fine tuning..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tune ... planations

If there was no fine tuning, then you wouldn't need offer any explanations to explain it away, now would you?

2. Unless you can provide a fourth option to the above three options, then please spare me the "but there may be more options" stuff.

If that is what you believe, then tell me what they are, and I will gladly ADD THEM TO THE LIST AND EXPLAIN WHY THEY ALSO FAIL.

3. 10^10^123. Ouch.

[Diagoras]

And the comments he made regarding the 10^10^123 number were all about the precision needed for the initial conditions of the Big Bang to produce a universe exactly as we have. Life or no life was not a consideration in that precision assessment. It was based on second law considerations and the product of the total number of baryons (protons and neutrons) in the universe (10^80), times the entropy per baryon (10^43) for total entropy. Probability of life developing is nowhere to be found.

Nonsense.

The question Penrose was asked (and the title of the video) was about whether the universe was fine tuned for human life....so what did they discuss?

They discussed whether the universe was/is fine tuned for human life.

Penrose answered YES.

The Penrose interview video clip is in Post #47 by Inquirer here:

viewtopic.php?p=1086974#p1086974

From your exchange with DrNoGods, it almost looks as if each of you watched a different interview. I took the trouble to watch it all and transcribe a number of key parts, with the approximate time-stamp for easy reference checking.

0.30 "Is the universe fine-tuned? Particularly the initial condition?" Response: “the universe was fine-tuned in the sense that it was extraordinarily special.”

1.54 “The question is a genuine one, but it is so far from being able to be answered, I see it’s almost unusable.”

2.30 “That doesn’t mean other kinds of ‘tunes’ can play other kinds of lives?” Response: “There could be something completely different.”

2.53 “Now there’s fine-tuning in the origin of the universe, which has to do with the second law of thermodynamics, it has to have been extraordinarily precise <…> to one part in 10^10^123.”

Immediately after that, Dr Penrose compares the apparent precision required to fine-tune the “20 or so” fundamental constants with this 10^10^123 figure for the origin of the universe as “nothing”, and how the precision required for the Big Bang “completely dwarfs any of these other considerations.”

3.50 (In response to the question, “What does that precision really mean in the initial condition based on the Second Law?”) Response: “What is means is the anthropic argument is useless for explaining it.”

He then makes the point that the precision is so large because “you’re doing it for the whole universe”, and if you did it for just our galaxy, then the “number would be ridiculously smaller, and that’s all we’d need.”

Dr Penrose agrees that “this is the universe we’ve got, and we’ve got to explain it”, but repeats that “it’s not the anthropic argument”. He mentions his own ‘Vial Curvature’ hypothesis (to do with space-time curvature) and suggests “some form of quantum gravity has to explain why that comes out”. Interestingly, he seems to dismiss the ‘multiverse’ theory (around 6.25 or so) as not “getting anywhere close to that number”.

6.31 “What is the implication <…> of that incredible precision?” Dr. Penrose says, in part, “We’re talking about how special the Big Bang was. Now you can imagine other big bangs which weren’t so special <…> but that’s not what we’ve got. <…> We could have been ‘here’ equally well in zillions of other ones, which weren’t so special.”

8.47 “It needs a scientific explanation - it needs a good physical theory to say why the Big Bang had the nature that it did. And we have no theory which really explains that.”

In summary, Dr Penrose appears to take pains to explain how special the Big Bang was, and how our present theories are inadequate to explain that level of precision. A theory of quantum gravity may potentially help, but we haven't yet got one.

Incidentally, from the link in the OP to a book review on Math Scholar, the conclusion reads:

In the end, the Lewis-Barnes book does not offer any firm answers — only more questions. The one thing that is certain, though, is that our knowledge of the basic underlying mathematical laws governing the universe is incomplete.

Which comports with Dr Penrose's own observation.

I hope the above may be of use to the general reader of this thread, at least.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #201]

The Penrose interview video clip is in Post #47 by Inquirer here:

Just for housekeeping, the video was first posted in another thread ("Do you understand those on the other side"), post 379 from July 24, where the debate started:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=39396&start=370

Then it continued in this thread.

From your exchange with DrNoGods, it almost looks as if each of you watched a different interview.

Indeed it does, but the source of the 10^10^123 number is very clear in both the video, and the book excerpt where Penrose arrives at this number:

https://www.ws5.com/Penrose/

There is no mention of any probability for life developing in this description. In fact, if you search for the word "life" on the above web page it doesn't appear even once. The enormous number represents Penrose's estimate for the "precision" in the initial conditions of the Big Bang for the event to have led to the universe we have (across the entire universe), and is NOT a probability that life developed by pure chance. There should be no ambiguity on this given both the book excerpt (especially) and the casual interview video.

[We_Are_VENOM]

.

First off, mad props to you, Diagoras...because what you've done here is nothing short of excellent.

The Penrose interview video clip is in Post #47 by Inquirer here:

viewtopic.php?p=1086974#p1086974

From your exchange with DrNoGods, it almost looks as if each of you watched a different interview.

SMH.

I took the trouble to watch it all and transcribe a number of key parts, with the approximate time-stamp for easy reference checking.

0.30 "Is the universe fine-tuned? Particularly the initial condition?" Response: “the universe was fine-tuned in the sense that it was extraordinarily special.”

Sounds like a roundabout way of saying YES.

1.54 “The question is a genuine one, but it is so far from being able to be answered, I see it’s almost unusable.”

In context, he was talking about CONSCIOUSNESS in relation to the Anthropic Principle.

Starting at about 1:24

2.30 “That doesn’t mean other kinds of ‘tunes’ can play other kinds of lives?” Response: “There could be something completely different.”

And my point is, the fine tuning standards (for life) have to be met for any kind of life, not just ours.

2.53 “Now there’s fine-tuning in the origin of the universe, which has to do with the second law of thermodynamics, it has to have been extraordinarily precise <…> to one part in 10^10^123.”

In other words, the entropy had to be extraordinarily low according to the second law of thermodynamics...and according to the law, the entropy never decreases, it only increases.

If the entropy never decreases (only increases), then how did it get so low in the first place, unless it BEGAN that way!!

If it began that way, then someone (or something) had to place those low entropy conditions into the system, which is NOT something that mother nature does (according to the second law)...but it is something that engineers do.

hmmm.

Immediately after that, Dr Penrose compares the apparent precision required to fine-tune the “20 or so” fundamental constants with this 10^10^123 figure for the origin of the universe as “nothing”, and how the precision required for the Big Bang “completely dwarfs any of these other considerations.”

Which is basically saying that the precision needed for the physical constants is NOTHING in comparison to the precision needed for the initial conditions.

That is why I had stated that the mistaken number I originally gave at first (10^123), is nothing compared to the actual correct number 10^10^123.

3.50 (In response to the question, “What does that precision really mean in the initial condition based on the Second Law?”) Response: “What is means is the anthropic argument is useless for explaining it.”

Yup, and I agree with Penrose, which is why I am not using the anthropic argument for my case.

He then makes the point that the precision is so large because “you’re doing it for the whole universe”, and if you did it for just our galaxy, then the “number would be ridiculously smaller, and that’s all we’d need.”

That is like saying..

"If you dropped a large WMD on the entire world, the casualties would be very large, but if you dropped it only in Cleveland, the number of casualties would be ridiculously smaller."

Dr Penrose agrees that “this is the universe we’ve got, and we’ve got to explain it”, but repeats that “it’s not the anthropic argument”. He mentions his own ‘Vial Curvature’ hypothesis (to do with space-time curvature) and suggests “some form of quantum gravity has to explain why that comes out”. Interestingly, he seems to dismiss the ‘multiverse’ theory (around 6.25 or so) as not “getting anywhere close to that number”.

Yeah, you can tell he has some serious issues with the anthropic argument.

6.31 “What is the implication <…> of that incredible precision?” Dr. Penrose says, in part, “We’re talking about how special the Big Bang was. Now you can imagine other big bangs which weren’t so special <…> but that’s not what we’ve got. <…> We could have been ‘here’ equally well in zillions of other ones, which weren’t so special.”

He was still giving the anthropic argument a pounding there.

8.47 “It needs a scientific explanation - it needs a good physical theory to say why the Big Bang had the nature that it did. And we have no theory which really explains that.”

My sentiments exactly.

In summary, Dr Penrose appears to take pains to explain how special the Big Bang was, and how our present theories are inadequate to explain that level of precision. A theory of quantum gravity may potentially help, but we haven't yet got one.

Works for me.

Incidentally, from the link in the OP to a book review on Math Scholar, the conclusion reads:

In the end, the Lewis-Barnes book does not offer any firm answers — only more questions. The one thing that is certain, though, is that our knowledge of the basic underlying mathematical laws governing the universe is incomplete.

Which comports with Dr Penrose's own observation.

I hope the above may be of use to the general reader of this thread, at least.

10^10^123.

[William]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #199]

As long as you are clear that you are not trying to inject some belief in some idea of GOD, we can agree that it is not the best way forward re the OP.

The argument is for a Cosmic Designer.

I simply refer to It as The Cosmic Mind - no imagery attached...although I have said in passing that 'if It had form, It would resemble a Jellyfish - that is just me squinting at the information I am accessing and correlating...the brain-consciousness seems to like making images...

That would entirely depend on the consciousnesses abilities. To most Humans, the shuffled deck would appear to be random.

Would appear to be random?

Would appear to be random, yes.

The deck is either random, or it is ordered.

The Universe is either random or it is ordered.

Now which is it?

Given the evidence, it appears to me to be ordered. That may be just my brain-consciousness realizing the patterns are there to see, rather than my brain-consciousness assuming it is merely seeing things...
viewtopic.php?p=1086864#p1086864

That does not mean that the Universe is random.

The universe as a whole began with very low entropy..and isolated systems do not begin with low entropy, do they?

No, they don't.

It is indeed possible that a Universal Mind emerged from the stuff of the Universe, rather than having always been around...but I doubt that.

The value, true or not, is dependent on mindfulness, yes.

So, the truth value of 7+7=14 is dependent upon minds existing to conceive it??

Correct. What else but The Mind is able to acknowledge The Universe or pronounce truth and falth values?

Seven Plus Seven Equals One Nine Eight if one uses the algorithm which allows this to happen.
using the same algorithm, Seven Plus Seven Equals Fourteen = 377

The truth of any equation has to be aligned with the algorithm being used to calculate said equation.

You are treading shark infested waters here, Will.

Be careful now.

You look out for the sharks Wavy, I am focused on the Jellyfish.

Also - as an aside - what kind of mind came up with this critter?!


What in GODS Name was going on in that Mind!

[William]

And the comments he made regarding the 10^10^123 number were all about the precision needed for the initial conditions of the Big Bang to produce a universe exactly as we have. Life or no life was not a consideration in that precision assessment. It was based on second law considerations and the product of the total number of baryons (protons and neutrons) in the universe (10^80), times the entropy per baryon (10^43) for total entropy. Probability of life developing is nowhere to be found.

Nonsense.

The question Penrose was asked (and the title of the video) was about whether the universe was fine tuned for human life....so what did they discuss?

They discussed whether the universe was/is fine tuned for human life.

Penrose answered YES.

The Penrose interview video clip is in Post #47 by Inquirer here:

viewtopic.php?p=1086974#p1086974

From your exchange with DrNoGods, it almost looks as if each of you watched a different interview. I took the trouble to watch it all and transcribe a number of key parts, with the approximate time-stamp for easy reference checking.

0.30 "Is the universe fine-tuned? Particularly the initial condition?" Response: “the universe was fine-tuned in the sense that it was extraordinarily special.”

1.54 “The question is a genuine one, but it is so far from being able to be answered, I see it’s almost unusable.”

2.30 “That doesn’t mean other kinds of ‘tunes’ can play other kinds of lives?” Response: “There could be something completely different.”

2.53 “Now there’s fine-tuning in the origin of the universe, which has to do with the second law of thermodynamics, it has to have been extraordinarily precise <…> to one part in 10^10^123.”

Immediately after that, Dr Penrose compares the apparent precision required to fine-tune the “20 or so” fundamental constants with this 10^10^123 figure for the origin of the universe as “nothing”, and how the precision required for the Big Bang “completely dwarfs any of these other considerations.”

3.50 (In response to the question, “What does that precision really mean in the initial condition based on the Second Law?”) Response: “What is means is the anthropic argument is useless for explaining it.”

He then makes the point that the precision is so large because “you’re doing it for the whole universe”, and if you did it for just our galaxy, then the “number would be ridiculously smaller, and that’s all we’d need.”

Dr Penrose agrees that “this is the universe we’ve got, and we’ve got to explain it”, but repeats that “it’s not the anthropic argument”. He mentions his own ‘Vial Curvature’ hypothesis (to do with space-time curvature) and suggests “some form of quantum gravity has to explain why that comes out”. Interestingly, he seems to dismiss the ‘multiverse’ theory (around 6.25 or so) as not “getting anywhere close to that number”.

6.31 “What is the implication <…> of that incredible precision?” Dr. Penrose says, in part, “We’re talking about how special the Big Bang was. Now you can imagine other big bangs which weren’t so special <…> but that’s not what we’ve got. <…> We could have been ‘here’ equally well in zillions of other ones, which weren’t so special.”

8.47 “It needs a scientific explanation - it needs a good physical theory to say why the Big Bang had the nature that it did. And we have no theory which really explains that.”

In summary, Dr Penrose appears to take pains to explain how special the Big Bang was, and how our present theories are inadequate to explain that level of precision. A theory of quantum gravity may potentially help, but we haven't yet got one.

Incidentally, from the link in the OP to a book review on Math Scholar, the conclusion reads:

In the end, the Lewis-Barnes book does not offer any firm answers — only more questions. The one thing that is certain, though, is that our knowledge of the basic underlying mathematical laws governing the universe is incomplete.

Which comports with Dr Penrose's own observation.

I hope the above may be of use to the general reader of this thread, at least.

Yes that is helpful. Thanks for your effort Diagoras.

I did some study on Sir-Penrose's theories recently and enjoy his way of explaining 'how things might have been and become" It lead me to Isaac Asimov's short-story [The Last Question] one of the more sensible end game endings of the Universe I have encountered.

[otseng]

Splitting hairs at its finest.

You are beginning to come across as disingenuous, sir.

Moderator Warning



Warning for uncivil one-liner and personal attack issued.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Given the evidence, it appears to me to be ordered.

No further questions.

Thank you.

[We_Are_VENOM]

.

I just wanted to provide another analogy that is meant to help drive the point home further...as it pertains to initial conditions, parameters, and probabilities.

The finale of this analogy will be a challenge, so stay tuned.

The analogy is as follows...

-------------------------

Imagine if you sought to make the best tasting Kool-Aid that you've ever tasted. And you conducted an astronomical amount of experiments to achieve this.

How many experiments did you conduct? Well, lets say you conducted 10^10^123 amount of tests...lets call that astronomical number...1E.

Do you follow me?

Now, lets say that out of the 1E amount of tests that you conducted, you were finally able to make the best tasting Kool-Aid that you've ever tasted.

Now, in order to achieve this, there are some parameters that had to have been tested first...such as..

1. The proper amount of Kool-Aid, and we will call that value 1KA.

2. The proper amount of sugar, and we will call that value 1SU.

3. The proper amount of water, and we will call that value 1WA.

4. The proper flavor of the Kool-Aide, and will call that flavor 1FL.

5. The proper sized container to hold all the substances, and we will value 1CO.

6. The proper temperature of the substance, and we will call that value 1TE.

7. The proper amount of stirring/blending of the substances, and we will call that value 1ST.

Now, all 7 of those things must have the exact/precise amount of X (generally) in order to achieve the taste that you desire.

Those 7 parameters represent the physical constants.

Now...here is where things get ugly.

Because see, before you even get a chance to play around with those 7 things...there are some initial conditions that need to be met..namely..

1. The matter (including color) which makes up the Kool-Aid has to be fine tuned.
2. The matter which makes up the Kool-Aid has to be fine tuned.
3. The water molecules (atoms) which make up the water must be fine tuned
4. The matter which makes up the container must be fine tuned.
5. The elements which make temperature (heat/cold) must be fine tuned.
6. The object used to stir/blend the substances must be fined tuned.

Those are initial conditions that must be met before you can even BEGIN the experiment!!

And then, once you meet the parameters of the initial conditions, THEN you have the undaunting task of the actual experiment, which is working with the first 7 to get your desired result of the great tasting Kool-Aid.

---------------------

Now, here is the challenge..

I challenge ANY of you to tell me how this (great tasting Koo-Aide of your liking) will ever be accomplished in ANY random chance, or pure necessity scenario.

I predict that none of you will be able to meet the challenge, and I would love to be proven wrong.

But since I won't be proven wrong...

The design hypothesis is the best explanation here, and as it pertains to the universe that we find ourselves.

An intelligent Kool-Aid maker will be able to get you the desired taste...not mindless and blind processes.

It is undeniable, and inescapable.

Gen 1

There is more to this analogy...but I will leave it there, for now.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #208]

There is more to this analogy...but I will leave it there, for now.

Unfortunately, the analogy has nothing whatsoever to do with the original claim in the OP that the probability of LIFE developing by random chance is 10^10^123. A universe identical to ours based on Big Bang initial condition precision, maybe (per Penrose ... no need for a third grade Kool-Aid nalogy to understand what he said there). But this is not the same thing as a probability that LIFE would develop by random chance. You've misunderstood (and misrepresented) this fundamental point from the very beginning.

Maybe "more to the analogy" has something more relevant to LIFE, and not universes?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Unfortunately, the analogy has nothing whatsoever to do with the original claim in the OP that the probability of LIFE developing by random chance is 10^10^123.

A universe identical to ours based on Big Bang initial condition precision, maybe (per Penrose ... no need for a third grade Kool-Aid nalogy to understand what he said there).

Sheesh.

It still doesn't seem as if you understand what is going on here.

Oh well.

The challenge remains.

But this is not the same thing as a probability that LIFE would develop by random chance. You've misunderstood (and misrepresented) this fundamental point from the very beginning.

Maybe "more to the analogy" has something more relevant to LIFE, and not universes?

I thought you were done?