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.

[Inquirer]

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.

I'm glad you took the time to transcribe some of that, that is what Penrose said.

I did not understand what he was getting at when he said the "anthropic argument is useless" it seemed there was more to the conversation and we might have missed an earlier segment.

I think too that there is no anthropic argument, it is not a theory or explanation, it is actually named the "anthropic principle".

I don't myself see the anthropic principle as supporting or undermining a created universe or a natural universe either.

It seems to be simply stating that "the only kind of universe we can exist in is a universe we can exist in".

It seems too that Penrose is in agreement with Barrow about the need to explain the initial state theoretically, to date it is a complete mystery as to why that initial states was what it was, had it been anything else we'd not be talking.

Oh and by the way, the curvature hypothesis he speaks of was the Weyl curvature hypothesis (not spelled Veyl but it is pronounced that way!). Weyl was a sometime collaborator of Einstein's and devised several attempts at a unified field theory.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #211]

I did not understand what he was getting at when he said the "anthropic argument is useless" it seemed there was more to the conversation and we might have missed an earlier segment.

He's simply saying that it cannot explain the extreme "precision" necessary for the initial conditions of the Big Bang to have produced a universe identical to the one we have (ie. it cannot explain the 10^10^123 number, which relates to the precision required in the Big Bang initial conditions but has nothing to do with the probability of life developing by random chance as erroneously claimed in the OP).

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #211]

I did not understand what he was getting at when he said the "anthropic argument is useless" it seemed there was more to the conversation and we might have missed an earlier segment.

He's simply saying that it cannot explain the extreme "precision" necessary for the initial conditions of the Big Bang to have produced a universe identical to the one we have (ie. it cannot explain the 10^10^123 number, which relates to the precision required in the Big Bang initial conditions but has nothing to do with the probability of life developing by random chance as erroneously claimed in the OP).

Well as I said there is no "anthropic argument" only the "anthropic principle" which is (so far as I can tell) just "the only kind of universe we can exist in is a universe we can exist in" which is a truism it seems.

This is from Britannica's entry for Anthropic Principle

Clearly, humanity’s very existence shows that the current structure of the universe and the values taken by the constants of nature permit life to exist. Indeed, it appears that many features of the universe that are necessary for the evolution and persistence of life are the results of unusual coincidences between different values of the constants of nature—quantities such as the mass of the electron, the strength of gravity, or the lifetime of the neutron. The significance, if any, of these coincidences is not understood. What is understood is that, if these quantities were slightly altered, then no form of complexity or life could exist in the universe.

and, note:

The weak anthropic principle (WAP) is the truism that the universe must be found to possess those properties necessary for the existence of observers. The WAP is not a theory of physics. Rather, it is a methodological principle.

So again, its not clear from that interview (well that partial transcript anyway) what Penrose is referring to by "anthropic argument".

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #213]

So again, its not clear from that interview (well that partial transcript anyway) what Penrose is referring to by "anthropic argument".

I'm not commenting on what he might have meant by using that specific term, but would guess he means the anthropic principle and he just said argument for whatever reason. What else would he be referring to in a casual interview that a lay audience would be familiar with? Way too many people who should know better say "nukuler" for nuclear and although infuriating ... it is clear what they mean. I expect Penrose just misspoke as I've often heard people say "the anthropic argument for the existence of God."

[Diogenes]

This is from Britannica's entry for Anthropic Principle

Clearly, humanity’s very existence shows that the current structure of the universe and the values taken by the constants of nature permit life to exist. Indeed, it appears that many features of the universe that are necessary for the evolution and persistence of life are the results of unusual coincidences between different values of the constants of nature—quantities such as the mass of the electron, the strength of gravity, or the lifetime of the neutron. The significance, if any, of these coincidences is not understood. What is understood is that, if these quantities were slightly altered, then no form of complexity or life could exist in the universe.

The 'Britannica quote' is an unfortunate one. I don't know if it is taken out of context [no citation was given], but it is misleading. The principle is probably better named the "observation selection effect." It is a fairly simple idea that recognizes that since intelligent life observes the universe, the other possible universes simply are not here because if they were, we would not be here to make the observation.

The anthropic principle, also known as the "observation selection effect", is the hypothesis, first proposed in 1957 by Robert Dicke, that there is a restrictive lower bound on how statistically probable our observations of the universe are, because observations could only happen in a universe capable of developing intelligent life.[2] Proponents of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life, since if either had been different, we would not have been around to make observations. Anthropic reasoning is often used to deal with the notion that the universe seems to be finely tuned for the existence of life

This is similar to my argument about 'backward reasoning.' The fact is here we are to observe the universe as is. This does not in the least suggest 'fine tuning' as if WE were the purpose in the first place for the universe being made. We are simply a product of what is. It is not necessary to purpose, design, or teleology to account for the present universe. It wasn't 'designed for us.' It takes an amazing degree of hubris and egocentrism to come to such a silly conclusion
The absurdity is clearly shown by positing an imaginary sponge, given consciousness for a moment and concluding the universe was "fine tuned just for us sponges."

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #215]

This is similar to my argument about 'backward reasoning.' The fact is here we are to observe the universe as is. This does not in the least suggest 'fine tuning' as if WE were the purpose in the first place for the universe being made. We are simply a product of what is. It is not necessary to purpose, design, or teleology to account for the present universe. It wasn't 'designed for us.' It takes an amazing degree of hubris and egocentrism to come to such a silly conclusion

I don't see that the implication is that the universe was designed for 'us' as in 'human beings' but rather, for Consciousness to experience the universe through a huge variety of forms, which the universe provides.

We may even have been the one(s) who designed the universe for that purpose. It remains an unknown but considering we are the only known specie of our type [human] and we have progressed through various epochs - all of which could be seen to be fine-tuning us in relation to the universe we are experiencing and - through science - we are slowly understanding and adapting.

The invention of AI is a good example of this. What began as primitive Animatronics has advanced into useful robotics which can be traced back to the invention of lathes.
In relation to space exploration, we already have those mechanisms and it would appear to be that the human form was designed for this purpose - to allow Consciousness to be able to create mechanisms through the mechanism of human forms.

The epochs confirm that humans are able to ascertain a purpose for existing, which does not necessarily mean that this is purely an accident of nature and chance.

To say "It takes an amazing degree of hubris and egocentrism to come to such a silly conclusion" is more appropriate to describing those who worship the human intellect as the greatest intellect in the universe, and if we can convince ourselves that this is the case - through such theories as emergence and by discarding the notion that we exist within a creation which [as another type of Consciousness] we ourselves could have created for purpose, as a complex simulation we could then enter into and experience as a reality and shape the raw materials accordingly.

[Diogenes]

I don't see that the implication is that the universe was designed for 'us' as in 'human beings' but rather, for Consciousness to experience the universe through a huge variety of forms, which the universe provides.
....
We may even have been the one(s) who designed the universe for that purpose.

There is no foundation for your first statement. None. Nada. Zero. You give no basis, rationale, logic or anything but bare unsupported (and odd) opinion.

I thought your first statement was without merit, but then you compound the absurdity by claiming WE may have designed it. I suppose it makes as much sense as other things you've argued, that WE designed the universe before we existed. Please tell me your entire post was a typographical error. Otherwise it serves as a monument to the nonsense of abandoning science in favor of magical gods.

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #217]
My point was that we as humans don't know. My argument isn't irrational when taken in context. I explained that in my post. I did not say that we were humans before humans existed. I was simply saying that we may have created the whole thing in order to then play in it. That is why I wrote;

...through such theories as emergence and by discarding the notion that we exist within a creation which [as another type of Consciousness] we ourselves could have created for purpose, as a complex simulation we could then enter into and experience as a reality and shape the raw materials accordingly.

The problem with mine-quoting is that when one does this - quoting the other out of context - one then argues against something other than what was actually stated, as you are doing. This is what is referred to as creating a straw man.

[JoeyKnothead]

My terms unless directly quoted...

[Replying to Diogenes in post #217]
My point was that we as humans don't know. My argument isn't irrational when taken in context. I explained that in my post. I did not say that we were humans before humans existed. I was simply saying that we may have created the whole thing in order to then play in it. That is why I wrote;

...through such theories as emergence and by discarding the notion that we exist within a creation which [as another type of Consciousness] we ourselves could have created for purpose, as a complex simulation we could then enter into and experience as a reality and shape the raw materials accordingly.

The problem with mine-quoting is that when one does this - quoting the other out of context - one then argues against something other than what was actually stated, as you are doing. This is what is referred to as creating a straw man.

I gotta say, I missed it too at first, even aware of your unique thoughts on the matter.

If Diogenes misunderstood, we now have clarification.

But I ain't ever seen Diogenes use tricks or disingenuous tactics, so that's maybe a misunderstanding on your part.

But to your idea/s...

You cleared up for me a problem I couldn't quite sort out. I'd previously thought, "Wouldn't this consciousness be able to, say, have a long lost friend speak to me?"

Now though I realize that if you're correct, there's the idea of 'simulating' how my unique, if not truly individual consciousness would react to such a condition.

So, I'm still not fully on board, being a 'materialist', but I now see your logic in this situation.

[Inquirer]

This is from Britannica's entry for Anthropic Principle

Clearly, humanity’s very existence shows that the current structure of the universe and the values taken by the constants of nature permit life to exist. Indeed, it appears that many features of the universe that are necessary for the evolution and persistence of life are the results of unusual coincidences between different values of the constants of nature—quantities such as the mass of the electron, the strength of gravity, or the lifetime of the neutron. The significance, if any, of these coincidences is not understood. What is understood is that, if these quantities were slightly altered, then no form of complexity or life could exist in the universe.

The 'Britannica quote' is an unfortunate one. I don't know if it is taken out of context [no citation was given], but it is misleading. The principle is probably better named the "observation selection effect." It is a fairly simple idea that recognizes that since intelligent life observes the universe, the other possible universes simply are not here because if they were, we would not be here to make the observation.

The anthropic principle, also known as the "observation selection effect", is the hypothesis, first proposed in 1957 by Robert Dicke, that there is a restrictive lower bound on how statistically probable our observations of the universe are, because observations could only happen in a universe capable of developing intelligent life.[2] Proponents of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life, since if either had been different, we would not have been around to make observations. Anthropic reasoning is often used to deal with the notion that the universe seems to be finely tuned for the existence of life

This is similar to my argument about 'backward reasoning.' The fact is here we are to observe the universe as is. This does not in the least suggest 'fine tuning' as if WE were the purpose in the first place for the universe being made. We are simply a product of what is. It is not necessary to purpose, design, or teleology to account for the present universe. It wasn't 'designed for us.' It takes an amazing degree of hubris and egocentrism to come to such a silly conclusion
The absurdity is clearly shown by positing an imaginary sponge, given consciousness for a moment and concluding the universe was "fine tuned just for us sponges."

If the universe had been fine tuned just to enable us to exist, then what evidence for that could we expect to see? How would observations differ from what we actually do observe?