Fine Tuning Argument

Why is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life?

Ancient Perspectives - Plato

• Plato (429-347 BC) inferred God “from the order of the motion of the stars, and of all things under the dominion of the Mind which ordered the universe” (Laws 12.966e)

Aristotle (384-322 BC)• Imagine a race of men who lived underground and never beheld

the sky:• When thus they would suddenly gain sight of the earth, the seas

and the sky; when they should come to know the grandeur of the clouds and the might of the winds; when they should behold the sun and should learn its beauty and grandeur as well as its power to cause the day by shedding light over the sky; and again, when the night had darkened the lands and they should behold the whole of the sky spangled and adorned with stars; and when they should see the changing lights of the moon as it waxes and wanes, and the risings and settings of all these celestial bodies, their courses fixed and changeless throughout all eternity; when they should behold all these things, most certainly they would have judged both that there exists gods and that all these marvellous works are the handiwork of the gods. (On Philosophy)

Biblical Perspective

• “Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in what He has made” (Romans 1: 20)

Teleological Argument• In 1802 William Paley published

“Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity”

• Watchmaker analogy:– Imagine you found a watch in a

field. Would you conclude that the watch was due to chance or design?

– Paley provided many examples of design in nature, such as the human eye.

Teleological Argument• Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

published “On the Origin of Species” in 1859

• Many believed that this provided an explanation of how the appearance of design was due to chance

Fine-Tuning Argument (FTA)

• FTA is a form of the Teleological Argument

• Based on physics• Bypasses the emotive and complicated

subject of biological evolution

Rebirth of Design in Modern Times

• Scientists used to believe evolution of life was inevitable

• Discoveries in last 40 years have shown this to be wrong

• Initial conditions of universe and physical constants are extraordinarily finely tuned to enable any possible form of life

Two Forms of Fine Tuning• Physical constants– G, gs, gw, ε0, Me, Mp, α, c, h, k

• Physical conditions– Entropy in early universe

• The above are finely tuned to allow any form of life

• Uncontroversial (some dissenters, eg Victor Stenger)

• Highly technical

Examples of Numbers• The universe is claimed to be 1017 seconds

old• There are 1080 atoms in known universe• Alteration of weak force constant (gw) by

1 in 10100 would prevent life• Alteration of cosmological constant (Λ) by

1 in 10120 would prevent life• Probability of low entropy beginning of

universe is 1 in W. W is Penrose number = 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

Formation of elements• Atomic nuclei consist of protons

and neutrons• Protons repel each other• Strong nuclear force (gs) binds

nuclei• If gs 2% stronger, no hydrogen– No water, no hydrocarbons, no life

• If gs 2% weaker, only hydrogen– No other elements, no life

Fine Tuning Argument1. The fine tuning of universe is due to Physical

Necessity, Chance or Design2. The fine tuning is not due to Physical

Necessity or Chance3. Therefore it is due to design

Premise 1

• The fine tuning of universe is due to Physical Necessity, Chance or Design

• Lists 3 alternatives• Anyone is welcome to add to list for

consideration

Premise 2 – Physical Necessity

• Physical Necessity means constants could not be otherwise

• Not determined by laws of nature• Theory Of Everything (TOE) is a

misnomer• M-theory predicts 10500 possibilities• Initial conditions are not necessary

Premise 2 - Chance

• Chance only makes sense when conjoined with the Many Worlds Hypothesis (MWH)

• Only objection that should be taken seriously

• Multiple (or infinite number of) universes with different values means some may be life permitting

• Makes WAP feasible

Many World Hypotheses

• It is natural for science to seek explanations

• Many different models proposed• At most one can be right• Back-handed compliment to FTA and KCA• Many worlds now almost treated as a fact.

Used to be treated as science fiction.

Some Models

• Quantum Divergence (Hawking and DeWitt)– Every time a quantum decision is made, a new

universe is generated• Linde’s Chaotic Inflationary Multiverse• String Theory Landscape– Requires fine tuning– Low energy – not anthropic

Alternate Models

• Steady State: Creation of Helium, Background radiation • Oscillating: Disorder is carried over between oscillations,

when matter nears collapse point it most probably causes a singularity, Observations show that the current universe will not collapse but expand forever.

• Bubble Universes: our universe is just a bubble in a much larger “multiverse” of bubble universes. BVG theorem says that the multiverse as a whole must have a beginning.

• Baby Universes: Black holes are tunnels through to new baby universes. The battery running down still applies and in addition Hawking radiation shows that the hypothesis is incorrect.

Extra models

• Vacuum Fluctuation: Given an infinite past all possibilities would have occurred, hence we should be observing an infinitely old universe.

• Quantum Gravity: Still has a beginning

• String Scenarios: Given an infinite past all possibilities would occurred, hence we should be observing an infinitely old universe. BVG theorem extended to higher dimension cosmology

Many World Hypothesis• A plausible mechanism is required for

generating the many worlds• If the mechanism is finely tuned then the

problem does not go away• E.g. M-theory requires 11 dimensions• No way of verifying other worlds• It is far more like our universe should be

much smaller• Boltzmann brain far more probable. You are

all that exists and are under an illusion

Objections• Dawkins - Cosmic Designer remains

unexplained• No fine tuning• Different values would allow different forms of

life• Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP)• Multiverse Theories• Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principles

(CRAP)

Explaining the Designer• This is Dawkins central argument in The God

Delusion• Who designed the designer? The designer must

be more complicated than the design.• Responses:– It is wrong to demand an explanation of an

explanation. Eg discovery of arrow heads. Infinite regress. Nothing could be explained

– The designer does not necessarily need to be more complicated

– Simplest answer is not always best. Explanatory power.

Different Values Objection

• Different values would allow different forms of life

• Answer : Not True– Different values would prevent any form of life– No form of life is possible without the

possibility of atomic table, large molecules, collapsing universe etc.

Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP)

• We should not be surprised that the universe is finely tuned as it is the only universe we can observe.

• Answer: Firing Squad analogy

Current Status• Current state of play:– The universe was designed by a Designer, or– There are an infinite number of universes with

random physical laws and we happen to live in a lucky one

• Multiple universes cannot be observed or tested

• Multi-verse must be finely tuned• We can only observe and test 1 universe• Which option is more plausible?

The Duck Test

• Dawkins refers to “the illusion of design”, but...

• If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then perhaps it is a duck.